Political Crossfire Forums

[John Galt]

UrielsFyre wrote: John Galt wrote: Have you read Scalia's dissent in Romer v. Evans? Tell me why his conclusions about polygamy are illogical.

P.S. The reason I used the supposed "argumentative fallacy" of talking about another slippery slope argument that did indeed come to pass was I was highlighting why you are incorrect that a slippery slope argument "is fallacious in nearly all instances anyway, regardless of the context of the argument." Ergo, my "argumentive fallacy" was not one at all. I was presenting evidence which you dismissed as a "fallacy" when it wasn't one.

You misunderstand me at several points.

First, I did not state that every slippery slope argument is fallacious. If, in fact, you consider the conservatives correct in their argument concerning divorce laws, then you will have, indeed, provided an exception to argumentative fallacy. Although, one might also note that issues such as "a family unit" are abstract concepts that can not be readily defined and agreed upon by the society at large, as what constitutes family has a wide array of meanings, which vary from culture to culture, subculture to subculture, and person to person.

Second, I stated "no slippery slope argument concerning gay marriage has shown a logical, and evidential, connection between the legalization of gay marriage and polygamy, or bestiality." Evidential is the key here.

Before we continue I would like to ask: is claiming that most slipperly slope arguments are "fallicious" fallicous in and of it self? I would think it is. I will get to the heart of it at the end.

Quote: I am not saying that polygamy will not become a legal issue if gay marriage is enacted, I am saying it is illogical to assume that it will become one. There is a difference between possibility and probability. Slippery slope arguments rely on passing possibility off as probability. If you refer to my first post, I stated: "If one truly wishes to use the slippery slope argument in any sort of debate, there needs to be hard and fast evidence to support their claims that the outcomes they foresee will truly happen, or have happened elsewhere. Otherwise, it is little more than rhetoric and pandering."

And, at the risk of sounding disrespectful to the honorable Justice Scalia, it appears that his argument (while constitutionally sound) is also rhetoric which is guilty of assuming probability over possibility. He has not shown, and with all due respect neither have you, that there is a definitive link between allowing legal protections for homosexual couples, and a repealing of state anti-polygamy laws.

The most interesting thing, in actuality, about the link you provided, and indeed both the decision of the court and the dissent written by Justice Scalia, is one line in particular:

Justice Scalia wrote: I would not myself indulge in such official praise for heterosexual monogamy, because I think it no business of the courts (as opposed to the political branches) to take sides in this culture war.

However, it appears he could not heed his own advice, as he continues to decry homosexuals as wishing for "special rights," and that the courts must oppose it, throughout his dissent.

Regardless of the personal opinions of Justice Scalia, or yourself, my point remains simple. The slippery slope argument lacks any evidential, concrete, proof that the effects of homosexual rights will extend themselves beyond the scope in which they are intended.

I suppose first we have to understand what Romer did. It invalidated a constitutoional change in Colorado passed overwhelmingly by the people that read:

"No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian, or Bisexual Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing."

This is what Scalia was refering to when he decried homosexuals for seeking "special rights."What this amendment did -- all it did -- was state that homosexuals cannot be a "protected class."

Scalia writes,

When the Court takes sides in the culture wars, it tends to be with the knights rather than the villeins - and more specifically with the Templars, reflecting the views and values of the lawyer class from which the Court's Members are drawn. How that class feels about homosexuality will be evident to anyone who wishes to interview job applicants at virtually any of the Nation's law schools. The interviewer may refuse to offer a job because the applicant is a Republican; because he is an adulterer; because he went to the wrong prep school or belongs to the wrong country club; because he eats snails; because he is a womanizer; because she wears real-animal fur; or even because he hates the Chicago Cubs. But if the interviewer should wish not to be an associate or partner of an applicant because he disapproves of the applicant's homosexuality, then he will have violated the pledge which the Association of American Law Schools requires all its member-schools to exact from job interviewers: "assurance of the employer's willingness" to hire homosexuals.

He was writing here about law schools but you can extrapolate that to city ordinances that say the same thing, that homosexuals are protected unlike other classifications of people. Why? I don't know. I don't think anyone deserves "special rights" so that they are protected because of something about them in a land where we are supposedly under the equal protection of the laws. I whole heartedly agreed with Scalia's dissent here.

The Court didn't, and it wrote that "practical concerns" override Constitutional gaurntees:

The Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws must co-exist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons.

The Court went on to say that this Coloradan "law of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected." Yes, Coloradans hate gays. So says the Supreme Court.

Now for the evidence why the slippery slope argument is legitament.

Firstly, in Bowers the Court held that states banning sodomy we well within their rights to do so. This case above, Romer slicked the slope for the most recent case that overrulled Bowers, Lawrence v. Texas.

I don't agree with anti-sodomy laws.I think they are bad policy. I think that the state has alot more worries that they should be focusing on. However, since the state has not to my knowledge barged in to private residences on the expressed purpose of finding sodomizers (in other words unless you do it in public it isn't prosecuted) on top of the fact that it is well within the state's power to pass laws infringing on liberties, whatever they are, the laws regarding sodomy are not truley unconstitutional. This is not the federal government doing this. This is the state. It may be stupid, and wrong, and horrible and alot of other adjectives but it is not unconstitutional.

Like I said Romer, which held that gays could have special rights above the other 95% of the population,slicked the slope for Lawrence. It's pretty obvious.Scalia brings it up in his dissent, asking how homosexual acts can be outlawed by a state (which at the time they were, but not by Colorado I might add) but the state can't deny homosexuals special rights. It is a quite asinine position. Of course all that changed with Lawrence. Now Lawrence, together with another horrible court decision, Griswald have put a large amount of vasaline down on that slope and we will get to contiutionally protected gay marriage. It is inevietable, save a President or Congress with convictions and respect for the Constitution or a new Court with the same.

Why is it inevitable? Considering we have a "Constitutional right" to privacy (which is false) that led to a "Constituional right" to an abortion (another made-up right), that gays can have special rights just for being gay, and that a state cannot ban what it deems lewd behavior which could only possibly be prosecuted if it happened in front of witnesses, how could it not be? If gays have special privledges, and they just want to do their own private thing, the Court must, if it wants to follow its so-called reasoning, the Court must mandate gay marriage as a Constitutionally protected "right."

Moving on towards polygamy, I again turn to Scalia's dissent.

The constitutions of the States of Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Utah to this day contain provisions stating that polygamy is "forever prohibited."Polygamists, and those who have a polygamous "orientation," have been "singled out" by these provisions for much more severe treatment than merely denial of favored status; and that treatment can only be changed by achieving amendment of the state constitutions. The Court's disposition today suggests that these provisions are unconstitutional, and that polygamy must be permitted in these States on a state-legislated, or perhaps even local-option, basis - unless, of course, polygamists for some reason have fewer constitutional rights than homosexuals.

The United States Congress, by the way, required the inclusion of these antipolygamy provisions in the constitutions of Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Utah, as a condition of their admission to statehood. See Arizona Enabling Act, 36 Stat. 569; New Mexico Enabling Act, 36 Stat. 558; Oklahoma Enabling Act, 34 Stat. 269; Utah Enabling Act, 28 Stat. 108. (For Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, moreover, the Enabling Acts required that the antipolygamy provisions be "irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said State" - so that not only were "each of [the] parts" of these States not "open on impartial terms" to polygamists, but even the States as a whole were not; polygamists would have to persuade the whole country to their way of thinking.) Idaho adopted the constitutional provision on its own, but the 51st Congress, which admitted Idaho into the Union, found its constitution to be "republican in form and . . . in conformity with the Constitution of the United States." Act of Admission of Idaho, 26 Stat. 215 (emphasis [ ROMER v. EVANS, ___ U.S. ___ (1996) , 14] added). Thus, this "singling out" of the sexual practices of a single group for statewide, democratic vote - so utterly alien to our constitutional system, the Court would have us believe - has not only happened, but has received the explicit approval of the United States Congress.

I cannot say that this Court has explicitly approved any of these state constitutional provisions; but it has approved a territorial statutory provision that went even further, depriving polygamists of the ability even to achieve a constitutional amendment, by depriving them of the power to vote. In Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890), Justice Field wrote for a unanimous Court:

"In our judgment, 501 of the Revised Statutes of Idaho Territory, which provides that `no person . . . who is a bigamist or polygamist or who teaches, advises, counsels, or encourages any person or persons to become bigamists or polygamists, or to commit any other crime defined by law, or to enter into what is known as plural or celestial marriage, or who is a member of any order, organization or association which teaches, advises, counsels, or encourages its members or devotees or any other persons to commit the crime of bigamy or polygamy, or any other crime defined by law . . . is permitted to vote at any election, or to hold any position or office of honor, trust, or profit within this Territory,' is not open to any constitutional or legal objection."

If "animosity" towards a group that is "singled out" is a legitament basis to throw out a law or constitutional admendment at a state level, how could these things -- born in true animosity towards polygamy -- withstand the Court? The answer is they can't.

The main problem with people advocating gay marriage is that they have this strange misconception that marriage is about "love" and that if two people are in love "why can't they get married they are in love!" Well what if three people are "in love"? Seventeen? A brother and sister? It will happen.

Why should a state ban polygamy? There are pleanty of legitament reasons, first and foremost of course is that it makes women inferior. It's the only way polygamy can exist, for if it was the other way we all know that women can be heartless b*****s and would end up turning things on the men and making a polyandrous society. Only in a society where women are put down in some way can polygamy exist.

Well what about gay marriage? Well it is rational for a state to want marriage to make new tax payers. Many immedilty shout out about sterile women or people that don't want kids. Well, unlike just saying that men shall only be able to marry women and vice versa, that actually is a denial of equal protection. As it stands there is no denial. And yes Skeptical, that is rational despite what you think.

I for one favor gay marriage only if it is reached through consensus by the people in the form of the legislature. It is not for the Courts to decide. If the state doesn't want it -- they don't have to have it. It's a policy issue, not an issue of rights.

[Angela]

Majors of Hamburg, Berlin, Paris and Milan(although he didn't officially come out) are gays, that make 4 of the largest 10 cities in the EU (2 Left and 2 right wing). The Leader of the FDP (3rd largest party in Germany and allied with the conservatives) is openly gay so it was the Norwegian Finance Minister (conservative too). Italy had a bisexual minister of the environment. Even a former Tory's leader admitted to have had gay experiences (Portillo?). Not really a great issue on this side of the pond.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Well what about gay marriage? Well it is rational for a state to want marriage to make new tax payers.
Creating new tax payers is NOT the purpose behind the government's recognition of marriage. Just because the State wants a particular thing, does that mean the people should always accomodate them?

Quote: Many immedilty shout out about sterile women or people that don't want kids. Well, unlike just saying that men shall only be able to marry women and vice versa, that actually is a denial of equal protection.
Not at all. If the state's interest is in procreation to create new taxpayers, there's nothing unequal about demanding that the marriages it recognizes produce the expected children.

Quote: As it stands there is no denial. And yes Skeptical, that is rational despite what you think.
It isn't, despite what you think.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: However, since the state has not to my knowledge barged in to private residences on the expressed purpose of finding sodomizers (in other words unless you do it in public it isn't prosecuted).
The state did however barge into a private residence - and then proceeded to prosecute a sodomy case based on what they found there. So you are at least telling us a half falsehood here - it was not a requirement that the act be public to be prosecuted. Furthermore, the fact that the state hasn't undertaken the action of invading private residences to initiate prosecution for sodomy doesn't mean they couldn't have prior to that portion of the law being stricken.

[F'losrix]

And another thing, Galt. the Romer decision did not create any 'special rights' for gay people - it merely said they couldn't be targeted for exclusion from any future protections that might be based on the recognition of their status as a minority.

What should be evident to most anyone here is that you don't believe a minority ever needs protection from the whims of a majority - when history clearly informs us that the majority cannot always be trusted to act justly or fairly toward them.

Let me be clear - I don't think anyone should get special privileges just for being a member of this or that group. That is NOT the same thing as saying a person should be protected from the kind of treatment that maliciously targets them for discrimination based on a characteristic that is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

What we fundamentally disagree on is the question of what is or isn't relevant and therefore what is or isn't discriminatory.

[Enoch]

As sound as your arguments may be, Galt, you are still confusing possibility with probability.

Quote: Like I said Romer, which held that gays could have special rights above the other 95% of the population,slicked the slope for Lawrence. It's pretty obvious.Scalia brings it up in his dissent, asking how homosexual acts can be outlawed by a state (which at the time they were, but not by Colorado I might add) but the state can't deny homosexuals special rights. It is a quite asinine position. Of course all that changed with Lawrence. Now Lawrence, together with another horrible court decision, Griswald have put a large amount of vasaline down on that slope and we will get to contiutionally protected gay marriage. It is inevietable, save a President or Congress with convictions and respect for the Constitution or a new Court with the same.

Please understand that all of the arguments you made are possibilities. There is no evidence to suggest that they will definitely come to fruition.

What is so horrible about the Lawrence decision? You mention that Lawrence "together with another horrible court decision, Griswald" have started the slippery slope? Do you feel that Lawrence is bad because it banned anti-sodomy laws? Do you honestly feel that a government (state or federal) has a right to dictate what goes on in a bedroom between two consenting adults?

[John Galt]

UrielsFyre wrote: As sound as your arguments may be, Galt, you are still confusing possibility with probability.

Quote: Like I said Romer, which held that gays could have special rights above the other 95% of the population,slicked the slope for Lawrence. It's pretty obvious.Scalia brings it up in his dissent, asking how homosexual acts can be outlawed by a state (which at the time they were, but not by Colorado I might add) but the state can't deny homosexuals special rights. It is a quite asinine position. Of course all that changed with Lawrence. Now Lawrence, together with another horrible court decision, Griswald have put a large amount of vasaline down on that slope and we will get to contiutionally protected gay marriage. It is inevietable, save a President or Congress with convictions and respect for the Constitution or a new Court with the same.

Please understand that all of the arguments you made are possibilities. There is no evidence to suggest that they will definitely come to fruition.

What is so horrible about the Lawrence decision? You mention that Lawrence "together with another horrible court decision, Griswald" have started the slippery slope? Do you feel that Lawrence is bad because it banned anti-sodomy laws? Do you honestly feel that a government (state or federal) has a right to dictate what goes on in a bedroom between two consenting adults?

I do think Lawrence would have been an excellent decision had it been done by a state legislative body. And, aside from that one bizarre case, the banning of sodomy only meant that things happening in public would get someone arrested. The charges were dropped, if I recall, yet they wanted to go forward with the lawsuit (without standing) and the Courts obliged. All in all, a bad decision. So was Griswald. Why? Because there is no constitutional right to privacy. Not only is substitive due process a lie made up to literally keep slaves in bondage then expanded upon by socialists in the 30s, but just a plain reading of the text shows nothing of the sort. Yes the "spirit" may be there. Yes, the "penumbras" of the right to privacy may be there in the form of specific aspects of privacy. But that does not mean that a right to privacy exists. A man who, unlike me, thought the 14th Amendment placed the Bill of Rights against the states explained why the "constitutional right to privacy" was such bad precedent in his dissent in Griswald. A highly important case all should read.

[Enoch]

John Galt wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: As sound as your arguments may be, Galt, you are still confusing possibility with probability.

Quote: Like I said Romer, which held that gays could have special rights above the other 95% of the population,slicked the slope for Lawrence. It's pretty obvious.Scalia brings it up in his dissent, asking how homosexual acts can be outlawed by a state (which at the time they were, but not by Colorado I might add) but the state can't deny homosexuals special rights. It is a quite asinine position. Of course all that changed with Lawrence. Now Lawrence, together with another horrible court decision, Griswald have put a large amount of vasaline down on that slope and we will get to contiutionally protected gay marriage. It is inevietable, save a President or Congress with convictions and respect for the Constitution or a new Court with the same.

Please understand that all of the arguments you made are possibilities. There is no evidence to suggest that they will definitely come to fruition.

What is so horrible about the Lawrence decision? You mention that Lawrence "together with another horrible court decision, Griswald" have started the slippery slope? Do you feel that Lawrence is bad because it banned anti-sodomy laws? Do you honestly feel that a government (state or federal) has a right to dictate what goes on in a bedroom between two consenting adults?

I do think Lawrence would have been an excellent decision had it been done by a state legislative body. And, aside from that one bizarre case, the banning of sodomy only meant that things happening in public would get someone arrested. The charges were dropped, if I recall, yet they wanted to go forward with the lawsuit (without standing) and the Courts obliged. All in all, a bad decision. So was Griswald. Why? Because there is no constitutional right to privacy. Not only is substitive due process a lie made up to literally keep slaves in bondage then expanded upon by socialists in the 30s, but just a plain reading of the text shows nothing of the sort. Yes the "spirit" may be there. Yes, the "penumbras" of the right to privacy may be there in the form of specific aspects of privacy. But that does not mean that a right to privacy exists. A man who, unlike me, thought the 14th Amendment placed the Bill of Rights against the states explained why the "constitutional right to privacy" was such bad precedent in his dissent in Griswald. A highly important case all should read.

So, if I read you correctly, you have no problems with states' anti-sodomy laws being overturned, as long as it is done through the legislature and not the courts. Is that correct?

No offense, but it seems a bit like splitting hairs. Whether enacted by one branch of our government or another, the results of the decision would be the same. No more anti-sodomy laws.

If you look at other historical cases, the courts have had to step in and go against the legislature, with positive results. Do you think the results of Brown v Board of Education would have happened if left strictly to legislative bodies? Doubtful that it would have happened in a reasonable time frame. Elected officials are still politicians who are pandering to their own base. Justices no longer have that. There is no election for them. There is no threat of them being voted out of office if people don't like their decision.

Therein lies the double-edged sword. It is possible for both good and bad decisions to come from the bench. However, I don't see a reason to deem the Lawrence decision to be a bad one.

I will admit to not being too familiar with Griswald, and will read up on it once I have the time to do so.

[John Galt]

UrielsFyre wrote: John Galt wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: As sound as your arguments may be, Galt, you are still confusing possibility with probability.

Quote: Like I said Romer, which held that gays could have special rights above the other 95% of the population,slicked the slope for Lawrence. It's pretty obvious.Scalia brings it up in his dissent, asking how homosexual acts can be outlawed by a state (which at the time they were, but not by Colorado I might add) but the state can't deny homosexuals special rights. It is a quite asinine position. Of course all that changed with Lawrence. Now Lawrence, together with another horrible court decision, Griswald have put a large amount of vasaline down on that slope and we will get to contiutionally protected gay marriage. It is inevietable, save a President or Congress with convictions and respect for the Constitution or a new Court with the same.

Please understand that all of the arguments you made are possibilities. There is no evidence to suggest that they will definitely come to fruition.

What is so horrible about the Lawrence decision? You mention that Lawrence "together with another horrible court decision, Griswald" have started the slippery slope? Do you feel that Lawrence is bad because it banned anti-sodomy laws? Do you honestly feel that a government (state or federal) has a right to dictate what goes on in a bedroom between two consenting adults?

I do think Lawrence would have been an excellent decision had it been done by a state legislative body. And, aside from that one bizarre case, the banning of sodomy only meant that things happening in public would get someone arrested. The charges were dropped, if I recall, yet they wanted to go forward with the lawsuit (without standing) and the Courts obliged. All in all, a bad decision. So was Griswald. Why? Because there is no constitutional right to privacy. Not only is substitive due process a lie made up to literally keep slaves in bondage then expanded upon by socialists in the 30s, but just a plain reading of the text shows nothing of the sort. Yes the "spirit" may be there. Yes, the "penumbras" of the right to privacy may be there in the form of specific aspects of privacy. But that does not mean that a right to privacy exists. A man who, unlike me, thought the 14th Amendment placed the Bill of Rights against the states explained why the "constitutional right to privacy" was such bad precedent in his dissent in Griswald. A highly important case all should read.

So, if I read you correctly, you have no problems with states' anti-sodomy laws being overturned, as long as it is done through the legislature and not the courts. Is that correct?

Yes. The Founders would agree with me. They would have been listing griecences against the Kings of the Court if they were alive today for quite some time already.

Quote: No offense, but it seems a bit like splitting hairs. Whether enacted by one branch of our government or another, the results of the decision would be the same. No more anti-sodomy laws.

:shock:

I guess you really don't care for the Constitution. No, seriously. Only the legislative branch can have legislative authority and enact things. This is not splitting haris this is trying to stop tyranny. Futhermore this is a principled stand unlike your which seems to be "whatever works to get my opinion through."

Quote:
If you look at other historical cases, the courts have had to step in and go against the legislature, with positive results. Do you think the results of Brown v Board of Education would have happened if left strictly to legislative bodies? Doubtful that it would have happened in a reasonable time frame. Elected officials are still politicians who are pandering to their own base. Justices no longer have that. There is no election for them. There is no threat of them being voted out of office if people don't like their decision.

So would a King. Why would you ever think that they should get more power since they are unaccountable? Jesus. Didn't you say in this very threrad that you are not sadistic? Well, you're asking for it.

Quote: Therein lies the double-edged sword. It is possible for both good and bad decisions to come from the bench. However, I don't see a reason to deem the Lawrence decision to be a bad one.

I will admit to not being too familiar with Griswald, and will read up on it once I have the time to do so.

It's a bad one because it is a policy decision not a decision regarding the Constitution which I hold dear.

[Achilles The Myrmidon]

Angela wrote: Majors of Hamburg, Berlin, Paris and Milan(although he didn't officially come out) are gays, that make 4 of the largest 10 cities in the EU (2 Left and 2 right wing). The Leader of the FDP (3rd largest party in Germany and allied with the conservatives) is openly gay so it was the Norwegian Finance Minister (conservative too). Italy had a bisexual minister of the environment. Even a former Tory's leader admitted to have had gay experiences (Portillo?). Not really a great issue on this side of the pond. bulls**t, and you know it...

[Enoch]

John Galt wrote: I guess you really don't care for the Constitution. No, seriously. Only the legislative branch can have legislative authority and enact things. This is not splitting haris this is trying to stop tyranny. Futhermore this is a principled stand unlike your which seems to be "whatever works to get my opinion through."

.....

So would a King. Why would you ever think that they should get more power since they are unaccountable? Jesus. Didn't you say in this very threrad that you are not sadistic? Well, you're asking for it.


I would have been more than willing to continue this discussion with you, but since you seem to be incapable of remaining civil, I am done.

[Angela]

Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: Angela wrote: Majors of Hamburg, Berlin, Paris and Milan(although he didn't officially come out) are gays, that make 4 of the largest 10 cities in the EU (2 Left and 2 right wing). The Leader of the FDP (3rd largest party in Germany and allied with the conservatives) is openly gay so it was the Norwegian Finance Minister (conservative too). Italy had a bisexual minister of the environment. Even a former Tory's leader admitted to have had gay experiences (Portillo?). Not really a great issue on this side of the pond. bulls**t, and you know it...

what is a bulls**t? Of course being gay is a problem in Europe too and we have our fair share of prejudices but it's completely out of the political debate. One of the most catholic countries in Europe has just allowed gay marriages and despite the vehement and vocal opposition of the church 2/3rds of the people approve it. Puglia (one of the southern regions of Italy, not exactly Sweden) has just elected a gay governor. Have you ever heard about a sex scandal in European Politics? Yes there are but simply people don’t give a s**t about it at worst it makes the guy more popular :lol:

[Achilles The Myrmidon]

Angela wrote: Achilles The Myrmidon wrote: Angela wrote: Majors of Hamburg, Berlin, Paris and Milan(although he didn't officially come out) are gays, that make 4 of the largest 10 cities in the EU (2 Left and 2 right wing). The Leader of the FDP (3rd largest party in Germany and allied with the conservatives) is openly gay so it was the Norwegian Finance Minister (conservative too). Italy had a bisexual minister of the environment. Even a former Tory's leader admitted to have had gay experiences (Portillo?). Not really a great issue on this side of the pond. bulls**t, and you know it...

what is a bulls**t? Of course being gay is a problem in Europe too and we have our fair share of prejudices but it's completely out of the political debate. One of the most catholic countries in Europe has just allowed gay marriages and despite the vehement and vocal opposition of the church 2/3rds of the people approve it. Puglia (one of the southern regions of Italy, not exactly Sweden) has just elected a gay governor. Have you ever heard about a sex scandal in European Politics? Yes there are but simply people don’t give a s**t about it at worst it makes the guy more popular :lol: Well, thank God things in Greece stay like the old good days...

[John Galt]

UrielsFyre wrote: John Galt wrote: I guess you really don't care for the Constitution. No, seriously. Only the legislative branch can have legislative authority and enact things. This is not splitting haris this is trying to stop tyranny. Futhermore this is a principled stand unlike your which seems to be "whatever works to get my opinion through."

.....

So would a King. Why would you ever think that they should get more power since they are unaccountable? Jesus. Didn't you say in this very thread that you are not sadistic? Well, you're asking for it.


I would have been more than willing to continue this discussion with you, but since you seem to be incapable of remaining civil, I am done.

I've been quite civil. THe fact of the matter is crafting policies that have no textual basis in the Constitution and then saying they came from it is the first way to remove our rights. The second way is to have Platonic Gaurdians, whom we didn't even get to choose, decide what it right and wrong for the rest of us. We literally fought a war over this, to fight against these things and ensure for our children liberty.

Considering both things seem to be something you will be willing to do, I have been quite civil. Destroying the Constitution in order to get a policy you agree with through is a horrible thing to do. And yes, judges mandating gay marriage upon the whole country will be judges pissing on the Constitution and the limited Federal government it was designed to make. As marriage is a creation of the state, it is within a state's rights to decide what is andisn't marriage within her boundries. It is for the people of each state to decide.

[Enoch]

John Galt wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: John Galt wrote: I guess you really don't care for the Constitution. No, seriously. Only the legislative branch can have legislative authority and enact things. This is not splitting haris this is trying to stop tyranny. Futhermore this is a principled stand unlike your which seems to be "whatever works to get my opinion through."

.....

So would a King. Why would you ever think that they should get more power since they are unaccountable? Jesus. Didn't you say in this very thread that you are not sadistic? Well, you're asking for it.


I would have been more than willing to continue this discussion with you, but since you seem to be incapable of remaining civil, I am done.

I've been quite civil. THe fact of the matter is crafting policies that have no textual basis in the Constitution and then saying they came from it is the first way to remove our rights. The second way is to have Platonic Gaurdians, whom we didn't even get to choose, decide what it right and wrong for the rest of us. We literally fought a war over this, to fight against these things and ensure for our children liberty.

Considering both things seem to be something you will be willing to do, I have been quite civil. Destroying the Constitution in order to get a policy you agree with through is a horrible thing to do. And yes, judges mandating gay marriage upon the whole country will be judges pissing on the Constitution and the limited Federal government it was designed to make. As marriage is a creation of the state, it is within a state's rights to decide what is andisn't marriage within her boundries. It is for the people of each state to decide.

I apologize for the delay in my response, but I have been away from a computer all weekend.

First, just to get this cleared up, I mentioned you not being civil due to your accusations that I was sadistic (or masochistic as the implication suggests) and that I did not care about the constitution. Accusations such as these have no place in a civil discussion over issues like this. Never did I state that I do not care about the constitution, and I resent the implication thereof.

However, to move on to the crux of the debate, let me state that I understand the argument behind your stance the the judicial body should not have authority to make decisions such as were done in Lawrence v Texas. But, I respectfully disagree.

I am not advocating a disbanding of the legislature, nor complete autonomy of the judiciary. What I am saying, on the other hand, is that I agree with the judiciary keeping check on the legislature. Certain laws, such as the state anti-sodomy laws, have no business being on the books. And, while rarely enforced, one arrest of consenting adults having sex in the privacy of their own home is one too many. Is it written in the constitution that people have a right to privacy? No, it is not. However, precedent set in other cases have given a de facto protection of privacy to adults in this country. We have the right to do what we want, say what we want, in the privacy of our own homes, provided the actions do not infringe on the rights of others.

My point was that the legislature is an elected body, and thus influenced by the opinions of those with the power to elect them. This means that decisions made are not always for the right reasons. Yes, the overwhelming majority of laws and statutes on the books of every state are there for a reason, and do not infringe on rights (whether constitutional or set by legal precedent). But, the rare instances in which laws passed by legislatures do end up infringing on rights (occasionally done due to moral objections and only to pander to the constituents with the power to re-elect), it is up to the judicial body to strike down those laws if the legislature is unwilling to rescind their own previous decisions. That is the reason why Supreme Court positions are not elected, but appointed. These justices are not accountable to an electorate who can unduly influence their positions. They are there to interpret the law, the constitution, and to make decisions based upon that. I do not feel, as you implied, that they should be given more power. I feel that the power they have, to reverse decisions of lower courts and to strike down laws, is appropriate.

Remember, I stated that it was a double-edged sword. I know that there is the possibility for the USSC to make decisions that have no basis in the constitution, in precedent, or even in reality. However, it does not appear at this time that this has happened. The Lawrence decision was to overturn state laws that infringed on the rights of consenting adults.

Similarly, I feel that all laws should be passed through the legislature. That is their purpose. The courts should not make new laws, just uphold laws (or in the case of the USSC, strike down those that are unconstitutional or infringe on rights set by precedent). And, while I am personally happy that Mass. has gay marriage, I still feel it should have been done solely by the state legislature, not the state courts. Is the end result something I agree with? Definitely. Is the process something I approve of? Definitely not.

I know that our system is not perfect. After all, it is run by people and all people are fallible. But, I feel that the system works as it is.

[John Galt]

UrielsFyre wrote: John Galt wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: John Galt wrote: I guess you really don't care for the Constitution. No, seriously. Only the legislative branch can have legislative authority and enact things. This is not splitting haris this is trying to stop tyranny. Futhermore this is a principled stand unlike your which seems to be "whatever works to get my opinion through."

.....

So would a King. Why would you ever think that they should get more power since they are unaccountable? Jesus. Didn't you say in this very thread that you are not sadistic? Well, you're asking for it.


I would have been more than willing to continue this discussion with you, but since you seem to be incapable of remaining civil, I am done.

I've been quite civil. THe fact of the matter is crafting policies that have no textual basis in the Constitution and then saying they came from it is the first way to remove our rights. The second way is to have Platonic Gaurdians, whom we didn't even get to choose, decide what it right and wrong for the rest of us. We literally fought a war over this, to fight against these things and ensure for our children liberty.

Considering both things seem to be something you will be willing to do, I have been quite civil. Destroying the Constitution in order to get a policy you agree with through is a horrible thing to do. And yes, judges mandating gay marriage upon the whole country will be judges pissing on the Constitution and the limited Federal government it was designed to make. As marriage is a creation of the state, it is within a state's rights to decide what is andisn't marriage within her boundries. It is for the people of each state to decide.

I apologize for the delay in my response, but I have been away from a computer all weekend.

First, just to get this cleared up, I mentioned you not being civil due to your accusations that I was sadistic (or masochistic as the implication suggests) and that I did not care about the constitution. Accusations such as these have no place in a civil discussion over issues like this. Never did I state that I do not care about the constitution, and I resent the implication thereof.

However, to move on to the crux of the debate, let me state that I understand the argument behind your stance the the judicial body should not have authority to make decisions such as were done in Lawrence v Texas. But, I respectfully disagree.

I am not advocating a disbanding of the legislature, nor complete autonomy of the judiciary. What I am saying, on the other hand, is that I agree with the judiciary keeping check on the legislature.

The problem here is that the judiciary usurped the power of the people over their own Constitution. The Judiciary did not write the Constitution. The people did. If it isn't written inthe Constitution that so and so has X power, the power is reserved by the people or by their respective states (as it says in the Constitution). State laws cannot run contrary to the Constitution, but when I say that people need to realize I am saying that states cannot grant letters or marquie, or coin money, or the other things listed as being restricted by the states. I am not refering to the limitations that restricted the Federal government inthe Bill of Rights.

I have a multiple problems with Lawrence. First, it invalidated a state law. Second, it did so by basing it on a "right to privacy." Third, the Supreme Court did it.

States, as it is explicitly stated, can violate people's liberties. The Fourteenth Admentment gaurntees a state's right to do so, so long as proceduaral due process is followed. This is why abortion can be legal and illegal and why I have a problem with a host of Supreme Court decisions.

Secondly, the "right to privacy" as you note below does not exist. The Supreme Court crafted this "right" much like how they crafted a "liberty of contract" to void state laws mandating minimum wages in the early part of last century, invalidating anti-slavery laws of the 1800s, and creating the power of judicial review. All of these things were made up by the Court. Yes, it is true that some aspects of privacy are Constitutionally gaurded against from intrusion by the Federal government, but all are not and none are gaurded against the States, unless by mandate by our Platonic Gaurdians, the Supreme Court Templars. It's like crafting a law that says that people cannot drink until age 21 -- and then saying that means you can't drink ever. The law had a percise meaning until the Supreme Court substituted new words, in this case they were more vague, and destroyed a bit of our Constitution.

And finally, I diagree with Marbury v. Madison. There was a time when the people decided Constitutional matters. Marbury was the first instance in which the US Supreme Court invalidated Congress' laws as "unconstitutional" (even if I was toagree withthe overall "spirit" of Marbury in that I would, for the sake of the argument, agree that the Supreme Court had the power of judicial review, I would not in that case agree that their holding was correct as the law passed that the Court deemed "unconstitutional" was not, but I digress). The Second instance was Dred Scott which was also the first time people had ever heard os "substive" due process -- the idea that laws passed by the legislature in and of them self could be violative of due process (as opposed to just plain old "due process;" laws passed by the legislature, whatever they say, proscribe the due process that is to be afforded even if they are
"violative" of liberty).

Quote: Certain laws, such as the state anti-sodomy laws, have no business being on the books.

I agree. They areuncommonly silly laws. But NOT unconstitutional.

Quote: And, while rarely enforced, one arrest of consenting adults having sex in the privacy of their own home is one too many. Is it written in the constitution that people have a right to privacy? No, it is not. However, precedent set in other cases have given a de facto protection of privacy to adults in this country. We have the right to do what we want, say what we want, in the privacy of our own homes, provided the actions do not infringe on the rights of others.

See above.

Quote: My point was that the legislature is an elected body, and thus influenced by the opinions of those with the power to elect them. This means that decisions made are not always for the right reasons.

What is the "right" reason? Why do you think 5 people know better than the millions who voted for these people into office?

Quote: Yes, the overwhelming majority of laws and statutes on the books of every state are there for a reason, and do not infringe on rights (whether constitutional or set by legal precedent). But, the rare instances in which laws passed by legislatures do end up infringing on rights (occasionally done due to moral objections and only to pander to the constituents with the power to re-elect), it is up to the judicial body to strike down those laws if the legislature is unwilling to rescind their own previous decisions. That is the reason why Supreme Court positions are not elected, but appointed. These justices are not accountable to an electorate who can unduly influence their positions. They are there to interpret the law, the constitution, and to make decisions based upon that. I do not feel, as you implied, that they should be given more power. I feel that the power they have, to reverse decisions of lower courts and to strike down laws, is appropriate.

They have not been "given" the power you describe. They have usurped it from the people. They are unelected unaccountable and out of control. Their decisions have wrecked havoc upon the Republic that our founders wanted. Jefferson described the Court as the "despotic branch" of government and forsaw what did indeed happen:

Our third President and the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence also wrote: the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. When all government... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.

Quote: Remember, I stated that it was a double-edged sword. I know that there is the possibility for the USSC to make decisions that have no basis in the constitution, in precedent, or even in reality. However, it does not appear at this time that this has happened.

:shock: There aremany times it has.

Marbry v. Madison
Dred Scott v.Sandford
Plessy v. Ferguson
Wickard v. Filburn
Home Building and Loan Association v. Blaisdell (that one is hilarious as to their justifications for a blatent disregard of the Constitution... and then you see how sad it really is)
Munn v. Illinois
Lochner v. New York
Hawaii Housing Authority v.Midkiff
Palko v. Connecticut
Griswald v. Connecticut
Duncan v. Lousiana
Lawrence v. Texas
Roe v. Wade

To name a few off the top of my head.

Quote: The Lawrence decision was to overturn state laws that infringed on the rights of consenting adults.

Which is percisley why it is not unconstituional. It did not infinge upon a Constitutional right and even if it did -- it was done so by the states who explicitly have the power to do so.

Quote: Similarly, I feel that all laws should be passed through the legislature. That is their purpose. The courts should not make new laws, just uphold laws (or in the case of the USSC, strike down those that are unconstitutional or infringe on rights set by precedent). And, while I am personally happy that Mass. has gay marriage, I still feel it should have been done solely by the state legislature, not the state courts. Is the end result something I agree with? Definitely. Is the process something I approve of? Definitely not.

Would you argue against courts doing it then?

Quote: I know that our system is not perfect. After all, it is run by people and all people are fallible. But, I feel that the system works as it is.

Pragmatisim is all well and good until it goes against the Constitution.

[John Galt]

UrielsFyre wrote: John Galt wrote: Have you read Scalia's dissent in Romer v. Evans? Tell me why his conclusions about polygamy are illogical.

P.S. The reason I used the supposed "argumentative fallacy" of talking about another slippery slope argument that did indeed come to pass was I was highlighting why you are incorrect that a slippery slope argument "is fallacious in nearly all instances anyway, regardless of the context of the argument." Ergo, my "argumentive fallacy" was not one at all. I was presenting evidence which you dismissed as a "fallacy" when it wasn't one.

You misunderstand me at several points.

First, I did not state that every slippery slope argument is fallacious. If, in fact, you consider the conservatives correct in their argument concerning divorce laws, then you will have, indeed, provided an exception to argumentative fallacy. Although, one might also note that issues such as "a family unit" are abstract concepts that can not be readily defined and agreed upon by the society at large, as what constitutes family has a wide array of meanings, which vary from culture to culture, subculture to subculture, and person to person.

Second, I stated "no slippery slope argument concerning gay marriage has shown a logical, and evidential, connection between the legalization of gay marriage and polygamy, or bestiality." Evidential is the key here.

I am not saying that polygamy will not become a legal issue if gay marriage is enacted, I am saying it is illogical to assume that it will become one. There is a difference between possibility and probability. Slippery slope arguments rely on passing possibility off as probability. If you refer to my first post, I stated: "If one truly wishes to use the slippery slope argument in any sort of debate, there needs to be hard and fast evidence to support their claims that the outcomes they foresee will truly happen, or have happened elsewhere. Otherwise, it is little more than rhetoric and pandering."

And, at the risk of sounding disrespectful to the honorable Justice Scalia, it appears that his argument (while constitutionally sound) is also rhetoric which is guilty of assuming probability over possibility. He has not shown, and with all due respect neither have you, that there is a definitive link between allowing legal protections for homosexual couples, and a repealing of state anti-polygamy laws.

The most interesting thing, in actuality, about the link you provided, and indeed both the decision of the court and the dissent written by Justice Scalia, is one line in particular:

Justice Scalia wrote: I would not myself indulge in such official praise for heterosexual monogamy, because I think it no business of the courts (as opposed to the political branches) to take sides in this culture war.

However, it appears he could not heed his own advice, as he continues to decry homosexuals as wishing for "special rights," and that the courts must oppose it, throughout his dissent.

Regardless of the personal opinions of Justice Scalia, or yourself, my point remains simple. The slippery slope argument lacks any evidential, concrete, proof that the effects of homosexual rights will extend themselves beyond the scope in which they are intended.

The Netherlands has officially descended down the slippery slope, making the slippery slope argument all the more vaild. I have shown it HAS happened, so now what say you?

Side note: Is that Mike Myers dressed as doctor evil?

[Enoch]

John Galt wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: John Galt wrote: Have you read Scalia's dissent in Romer v. Evans? Tell me why his conclusions about polygamy are illogical.

P.S. The reason I used the supposed "argumentative fallacy" of talking about another slippery slope argument that did indeed come to pass was I was highlighting why you are incorrect that a slippery slope argument "is fallacious in nearly all instances anyway, regardless of the context of the argument." Ergo, my "argumentive fallacy" was not one at all. I was presenting evidence which you dismissed as a "fallacy" when it wasn't one.

You misunderstand me at several points.

First, I did not state that every slippery slope argument is fallacious. If, in fact, you consider the conservatives correct in their argument concerning divorce laws, then you will have, indeed, provided an exception to argumentative fallacy. Although, one might also note that issues such as "a family unit" are abstract concepts that can not be readily defined and agreed upon by the society at large, as what constitutes family has a wide array of meanings, which vary from culture to culture, subculture to subculture, and person to person.

Second, I stated "no slippery slope argument concerning gay marriage has shown a logical, and evidential, connection between the legalization of gay marriage and polygamy, or bestiality." Evidential is the key here.

I am not saying that polygamy will not become a legal issue if gay marriage is enacted, I am saying it is illogical to assume that it will become one. There is a difference between possibility and probability. Slippery slope arguments rely on passing possibility off as probability. If you refer to my first post, I stated: "If one truly wishes to use the slippery slope argument in any sort of debate, there needs to be hard and fast evidence to support their claims that the outcomes they foresee will truly happen, or have happened elsewhere. Otherwise, it is little more than rhetoric and pandering."

And, at the risk of sounding disrespectful to the honorable Justice Scalia, it appears that his argument (while constitutionally sound) is also rhetoric which is guilty of assuming probability over possibility. He has not shown, and with all due respect neither have you, that there is a definitive link between allowing legal protections for homosexual couples, and a repealing of state anti-polygamy laws.

The most interesting thing, in actuality, about the link you provided, and indeed both the decision of the court and the dissent written by Justice Scalia, is one line in particular:

Justice Scalia wrote: I would not myself indulge in such official praise for heterosexual monogamy, because I think it no business of the courts (as opposed to the political branches) to take sides in this culture war.

However, it appears he could not heed his own advice, as he continues to decry homosexuals as wishing for "special rights," and that the courts must oppose it, throughout his dissent.

Regardless of the personal opinions of Justice Scalia, or yourself, my point remains simple. The slippery slope argument lacks any evidential, concrete, proof that the effects of homosexual rights will extend themselves beyond the scope in which they are intended.

The Netherlands has officially descended down the slippery slope, making the slippery slope argument all the more vaild. I have shown it HAS happened, so now what say you?

Side note: Is that Mike Myers dressed as doctor evil?

Wow...Dr. Evil has two wives. I wonder if they will have any Mini Me's. ;)

First, thank you for providing a story to back up your claim. While I can say that this story does lend credence to your slippery slope argument, I would still say that it is too early to tell whether or not this trend will continue. One incident is not enough to dictate a pattern.

I think it is still too early to tell. But, your argument is starting to carry more weight.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: The Netherlands has officially descended down the slippery slope, making the slippery slope argument all the more vaild. I have shown it HAS happened, so now what say you?
The U.S. is not the Netherlands and it never will be.

If anything, this article makes the case for why civil unions present a loophole for polygamists and why creating a two tier system of recognition for couples' unions is a bad idea (if one is opposed to polygamy). It does not validate your slippery slope argument that we if we allow gay couples to get married we'll have to let in polygamists and other kinds of unions you consider 'unholy'.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

John Galt wrote: The Netherlands has officially descended down the slippery slope, making the slippery slope argument all the more vaild. I have shown it HAS happened, so now what say you?

Skeptical Mystic wrote: The U.S. is not the Netherlands and it never will be.

If anything, this article makes the case for why civil unions present a loophole for polygamists and why creating a two tier system of recognition for couples' unions is a bad idea (if one is opposed to polygamy). It does not validate your slippery slope argument that we if we allow gay couples to get married we'll have to let in polygamists and other kinds of unions you consider 'unholy'.

What is wrong with being a polygamist? :? I don't understand why they should be prevented from marrying each other.

Besides, it would be hypocritical to consider polygamists bad when "monogamist" marriage in many cases is not even worth the paper it's written on because of the high divorce rates!