Marriage Is Not About Procreation

[Ban Hammer 13,366]

There are really only 2 choices here for the orientation of the judges, if you are saying its a conflict of interests, the same argument can be used if it was a straight judge. We just have to assume that his conduct and professionalism that got him to the post of a Supreme Court Judge allows him to remain impartial.

4 choices. add bi and metrosexual.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Discrimination is not illegal or unconstitutional except in instances where it is specified as such. That's all I'm saying. The case needs to be based in constitutional law, not some sort of discourse on "traditions" (this applies to both sides).

That's not correct. The Supreme Court over the years has both upheld as well as declared challenged laws as discriminatory and thereby unconstitutional. For example, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court in 1896 upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation even in public accommodations (particularly railroads), under the doctrine of "separate but equal." It wasn't until about 70 years later that Supreme Court ruled segregation as unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education.

So saying that the court should only look at whether it is constitutional fails to understand the complexity in such decisions.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Especially in elementary school! isnt that GREAT?

Massachusetts town will allow elementary school to pass out condoms

June 11, 2010

tags: Democrats, education, Politics

by Steve Dennis

The Provincetown Massachusetts School Committee has passed a new condom policy that will allow both its high school and ELEMENTARY school to pass out condoms to CHILDREN who request them.

The vote was unanimous but it does come with some controversy within the school committee– although not for the reasons you would think. Those who voted for the policy, but voiced some concerns over the policy are upset that the new policy isn’t liberal enough.

http://americaswatchtower.com/2010/06/11/massachusetts-town-will-allow-elementary-school-to-pass-out-condoms/

Condoms are excellent balloons!

[SMR 368]

That's not correct. The Supreme Court over the years has both upheld as well as declared challenged laws as discriminatory and thereby unconstitutional. For example, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court in 1896 upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation even in public accommodations (particularly railroads), under the doctrine of "separate but equal." It wasn't until about 70 years later that Supreme Court ruled segregation as unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education.

So saying that the court should only look at whether it is constitutional fails to understand the complexity in such decisions.

You've provided one example in which discrimination is unconstitutional. Not all quadrilaterals are squares and providing an example of one that is proves little.

The problem is that society has a preconception that discrimination is something dirty and wrong. In reality, discrimination is something reasonable and necessary. Discrimination on certain bases is wrong. Yet every day we have to make choices and judgments about people and that is discrimination.

[Pooky 3,795]

Passing out condoms is better than having kids have children. These children will have sex, and the parents will never know about it.

In elementary school? Are they nuts?

Edited June 20, 2010 by Pooky

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Discrimination is not illegal or unconstitutional except in instances where it is specified as such. That's all I'm saying. The case needs to be based in constitutional law, not some sort of discourse on "traditions" (this applies to both sides).

That's not correct. The Supreme Court over the years has both upheld as well as declared challenged laws as discriminatory and thereby unconstitutional. For example, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court in 1896 upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation even in public accommodations (particularly railroads), under the doctrine of "separate but equal." It wasn't until about 70 years later that Supreme Court ruled segregation as unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education.

So saying that the court should only look at whether it is constitutional fails to understand the complexity in such decisions.

You've provided one example in which discrimination is unconstitutional. Not all quadrilaterals are squares and providing an example of one that is proves little.

The problem is that society has a preconception that discrimination is something dirty and wrong. In reality, discrimination is something reasonable and necessary. Discrimination on certain bases is wrong. Yet every day we have to make choices and judgments about people and that is discrimination.

You made the claim that "the case needs to be based in constitutional law, not some sort of discourse on "traditions" (this applies to both sides)." If it were that simple, why was it that the Supreme Court in 1897 ruled in favor of segregation, and then ruled it unconstitutional 70 years later? These matters of constitutionality are complex. With the case of Prop 8, the law clearly discriminates against gay couples wishing to marry. The court must determine if such discrimination has some kind of legal precedence or whether it violates constitutional law. The lawyers representing Prop 8 believe it does have legal precedence, arguing that marriage is for procreation. It was a weak argument, but nonetheless, the court needed to at least listen to that argument before making a decision. Such decisions are made with the consideration of possible future challenges. For example, what if someone decides to challenge current state law forbidding polygamy, could they use the ruling over Prop 8 to make their case? This case is a good example of the nuances of constitutional law and how it governs the application of all future laws in this country.

[Captain Oates 911]

Procreation - it's ok for you newly weds but in the real world, a large percentage of women give up on sex in the period between the point of marriage and 7 years after

I have personally researched this with vast numbers of men and it's so

You may laugh now, but you won't be laughing a few decades from now.

In that case, or when a woman becomes too old to procreate, should divorce be automatic ?

That is the logic of his argument which immediately exposes the false argument that it's for procreation

It's actually for halfing the utility bills - I jest

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Procreation - it's ok for you newly weds but in the real world, a large percentage of women give up on sex in the period between the point of marriage and 7 years after

I have personally researched this with vast numbers of men and it's so

You may laugh now, but you won't be laughing a few decades from now.

In that case, or when a woman becomes too old to procreate, should divorce be automatic ?

That is the logic of his argument which immediately exposes the false argument that it's for procreation

It's actually for halfing the utility bills - I jest

It's only because men lose interest in having sex (with their wives) after a couple of years. The women just give up trying eventually, and invest in a Handheld WaterPik Shower Massager, to relieve all those "tensions".

[Pooky 3,795]

It's only because men lose interest in having sex (with their wives) after a couple of years. The women just give up trying eventually, and invest in a Handheld WaterPik Shower Massager, to relieve all those "tensions".

So that's what that is ...

No wonder I could never get the shower clean with it

Edited June 20, 2010 by Pooky

[SMR 368]

You made the claim that "the case needs to be based in constitutional law, not some sort of discourse on "traditions" (this applies to both sides)." If it were that simple, why was it that the Supreme Court in 1897 ruled in favor of segregation, and then ruled it unconstitutional 70 years later?

Because the Supreme Court is a group of highly opinionated people affected heavily by their own biases and the bias of society. In 70 years, the makeup of the court changed. No one can deny that traditions and societal biases do affect court rulings. But that isn't the way the Supreme Court is set up to work. The fact that this case is acknowledging this so explicitly is what is troubling. Once the judge's opinion of what "tradition" or "societal precedent" is becomes admissible in court we have a judicial system that is explicitly based on whims.