Gay Teen Filmmaker Eric James Borges Commits Suicide

Socrtease said:
This is the world that Santorum and his ilk want. A world where we criminalize and ostracize individuals for this sexual orientation. Where the government makes value judgments about the private relationships of men and women, boys and girls. They don't see that this helps feed the cruelty and bullying that kids inflict on kids who identify as homosexual. All they care about is enforcing their religious beliefs on all of us. For them, queers don't deserve respect. They only deserve to be marginalized and driven back into the closet.
Click to expand...

We want to be like the Saudis, they are very religious, too.
 
Yurt said:
no you didn't.

where is the cite that marriage is not reviewed under strict scrutiny?
Click to expand...

I did answer yurt! As to strict scrutiny you could go fetch your own cite to disprove me since I provided you the link I pulled from already.

Here is another. Indeed it is over the levels of scrutiny that a federal gay marriage law rests. But I digress- I have played-

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Three-Tiered Approach to Equal Protection Analysis
1. STRICT SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest.):
A. Suspect Classifications:
1. Race
2. National Origin
3. Religion (either under EP or Establishment Clause analysis)
4. Alienage (unless the classification falls within a recognized "political community" exception, in which case only rational basis scrutiny will be applied).
B. Classifications Burdening Fundamental Rights
1. Denial or Dilution of the Vote
2. Interstate Migration
3. Access to the Courts
4. Other Rights Recognized as Fundamental
2. MIDDLE-TIER SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.):
Quasi-Suspect Classifications:
1. Gender
2. Illegitimacy
3. MINIMUM (OR RATIONAL BASIS) SCRUTINY (The govenment need only show that the challenged classification is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.)
Minimum scrutiny applies to all classifications other than those listed above, although some Supreme Court cases suggest a slightly closer scrutiny ("a second-order rational basis test") involving some weighing of the state's interest may be applied in cases, for example, involving classifications that disadvantage mentally retarded people, homosexuals, or innocent children of illegal aliens. (See "Should the Rational Basis Test Have Bite?")
 
icedancer2theend said:
They do. They are doing so. I posted laws to support my contentions regarding your questions. Homosexuals do have the same rights. Any homosexual can marry anyone of the opposite sex- That is the current legal understanding and definition of the law- for that to change- "new laws" MUST be made that recognize homosexuals as a "special class".
Click to expand...

ID:

if a homosexual cannot marry his or her partner............then they........by defitinion do not enjoy the same benefits.

honestly, i want you to answer this:

homosexuality is not an illegal act in our country. though i think it is a sin, it is not illegal.

that said, how can you deny them the same rights you and i have? you have mentioned "between one man and one women" but that is not the definition of marriage in most states, in fact, states have changed that definition and the federal government.....well....has no definition.
 
icedancer2theend said:
I did answer yurt! As to strict scrutiny you could go fetch your own cite to disprove me since I provided you the link I pulled from already.

Here is another. Indeed it is over the levels of scrutiny that a federal gay marriage law rests. But I digress- I have played-

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Three-Tiered Approach to Equal Protection Analysis
1. STRICT SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest.):
A. Suspect Classifications:
1. Race
2. National Origin
3. Religion (either under EP or Establishment Clause analysis)
4. Alienage (unless the classification falls within a recognized "political community" exception, in which case only rational basis scrutiny will be applied).
B. Classifications Burdening Fundamental Rights
1. Denial or Dilution of the Vote
2. Interstate Migration
3. Access to the Courts
4. Other Rights Recognized as Fundamental
2. MIDDLE-TIER SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.):
Quasi-Suspect Classifications:
1. Gender
2. Illegitimacy
3. MINIMUM (OR RATIONAL BASIS) SCRUTINY (The govenment need only show that the challenged classification is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.)
Minimum scrutiny applies to all classifications other than those listed above, although some Supreme Court cases suggest a slightly closer scrutiny ("a second-order rational basis test") involving some weighing of the state's interest may be applied in cases, for example, involving classifications that disadvantage mentally retarded people, homosexuals, or innocent children of illegal aliens. (See "Should the Rational Basis Test Have Bite?")
Click to expand...

find the marriage scrutiny in there....
 
Yurt said:
ID:

if a homosexual cannot marry his or her partner............then they........by defitinion do not enjoy the same benefits.

honestly, i want you to answer this:

homosexuality is not an illegal act in our country. though i think it is a sin, it is not illegal.

that said, how can you deny them the same rights you and i have? you have mentioned "between one man and one women" but that is not the definition of marriage in most states, in fact, states have changed that definition and the federal government.....well....has no definition.
Click to expand...

Not true. What they cannot do is what all persons cannot do- marry someone of the same sex. This would change if a new, special classification of the law, were passed. This is not an emotional statement- it is a legal one.
 
icedancer2theend said:
Not true. What they cannot do is what all persons cannot do- marry someone of the same sex. This would change if a new, special classification of the law, were passed. This is not an emotional statement- it is a legal one.
Click to expand...

i see you ignore the new laws that make marriage between a man and a women. ironic.

the fact is, there are no special rights, there are the same rights. don't forget, marriage is simply a contract.
 
Yurt said:
i see you ignore the new laws that make marriage between a man and a women. ironic.

the fact is, there are no special rights, there are the same rights. don't forget, marriage is simply a contract.
Click to expand...

I cited the rational that SCOTUS uses to claim a jurisdiction over marriage in order to define it. In light of current federal law they would be "special rights" as they already share the same rights as those of all citizens- . Again, this is not an emotional statement, but a factual one. CA recent gay marriage law usurped the legislative process- It will be heard by the SCOTUS.
 
icedancer2theend said:
Not true. What they cannot do is what all persons cannot do- marry someone of the same sex. This would change if a new, special classification of the law, were passed. This is not an emotional statement- it is a legal one.
Click to expand...

This is the exact same reasoning that was used to justify the prohibition of interracial marriage: that since everyone was allowed to marry within their own race they were being treated equally.

Sanely, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected this argument in Loving_v._Virginia.
 
Socrtease said:
Eric Borges was not continually bullied by kids that were born hating queers any more than KKK kids were born hating blacks or German kids were born hating Jews. They were taught by the adults in their lives that typically surrounded themselves with more adults that believed the same way and who followed political leaders, on local, state and federal level that looked at the world the same way. Ignorance begets ignorance.
Click to expand...
Like the way americans are taught to hate muslims? Or the workers are taught to hate their manager?
 
sedan said:
This is the exact same reasoning that was used to justify the prohibition of interracial marriage: that since everyone was allowed to marry within their own race they were being treated equally.

Sanely, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected this argument in Loving_v._Virginia.
Click to expand...

No it is not. In Loving v. Virginia the issue was race not sexual orientation. In addition, previous court rulings also guided by decisions such as was decided in Loving v. Virginia. Emotional rationalizing is not the same as legal facts. SCOTUS will soon have deal with same sex marriage.
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
i don't understand...why the need for DOMA then? why the need for a new law?

they are not asking for a change in the law (in some cases yes), what they are asking for is the same right that you and i enjoy, the fundamental right to marry. like i said, and as you showed, those opposing gay marriage have had to change the law to outlaw their right to marry. DOMA, california....etc.... but you want to make believe that only gays want to change the law. that simply is not true or factual.

sorry ID, your opinion is not fact. and why wouldn't i want you to argue merits? that is the whole point of a debate, is it not?
Click to expand...

Must every fuckin' thing be explained to you like a child.....???

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law whereby the federal government defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. Under the law, no U.S. state (or other political subdivision) may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.
 
sedan said:
This is the exact same reasoning that was used to justify the prohibition of interracial marriage: that since everyone was allowed to marry within their own race they were being treated equally.

Sanely, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected this argument in Loving_v._Virginia.
Click to expand...

More crap.....the prohibition against interracial marriage was nothing but racial hatred by Democrats in the South.
 
icedancer2theend said:
No it is not.
Click to expand...

Um ... yes, it is.

icedancer2theend said:
In Loving v. Virginia the issue was race not sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

Since I brought it up, I'm pretty sure I was aware of that.

icedancer2theend said:
In addition, previous court rulings also guided by decisions such as was decided in Loving v. Virginia.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what this sentence means.

icedancer2theend said:
Emotional rationalizing is not the same as legal facts.
Click to expand...

I agree, but what on earth are you talking about?

icedancer2theend said:
SCOTUS will soon have deal with same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

On this, at least, we agree.

But you're still making the exact same argument (that everyone is treated equally because they're allowed to marry heterosexuals) that was made in defense of banning interracial marriage (that everyone is treated equally because they're allowed to marry within their own race). The reasoning is exactly the same. Now, maybe you don't have a problem with using the same arguments as the supporters of Jim Crow once did. But I'd rather not be on that particular side of history.
 
sedan said:
Um ... yes, it is.
Since I brought it up, I'm pretty sure I was aware of that.
I have no idea what this sentence means.
I agree, but what on earth are you talking about?
On this, at least, we agree.

But you're still making the exact same argument (that everyone is treated equally because they're allowed to marry heterosexuals) that was made in defense of banning interracial marriage (that everyone is treated equally because they're allowed to marry within their own race). The reasoning is exactly the same. Now, maybe you don't have a problem with using the same arguments as the supporters of Jim Crow once did. But I'd rather not be on that particular side of history.
Click to expand...

I am not making the argument- the argument already exists- that has been my point all along, but you arm chair Justices seem to miss that fact.
 
:rofl:


suicide-demotivational-poster.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top