California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Brandon9000 wrote:

Why do you oppose dictatorship? People oppose lots of things just because that's the way they feel.

Opposition to dictatorships doesn't stem solely from emotion. I can point to all kinds of negative effects that come with dictatorships.

You can't point to any material negative effects stemming from gay marriage.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

I do get a vote. The law states, quite properly, that everyone is equal under the law. This doesn't obligate me to let someone do something he wants to do, provided it is equally forbidden to everyone else. I support keeping same sex marriage illegal for everyone.

Unless you can show the harm that is done by it - which you once again, cowardly, have refused to do in any detail - you have no basis for forbidding people to take action. That is how our laws work.

Cycloptichorn

Sorry, but that isn't the way our laws work. The law is anything that's passed, unless it violates a higher law, such as the Constitution, which can itself be changed to be anything people want it to be.

Also, let's not let the personal adjectives creep into this discussion. It doesn't help.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I explained exactly how above. It corrupts something I think is beautiful. You keep wanting me to say that it will make my house fall down or something. I think it legitimizes something that is an anomaly and that is contrary to something I think is beautiful. Period.

Lemme get this straight: you oppose gay marriage on esthetic grounds? Well, that's certainly a new one.

Sorry, but that isn't the way our laws work. The law is anything that's passed, unless it violates a higher law, such as the Constitution, which can itself be changed to be anything people want it to be.

joefromchicago wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I explained exactly how above. It corrupts something I think is beautiful. You keep wanting me to say that it will make my house fall down or something. I think it legitimizes something that is an anomaly and that is contrary to something I think is beautiful. Period.

Lemme get this straight: you oppose gay marriage on esthetic grounds? Well, that's certainly a new one.

No, it's an old one. Ultimately, most laws can be traced back to principles that cannot be supported by anything but aesthetics, religion, or practicality, and many, many ultimately trace back to aesthetics. That is, if I get someone to take the reasoning behind a law back to earlier and earlier causes, ultimately he will get to a point where he has to say, "I just feel that way."

Quote:

Really? Okay, suppose the voters pass a law with no reason other than the fact that they like it that way. On what grounds will the courts throw it out?

Uh, geez. How can you not know this?

Because our legal system isn't built on the basis of opinion, Brandon. Opinions of citizens are immaterial to legality in the eyes of the law.

This is purely incorrect:

Quote:

You can't decide what's right or wrong based on anything but emotion (or religion of you have one, which I don't), or reference to some simpler ethical principal, which is itself based on emotion (or religiion).

Logic is not beholden to either Religion or Emotion. You ought to give it a whirl sometime.

Cycloptichorn

I am not sure you can make a case that would survive challenge that dictatorship cannot work.

Anyway, I believe that most people oppose dictatorship and enact laws against it because they feel that it's bad.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Really? Okay, suppose the voters pass a law with no reason other than the fact that they like it that way. On what grounds will the courts throw it out?

Because you can't restrict someone else's behavior "just because." That would be a dictatorship.

Generally, our system of limited government prevents unnecessary intrusion into our private lives.

The citizens pass a law just because they want it that way and it doesn't contradict a higher law. On what grounds will the courts throw it out?

Alright, then please answer. The citizens pass a law just because they want it that way and it doesn't contradict a higher law. On what grounds will the courts throw it out?

Let's see if you're right. Please give me an example of an explanation for why something is right or wrong that is based on logic, and isn't proven by reference to a prior idea of right and wrong which itself is based on emotion or religion.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

I do get a vote. The law states, quite properly, that everyone is equal under the law. This doesn't obligate me to let someone do something he wants to do, provided it is equally forbidden to everyone else. I support keeping same sex marriage illegal for everyone.

Unless you can show the harm that is done by it - which you once again, cowardly, have refused to do in any detail - you have no basis for forbidding people to take action. That is how our laws work.

Cycloptichorn

Sorry, but that isn't the way our laws work. The law is anything that's passed, unless it violates a higher law, such as the Constitution, which can itself be changed to be anything people want it to be.

Also, let's not let the personal adjectives creep into this discussion. It doesn't help.

It helps me and everyone else here, for I believe bigots and cowards deserve to be told what they are to their face. Repeatedly. I challenge you to overcome your cowardice and describe how gay marriage 'corrupts' something you love, in detail. I am betting that you, bigot, cannot do this.

As for the meat of your post, you are simply incorrect. Laws are not based on 'whatever people want them to be,' because we get self-contradicting laws that way. This is why judicial interpretation is as equal a branch of government as the other two...

Cycloptichorn

Brandon9000 wrote:

Sorry, but that isn't the way our laws work. The law is anything that's passed, unless it violates a higher law, such as the Constitution, which can itself be changed to be anything people want it to be.

So could we pass a law putting slavery back in place if the majority of people wanted to?

T
K
O

No, it's an old one. Ultimately, most laws can be traced back to principles that cannot be supported by anything but aesthetics, religion, or practicality, and many, many ultimately trace back to aesthetics. That is, if I get someone to take the reasoning behind a law back to earlier and earlier causes, ultimately he will get to a point where he has to say, "I just feel that way."

If you're discussing amending the Constitution (which is quite a different prospect from passing a law), then in a sense you are correct.

The Constitution could, theoretically, be amended to ban gay marriage.

But amending the Constitution is a massive undertaking, and I don't see that as being politically possible for gay marriage.

I love marriage because it is an expression of heterosexual love, which I think is beautiful.

Allowing same sex marriage legitimizes something which is contrary to that. If you keep asking, I can keep telling, except that I think I've expressed myself clrearly enough already.

As for "laws based on what people want," I'll refer you to the other posts in which I asked you to tell me the grounds on which such a law would be overturned if it didn't contradict a specific principle in a higher law.

Brandon9000 wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I explained exactly how above. It corrupts something I think is beautiful. You keep wanting me to say that it will make my house fall down or something. I think it legitimizes something that is an anomaly and that is contrary to something I think is beautiful. Period.

Lemme get this straight: you oppose gay marriage on esthetic grounds? Well, that's certainly a new one.

No, it's an old one. Ultimately, most laws can be traced back to principles that cannot be supported by anything but aesthetics, religion, or practicality, and many, many ultimately trace back to aesthetics. That is, if I get someone to take the reasoning behind a law back to earlier and earlier causes, ultimately he will get to a point where he has to say, "I just feel that way."

I've rarely seen such a blatant defense of intellectual laziness.

Cycloptichorn

A law which is passed, not just a Constitutional amendment, just because most people want it, doesn't violate anything if it doesn't specifically violate a higher law, and the idea that it does is not just false but also anti-democratic.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I am not sure you can make a case that would survive challenge that dictatorship cannot work.

I never attempted to make that case. But I maintain that my general opposition to dictatorship is based on evidence beyond a mere "I don't like it".

Brandon9000 wrote:

Anyway, I believe that most people oppose dictatorship and enact laws against it because they feel that it's bad.

So what? We're not discussing what "most people" do or think. We're discussing the moral, ethical, and legal repercussions of gay marriage.

Brandon9000 wrote:

The citizens pass a law just because they want it that way and it doesn't contradict a higher law. On what grounds will the courts throw it out?

Give us an example of such a law. Gay marriage certainly ain't it.