Republicans have the bathroom issue backwards

a reply to: mOjOm

Because I'm saying there is no need for that to be the base of the argument anyway.

It isn't the basis. The basis is equal treatment, which was put in quotes earlier for some reason.


On the other hand, those opposed base their objections on their "feeling" that people should be treated differently because of how they choose to live their lives. No matter that it has no effect on them.

a reply to: mOjOm


The requirements under the constitution were "being a man and a woman", not wanting to be with each other.

The interpretation was now changed to be two people that want to be together.


But now I ask you,

Under this logic, what about the polygamists? Under the precedent put in place by the decision to uphold an argument based on the feelings of "want" they have the equal right to marry (not just two people)?

The same argument can be made about the pedofiles, etc..

This is the problem that I am talking about, how do you standardize what is a valid feeling of "mutually want" to justify the privilege of marriage? Do those people not deserve equal treatment, if not, how do you differentiate them from the gays wanting to be together?

a reply to: efabian

The requirements under the constitution were "being a man and a woman",

Before we go further,
Where? Exactly? Please cite the clause.

a reply to: efabian

Where does it say "man and woman" in the constitution???

Personally I don't see a problem with polygamy either. As long as everyone is of legal age and consenting to it that is. I don't really know what the issue is there either. I suppose there might be some kind of legal issues that might come up I'm not aware of but I'm sure those could be figured out pretty easily. Like property goes to the first in line or something unless otherwise noted. Stuff like that.

As for Pedophilia that is just illegal. Nobody gets to marry kids as they aren't considered adults or able to consent on their own behalf. Same goes for marrying your dog or your lawnmower too. Neither meet the requirement of being able to consent for themselves.

You're still using their "feelings" as the reason for this though too. It's not. It's just equal treatment under the law. It's not because a Gay person really really loves somebody that they can marry them. They can marry someone because everyone else can marry someone if they want to so there is no reason to deny the Gay person the same.

a reply to: Phage


I understand your point. Personally I would just prefer giving them the choice they see fit (going in accordance with social standards of course) to go to a certain bathroom.

Plus I agree with you, in no way it is justifiable to control their actions based on the feelings of the intolerant.


Now again, the objection is based upon the way the marriage issue was addressed and justified. The basis of justice is only just if every rule is based on an unambiguous standard (one that may not vary from person to person, feelings and perceptions vary).

How can you be just if you are making a decision based on the perception of a certain group? Is that not treating unfairly the perception of the other side?

a reply to: efabian

How can you be just if you are making a decision based on the perception of a certain group? Is that not treating unfairly the perception of the other side?

Perceptions are not actually relevant. What is relevant is unequal treatment.

Gays were denied marriage for no other reason than they were gay. Allowing them to marry harmed no one, it gave them the same inherent rights "and privileges" as everyone else. There is nothing ambiguous about it.

No citation from the Constitution about "man and woman?" You just made it up?

a reply to: efabian

I still think you're looking at it wrong. The law isn't taking anyone's perspective in to account. It doesn't care. It's unbiased in it's application. Legally it's allowed for two adults to marry each other. The law doesn't care about the details of those adults. As long as they are of legal age and consent to being in a marriage contract with the other person and the State as the third party of that contract, that's it.

The Gay Perspective doesn't matter any more than the other perspective does. All they were given was something they should of had since Legal Marriage became an option for people. They qualify as people so bam. They get to marry.

a reply to: mOjOm


And to come to that conclusion the interpretation of the constitution had to be amended.
(You can't validate an argument on the conclusion validated AFTER the main decision took place.)


Either way, the legal standard in this case is a little problematic since anyone can now make a case based on a perception rather than fact. On the polygamy issue, it is well documented that the Mormons were forced to give up that part of their religion to be able to reside in the US.


The consent to be of a legal age, that too can be argued based on perceptions to make it a right for small children to decide whom do they want to be with. Obviously it is unthinkable, but certainly the above logic makes it posible in the eyes of the law.


Ergo, which is acceptable and which is not? No one can answer, because it is based in perception.

a reply to: efabian

And to come to that conclusion the interpretation of the constitution had to be amended.

Via which amendment? Where in the the original document is marriage mentioned at all?
You really are just making stuff up.

Either way, the legal standard in this case is a little problematic since anyone can now make a case based on a perception rather than fact.

False.

Ergo, which is acceptable and which is not? No one can answer, because it is based in perception.

False. What we are talking about is equal treatment under the law. Perception is irrelevant. And it should be.

a reply to: Phage


I referred to the interpretation of the constitution (my apologies for not being clear).

Evidence:

Although individual U.S. states have the primary regulatory power with regard to marriage, the United States Congress has occasionally regulated marriage. The 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, which made bigamy a punishable federal offense in U.S. territories, was followed by a series of federal laws designed to end the practice of polygamy. In 1996 as a reaction to a state level judicial ruling prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying that may violate Hawaii's constitutional equal protection clause (Baehr v. Miike, 80 Hawai`i 341), Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), section 3 of which defined marriage as a legal union of one man and one woman for the purpose of interpreting federal law. Under DOMA section 3, the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages, even if those unions were recognized by state law. For example, members of a same-sex couple legally married in Massachusetts could not file joint federal income tax returns even if they filed joint state income tax returns. DOMA section 3 was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor on June 26, 2013

originally posted by: efabian

And to come to that conclusion the interpretation of the constitution had to be amended.
(You can't validate an argument on the conclusion validated AFTER the main decision took place.)

You'll have to show me the before and after text of the amendment I guess to understand what you mean.

Either way, the legal standard in this case is a little problematic since anyone can now make a case based on a perception rather than fact. On the polygamy issue, it is well documented that the Mormons were forced to give up that part of their religion to be able to reside in the US.

The polygamy issue I was speaking for myself personally. I honestly don't know why that isn't allowed as long as all parties are ok with it. I don't know what the states reason for not allowing it is exactly. With the Mormons there was a lot of non consensual stuff I know going on. Basically just some weird sh*t all around happening there so that might of had something to do with it in their case. I don't know what's up with Polygamy though without researching it.

The consent to be of a legal age, that too can be argued based on perceptions to make it a right for small children to decide whom do they want to be with. Obviously it is unthinkable, but certainly the above logic makes it posible in the eyes of the law.

Different laws for age of consent already exist. In the past you could marry at 13 if you wanted even. Rules change all the time based on different reasons.

I still don't see how anyone can argue something like what you're saying though because age of consent applies to everyone. Not being allowed to marry your own mother applies to everyone. The other rules are applied equally so there is no issue of Equality there. There was an equality issue when it came to Gay people being denied marriage though. No other group was being denied that.

a reply to: efabian

I referred to the interpretation of the constitution (my apologies for not being clear).

Your interpretation is meaningless. Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Nothing in your "evidence" indicates otherwise.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: efabian

And to come to that conclusion the INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION had to be amended.

Via which amendment? Where in the the original document is marriage mentioned at all?
You really are just making stuff up.

I never mention the document of the constitution per say.

a reply to: efabian

I never mention the document of the constitution per say.

You didn't say this?

The requirements under the constitution were "being a man and a woman", not wanting to be with each other.

Who did?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just and FYI, we are derailing this thread right now talking about marriage instead of Trans Bathrooms.

Just saying...

a reply to: mOjOm


Under that logic, the definition given by congress of marriage should have been
accepted?

On the polygamy issue, you should be fair. They could argue why marriage is between TWO people and not many more. By passing has irrelevant their case, you are purposely ignoring the root of the issues I am bringing up.

Sigh....

Another "bathroom" thread....that conveniently leaves out the fact that the NC law (which this stems from) includes facilities with SHOWERS and locker rooms.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Another "bathroom" thread....that conveniently leaves out the fact that the NC law (which this stems from) includes facilities with SHOWERS and locker rooms.

Which law do you mean? The state law that requires people have the proper birth certificate?

Or the Charlotte anti-discrimination law which is silent on restrooms, showers, or locker rooms.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: efabian

I'm not sure I know what the root of the issue is for you. I thought I did. I thought it was about changing the law based on the feelings or perspective of people which is not something that can be set to a standard and therefor shouldn't be used to argue legal basis for something.

To which I responded that none of that was the basis of anything because the issue was whether or not the Legal Right to Marry was being applied equally to everyone, which it wasn't. Now it is.

So where am I off because I thought that was it???

a reply to: mOjOm


You are right about the derailing, sorry for my part in it.