I am asking them, on what basis is homosexuality a fundamental right, and yet, prohibit the others {pedophilia, rape, incest, etc}
Are you seriously telling us that you can see no moral distinction between the rape of a child and a consensual sexual act between two mature and responsible adults? I can't believe that you need this spelled out for you. Rape is wrong because it is an act of violence, which wins selfish pleasure for the perpetrator at the expense of the pain and suffering of the non-consenting victim. Child abuse is wrong because it is simply rape inflicted upon children who are to young to give meaningful consent in any case. It is harder IMO to make a moral case against incest. There is however, a strong practical impediment, in that incestuous relationships increase the risk of birth abnormalities in any offspring. With morality for dummies out of the way, perhaps you would like to explain how any of these objections to rape, child abuse and incest apply to consensual homosexual love-making. Note that if all you can manage is "The Bible says it's wrong" then don't expect any US courtroom to listen to you.
What I am trying to do, is to get the readers thinking in the very pragmatic way they allege they use, but ironically, do not when it comes to discussions like this. I am asking them, on what basis is homosexuality a fundamental right, and yet, prohibit the others?
This has been answered so many times that I'm quite sure I'm wasting my time by doing so again, but what the hell.
One is consensual, the others are not.
But there's another issue as well with your repetition ad nauseum of your list of irrelvencies. The question isn't whether homosexuality is a fundamental right. The question is whether marriage is.
About the only parity I find is that they are sexual sins.
Fine. Think that. Who cares? Take it up with your fairy tale grandfatherly god. Is has nothing, I repeat, NOTHING to do with the laws of the U.S., which to remind you for the umpteenth time is the topic here.
Address the topic of this thread, in particular, the Fourteenth Amendment. The mere fact that the law says something doesn't mean the law is right. My analysis says it's wrong. So far, you've managed to ignore that in every single post in this thread.
I answer people in sequential order, as I feel obligated to answer them in the order in which it is received. On a popular thread, such as this one, I typically generate approximately 4 replies per every post I make. Add them up. Couple this with the fact that I have other threads I'm engaged on, as well a life outside of EvC, and it should be reasonable to assume that it is going to take me some time to get to your post(s).
And in the post I'm replying to here, you ignore it yet again, other than to show that your understanding of it is so completely out of step with reality that you think one can "pass a whale through a net, or to smuggle an elephant in a suitcase" under it.
You are entitled to an opinion without the fear of reprisal.
Apparently I'm entitled to an opinion without fear of any kind of intelligent, meaningful, substantive response as well.
Just to make it clear, yet again. In this thread, your personal opinions and your religious bigotry and your rants about other "sexual sins" are off topic. Talk about the law.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
I can't agree with you when you say that laws against gay marriage are not discriminatory.
I think that is because you are misunderstanding what discrimination is. According to dictionary.com:
quote:Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit
Heterosexuals have a chance of finding a partner that they love and making a public statement of that love, in marriage. Homosexuals don't. Clear discrimination.
It is not discrimination because homosexuals are not prohibited from getting married. The problem is that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Being a homosexual does not put you in a group, class, or category that is not a man or a woman so they are not excluded from marriage and they are not being discriminated against.
If it was “between the same race” is would be discriminatory because some people don’t belong to a particular race and would be excluded by that definition.
Your sexuality doesn’t determine your gender, so having a definition based on gender has nothing to do with your sexuality.
By the way, your point about hermaphrodites in Message 38 is a valid one, despite the semi-serious way you bring it up. Should intersex people be barred from marriage?
I’m not entirely sure, but I said before that if they were consider either man or women, or both perhaps, then they would not be discriminated against either. But that is not the topic of this thread.
It amounts to "anyone can marry who they like, so long as my religion says it's OK". I thought that kind of thing was unconstitutional in the States.
No it doesn’t, that’s total bullshit. Religion doesn’t have anything to do with it, we are talking about the law. Stop being disingenuous.
Immediately support your contention that the law in the US states that homosexuality is an abomination, or retract your disgusting lies.
It is categorically listed in numerous states laws, the UCMJ, and the United States Code. I'd say that more than amply proves how lawmakers view it. But then, you didn't honestly believe that laws are passed against things that are inherently good, did you?
“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
I see the picture that you are painting, but it is full of bias and conspiracy theory and does not reflect reality. It doesn’t even address my argument and is irrelevant enough that I see no reason to address it specifically.
quote: DOMA? The was in response to the 'misunderstanding' of the definition that was understood to be, yet remained undefined.
DOMA passed in 1996.
Signed by Bill Clinton . just sayin’
What are some other things that were "understood" about marriage for the most of history of this nation? No miscegenation. No divorce. No contraception. No legal rights (property, child custody, contractual, control of earnings, etc.) for women. No criminal or civil liability for women. No such thing as marital rape. Until 1978! Age of consent: 10 years old. Marriage as a cultural norm, as a familial relationship, and as a legal status has done nothing but change.
It changed because those things were discriminatory.
A 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office found 1,138 federal statutes are related to marriage benefits. To name a few: Inheritance rights Insurance Taxes Child custody Child support Alimony Domestic violence Adoption Property inheritance Family leave Suing for wrongful death (and any other tort or law related to spousal relationships) Hospital visitation Health care decision-making Durable power of attorney
All the more reason to not take changes to the definition of marriage too lightly .
Marriage is a civil RIGHT that is afforded ALL our citizens. The right to pursue happiness, remember?
Exactly! As marriage, as defined, is afforded to all our citizens and does not discriminate against any group, there’s no reason to change it.
It is categorically listed in numerous states laws, the UCMJ, and the United States Code. I'd say that more than amply proves how lawmakers view it. But then, you didn't honestly believe that laws are passed against things that are inherently good, did you?
Cite one.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It is not discrimination because homosexuals are not prohibited from getting married. The problem is that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Being a homosexual does not put you in a group, class, or category that is not a man or a woman so they are not excluded from marriage and they are not being discriminated against.
If it was “between the same race” is would be discriminatory because some people don’t belong to a particular race and would be excluded by that definition.
Your sexuality doesn’t determine your gender, so having a definition based on gender has nothing to do with your sexuality.
It is not discrimination because blacks are not prohibited from getting married. The problem is that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Being black does not put you in a group, class, or category that is not a man or a woman so they are not being excluded from marriage and they are not being discriminated against.
If it was "between the same gender" it would be discriminatory becasue some people don't belong to a particular sexual orientation and would be excluded by that definition.
Your race doesn't determine your gender, so having a definition based on gender has nothing to do with your race.
Still not getting it? Are you that dense?
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
It is categorically listed in numerous states laws, the UCMJ, and the United States Code. I'd say that more than amply proves how lawmakers view it. But then, you didn't honestly believe that laws are passed against things that are inherently good, did you?
You will immediately cite a current US law that states homosexuality is an abomination or you will immediately retract your statement and admit that you were lying. Repeating your lie does not prove the lie is true, NJ.
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
quote:Just like it would be discriminatory for you to have barred Oscar Wilde from marrying his true love? If you're going to make an emotive argument, you have to be real careful that the tables don't turn on you.
Oooo! A pedophile! Huh.
Let's take a look at the statistics, shall we?
98% of these male perpetrators are heterosexual.
What!?!?! Are you joking? Are... you.... kidding.... me? 2% of all pedophiles are homosexual? 2 percent?
Going by Kinsey's generous figures, lets say that homosexuals actually represent 10% of the total US population. The US currently has roughly 280 million people. That means roughly 280,000 homosexuals live in the US. Of that 280,000, you now allege that 5,600 of them are pedophiles.
I guess NAMbLA and Butterfly Girls is representative of that tiny fraction, of which, homosexuals already account for a small fraction of the total population.
Interesting just how many of that small fraction just so happens to wind up on To Catch a Pedator.
Better yet, its amazing how unlucky I was when I was molested at the ripe age of 9 years old!
I could come up with all these biased articles that this or that assertion, just as you do, but really all its going to do is prove there is a bias in both directions.
But then you have to think about things sensibly. 5,600 of people in the entire population? Think about that seriously for a moment.
Not that it matters what sexual preference one takes when it comes to pedophilia, its all wrong either way, but don't make these kind of erroneous statements so you can protect homosexuality.
“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
Exactly! As marriage, as defined, is afforded to all our citizens and does not discriminate against any group, there’s no reason to change it.
Let's do this with a very simple roleplay, CS.
Three men and a woman walk in to a county clerk's office and get in line for marriage licenses.
The heterosexual couple walks forward, fills out the short form, pays their fee, and receives a marriage license.
The homosexual couple then steps forward, fills out the short form...and the clerk stops them.
"You can't get married," she says.
"Why not?!" ask the two men.
"Marriage is between a man and a woman. We don't let men marry men or women marry women."
"But what about all of the rights that go along with marriage? If one of us becomes sick, or for automatic inheritance, or a whole slew of other rights, we need to be married! And we want to make an official commitment to our love, just like the couple in front of us was able to. Why can't we get the same treatment?" they ask, with confusion.
"You can get the same treatment. You just have to marry someone of the opposite sex, that's all," she replies.
"So, we're being denied the right to marry our partner of choice because of our sexual orientation?"
"No, you're not being denied anything. You could marry women any time. Have a nice day!"
Now, let's change a few words around. I'll bold them for ease of comprehension, since that seems to be lacking.
A white man, two white women, and a black man walk in to a county clerk's office and get in line for marriage licenses.
The white couple walks forward, fills out the short form, pays their fee, and receives a marriage license.
The interracial couple then steps forward, fills out the short form...and the clerk stops them.
"You can't get married," she says.
"Why not?!" ask the black man.
"Marriage is between men and women of the same race. We don't let black men marry white women."
"But what about all of the rights that go along with marriage? If one of us becomes sick, or for automatic inheritance, or a whole slew of other rights, we need to be married! And we want to make an official commitment to our love, just like the couple in front of us was able to. Why can't we get the same treatment?" they ask, with confusion.
"You can get the same treatment. You just have to marry someone of the same race, that's all," she replies.
"So, we're being denied the right to marry our partner of choice because of our race?"
"No, you're not being denied anything. You could marry people of the same race any time. Have a nice day!"
CS, if we can identify "homosexuals" as a group sufficiently to seperate them from heterosexuals, how are they not a seperate group? How is this legally any different at all from denying interracial couples the right to marry?
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
I get it just fine, you're the one who is too dense to get it.
It is not discrimination because blacks are not prohibited from getting married. The problem is that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Being black does not put you in a group, class, or category that is not a man or a woman so they are not being excluded from marriage and they are not being discriminated against.
The current definition also is not discriminatory against blacks, you're right. However, that has nothing to do with it not being discriminatory against gays as well.
If it was "between the same gender" it would be discriminatory becasue some people don't belong to a particular sexual orientation and would be excluded by that definition.
Your gender is not defined by your sexual orientation so you're just plain wrong here.
A point you've failed to address. All you can do is try to smear my argument by comparison, a good indication that you have nothing to stand on.
You're just trying to make it discriminatory because you want it to be so that it can be changed. I guess it is not really because you're dense, but more because you're biased.
I see the picture that you are painting, but it is full of bias and conspiracy theory and does not reflect reality.
Sorry, CS, but you are wrong. Oh so very wrong.
Senator Trent Lott insisted that Congress deal with the Full Faith and Credit Clause problem.
He was afraid that, in effect, same-sex marriage would be the rule across the country -- taking away different states' prerogative to choose different beliefs as to whom they would allow to marry.
"If such a decision affected only Hawaii, we could leave it to the residents of Hawaii to either live with the consequences or exercise their political rights to change things. But a court decision would not be limited to just one State. It would raise threatening possibilities in other States because of [the Full Faith and Credit Clause]."
142 CONG. REC. S10101 (1996)
Other Republicans made similar arguments. Some expressly praised DOMA because it would reserve the right of each state to reach its own decision about the legal status of same-sex unions.
During his first run for President, George W. Bush drew a similar line. During a presidential debate in February, 2000, Bush said he would certainly campaign against gay marriage if his home state of Texas's legislature considered it, but insisted he would not tell another state what to do: "The state can do what they want to do."
But in 2003, Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. Suddenly, the Republicans changed their tune.
For example, GWB's view of state's rights does a 180.
“Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.”
An ordinary statute, Republicans now suggest, cannot have effectively amended the Constitution. Congress does not have the power to dictate how much full faith and credit one state must give to another's acts. It can only dictate, at most, how the validity of such acts might be proven.
In 1996, when DOMA was debated, liberal law professors made this very argument -- but the Republicans didn't listen. In 2003 -- in another irony -- they use posterboards with quotes from these same commentators in support of their argument that DOMA is unconstitutional.
Thus, the FMA.
DOMA? The (sic) was in response to the 'misunderstanding' of the definition that was understood to be, yet remained undefined.
That's not backlash. That's redlining.
The vast majority of miscegenation laws were passed after the Civil War.
Signed by Bill Clinton . just sayin’
Clinton did a lot of effed up Republican-ish things.
All the more reason to not take changes to the definition of marriage too lightly.
All the more reason to make certain that all citizens have equal access to federal and state benefits.
Exactly! As marriage, as defined, is afforded to all our citizens and does not discriminate against any group, there’s no reason to change it.
Let's try an analogy, shall we?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this is law: only a man and a woman can have sex with each other.
Your argument would sound something like this: sex, as defined, is afforded to all our citizens and does not discriminate against any group; therefore, there’s no reason to change it.
(The majority of your post) doesn’t even address my argument and is irrelevant enough that I see no reason to address it specifically.
Eee hee hee! Oh, I hit the nail on the head.
It's no wonder you're hesitant to venture a reply!
™ Version 4.2