Same sex marriage

Discussion in 'Gay & Lesbian Rights' started by WAN, Dec 27, 2016.

  1. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,822
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The people saying it is destroying families, or society — the ones saying that SCOTUS will revisit the issue must have some issue of harm in their minds.

    I just wish they could put it into words instead of just saying same sex marriage isn’t marriage.
    I would really like to see their prospective, it shouldn’t be that hard to rationalize if it was based on fact and not opinion.
     
    Maquiscat likes this.
  2. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    which is correct.
    no it can't, as nobody has standing to challenge the previous ruling.
    you are misunderstanding what you are reading. No case on the same merits can reach scotus a second time. All lower courts are bound by the precedent of the ruling, and the case can not advance past the very first lower court.
     
  3. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which part of, "just because no one can come up with the proper arguments now, it doesn't mean that they won't be thought of later." did you not get? As noted, the courts initially upheld OSM only, because no one could develop the proper arguments as to why SSM should be legal. Then people managed to make the right arguments that made SSM legal. Again I point to the fact that SCOTUS has overturned their previous decisions over 200 times so far, and I don't doubt that it will happen many more times in the future.
     
  4. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If a later ruling overturns a previous ruling, then what does it matter how it got to SCOTUS? The fact remains that SCOTUS can overturn previous SCOTUS rulings. It's right there in black and white pixels.
     
  5. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it can't get to scotus on the same merits, which is the point.
    no they can't, as I've shown.
     
  6. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Let me help you analyze this. He claimed homosexual marriage does not harm him nor his neighbors. I was attempting to point out to him that is not the standard applied in this instance and gave him an example where he would not be harmed yet would play an active role in blaming the robber. It is a false narrative to speak of this homosexual union having to harm a poster.
     
  7. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Let start this over.

    Can SCOTUS overturn a previous SCOTUS decision?
     
  8. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no, as I've shown you. Nobody has standing to bring a case before them on the same merits as the one that was ruled on. All lower courts are bound by the rulings precedent and any challenge would die in the first court it came to.
     
  9. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So then why does SCOTUS itself say the following:

    .
     
  10. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ask whoever wrote it. the simple legal reality is nobody has standing to challenge a supreme court ruling. all lower courts are bound by the precedent so if someone challenges, it can't get past the first court.
     
  11. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Or you could simply ask me what those acronyms mean?? That would be the easiest way to learn...

    RDCF = Repetitive Distortions and Contextomy Fallacies.
    ARF = Argument by Repetition Fallacy.
    RAAA = Repetitious Argumentation Already Addressed.
     
  12. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's from the Supreme Court of the United States' own website. Are you claiming that SCOTUS has its own abilities wrong on their website?
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
  13. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm pointing out that nobody has standing to bring a case before the court, based on a previous ruling they already made. Its why an amendment is required to overturn a SCOTUS ruling.
     
  14. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    or you could actually learn what each of those terms mean, and quit throwing them around in ignorance when you can't address the fact your argument was destroyed.
     
  15. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Or a later SCOTUS ruling, as per the SCOTUS website. You are not showing us any evidence that they can't do what that are saying they can. It does indeed note that an amendment is one of the two ways. I'm not denying that such is a path. But there are over 200 examples of overturned rulings by subsequent rulings.
     
  16. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, per constitutional law. No case can be brought before the court that they have already ruled on, as nobody has standing to challenge it. That isn't going to stop being true.
    I've refuted that already. None of the 200 rulings you are referencing were on the same merits.
     
  17. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have provided the proof along with the link to the source upholding my assertion. You have provided nothing but your own assertions.

    The only point I have made is that rulings are overturned. Whether or not a subsequent case was brought up on the same, similar or completely different merits quite frankly is irrelevant. The previous ruling was overturned.
     
  18. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,491
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wrong. They are NOT able to procreate in ACTUALITY. (due to them being infertile).

    They ARE able to procreate in PRINCIPLE. (due to them being a man and a woman).
     
  19. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]
     
    cd8ed and chris155au like this.
  20. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In a bank robbery, it is impacting an entity. What entity is being impacted in a same sex marriage?
     
  21. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I was afraid it could turn to this. Now I have to repeat the beginning of marriages, why marriage was needed and who was protected. Sorry, this is an argument I was making in the 1990s and it's worn me out. Hint if you truly want your answers, check into ancient roman history given this was going on prior to the written Bible or other religious books and see why a man wanted his children protected. That points you to all of your answers. PS, then there were homoxexuals and they were not getting married.
     
  22. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I see that you have been unable to simply say what entity is being impacted in a same sex marriage.
     
  23. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you are not comprehending what you are reading.
    I've provided constitutional law and case precedent.
    yes, via an amendment.
    it's in no way irrelevant. It's literally central to why you are incorrect.
    no it wasn't, as the subsequent case was not on the same merits.
     
  24. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And yet you cannot seem to explain what I am misreading in "by a new ruling of the Court"

    No, you have provided claims of such with nothing to back those claims. I provided the SCOTUS website itself, which backs up what I am claiming, despite you thinking I am not comprehending it. The phrase "by a new ruling of the Court" is rather clear.

    If a ruling is no longer in effect, then it has been overturned, has it not? Stanford vs Kentucky ruled that it was constitutional (i.e. did not violate cruel and unsual) to impose the death penalty on a person 16 and above at the time of the crime. Are you claiming that nothing has overturned that ruling?
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2019
  25. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've thoroughly explained it. You not comprehending is not my problem.


    And I've shown why you are wrong.


    again, you are not comprehending the difference of merits. Stanford v Kentucky did not rule a law unconstitutional, so the complainant has standing to challenge. Had they ruled something unconstitutional, nobody has standing, and an amendment is required. As I keep pointing out.
     

Share This Page