Thread: Legalizing Gay Marriage: The 'Slippery Slope' Argument doesn't exist

The only thing I am not confusing is that non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies. Did you run out of logic and reason so soon?

Originally Posted by Gaymom

Except that in this case, it is verifiable, not an opinion.

Debateable. In the case of men, they have 10 years less life expectancy, 56% of the new HIV cases, higher rates of drug and alchohol abuse, mental disorders and sucide. Was there some upside to offset this?

Originally Posted by danielpalos

They reached a conclusion that denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of citizens.......

Just the gay and lesbian citizens

Thank you for finally ceding the point regarding fellow citizens of our republic.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Thank you for finally ceding the point regarding fellow citizens of our republic.

Im not ceding anything. You are not comprehending what I write.

Those who would choose to marry someone of the same sex —— homosexuals —— have had their right to marry eliminated by an amendment to the state constitution.

Proposition 8 targets gays and lesbians in a manner specific to their sexual orientation and, because of their relationship to one another…

Proposition 8 eliminates a right only a gay man or a lesbian would exercise, the court determines that plaintiffs’ equal protection claim is based on sexual orientation.....

gays and lesbians are the type of minority strict scrutiny was designed to protect….

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/0...2292-ORDER.pdf

NOT "fellow citizens" but instead only gay and lesbian citizens. Single mother and grandmother 5 doors down the street, joining together for nearly a decade to provide and care for their 3 children and grandchildren, are fellow citizens denied marriage.
Most people wouldnt have a problem with marriage for any two consenting fellow citizens, but this promotion of homosexuality with "gay marriage" is just absurd.

I comprehended what you wrote; it just resorts to too many fallacies.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Yeah, you and the others who are so freakin full of themselves that they can convince themselves, that they know better than I, what I was referring to. DELUSIONAL!

I'm sorry you're having such a hard time dealing with the fact you were incorrect.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Thats precisely what it does. Any other class excluded would be subject to a lesser standard. Only the exclusion of gays and lesbians was found to be a violation of the constitution.

No, it does not limit the effect of the decision only to gay and lesbian couples. The district court directed that Prop 8 could not be enforced, and the 9th Circuit affirmed that decision. Since Prop 8 excluded all same-sex couples, prohibiting its enforcement allows any same-sex couple to marry who aren't barred by some other restriction upon eligibility.

The law was found unconstitutional because it created a classification for a suspect purpose, and in doing so violated the rights of parties to a marriage between persons of the same sex. The suspect purpose was to express disapproval of homosexuality by limiting the rights not only of gay people, but all same-sex couples. That doesn't mean that striking Prop 8 opens up marriage recognition to all same-sex couples, though. Not even to all gay people. This case only dealt with that singular restriction. If the judges had sought to address other restrictions, they would have been legislating from the bench.

If we're to believe you, the effect of striking Prop 8 would be so limited that two bisexuals of the same-sex wouldn't be able to marry each other because they aren't gay. You can't seriously expect us to believe that this was the directive of the court. Nowhere did either federal court that evaluated the constitutionality of Prop 8 state in their decisions that the effect was limited just to gay couples.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

NOT "fellow citizens" but instead only gay and lesbian citizens. Single mother and grandmother 5 doors down the street, joining together for nearly a decade to provide and care for their 3 children and grandchildren, are fellow citizens denied marriage.

They aren't denied on the basis of not being gay. Are you seriously going to argue that if they were both gay, the striking of Prop 8 would allow them to marry?

Perry v. Schwarzenegger was a challenge to Prop 8. The court only dealt with the restriction imposed by Prop 8 - that of limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Prop 8 did not impose a restriction on parent/child or grandparent/grandchild relationships. A mother and grandmother are outside the scope of the case, because they are denied based on their close familial relationship by a different portion of the law, unrelated to Prop 8. A challenge to Prop 8 does not in any way lend itself to an evaluation of that restriction, because it's not one imposed by Prop 8.

Any person under the jurisdiction of the State of California, not already married to someone else, not closely related to their intended spouse, meeting the age requirements and competent to give their consent to a marriage could enter into a legally recognized marriage with someone of the same sex if the courts' rulings in the Prop 8 case had not been stayed. Quite possibly there may be some other restriction I haven't thought of. Regardless of that, Prop 8 only imposed a restriction on the sex of the spouses, and that was the issue the court had to deal with - not all these other restrictions you keep bringing up that have no relation to the Prop 8 case.

Originally Posted by Perriquine

They aren't denied on the basis of not being gay. Are you seriously going to argue that if they were both gay, the striking of Prop 8 would allow them to marry?

Nooooo, because I never claimed they are denied because they are gay. They are denied marriage because they are closely related which is just fine under Perry v because only the denial of marriage to homosexual couples was held to be a violation of the constitution. SPECIAL treatment for gays as a suspect class, you need a COMPELLING governmental interest if you want to exclude them from marriage. Closely related couples arent a suspect class. No animus towards a mother and grandmother joining together to raise a family so only a rational basis for excluding them from marriage is required.

Those who would choose to marry someone of the same sex —— homosexuals —— have had their right to marry eliminated by an amendment to the state constitution.

Proposition 8 targets gays and lesbians in a manner specific to their sexual orientation and, because of their relationship to one another…

Proposition 8 eliminates a right only a gay man or a lesbian would exercise, the court determines that plaintiffs’ equal protection claim is based on sexual orientation.....

gays and lesbians are the type of minority strict scrutiny was designed to protect….

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.