|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
AndyGodLove  Suspended Member (Idle past 5799 days) Posts: 18 From: Wentworth Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
I don't believe the SCOTUS went against the national majority opinion on the matter. Can you prove it did?
Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? The SCOTUS was wrong to "defy the will of the majority"? Is there a particular reason why when you think of having sex with someone of the same sex, you immediately start having fantasies of raping your dead, infant sons and their dogs?
Not the dogs. I'd never rape a dog. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
lyx2no writes:
That one blew by me like fairy dust. You have two legs. If you do not want to be cured of the that condition do you consider your having two legs by choice or was it an act of mother Nature? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
I don't believe the SCOTUS went against the national majority opinion on the matter. Can you prove it did? Why didn't you even try to look this up? Here is a link that shows what the public opinion was and how it changed over the years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
No I don't. I advocate getting the state out of the marriage business altogether. Let the churches, YMCAs, pet shelters, Wicca covens and hippie communes marry people if they want to. And let the the state remain in the business of granting civil unions, even same-sex civil unions to those who have suffered worse than the slaves under Simon Legree. Because you don't really believe that. Instead, you want two contracts: One for mixed-sex couples called "marriage" and one for same-sex couples called "civil union." So ya wanna talk about equal treatment under the law? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4746 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
That one blew by me like fairy dust. And yet you were unable to answer it. You seem to be unable to answer anything. You seem to be unable to recognize that government has interests in marriage as contract law. The government has no interest or involvement in the consecration of marriage as demanded by the First Amendment. Do you intend that government no longer answer the call to arbitrate contract disputes? You have no argument there. You seem to be unable to recognize that codifying John & Mary's opinion into laws that repress the self-determination of millions of Americans is no longer opinion. Chuck & Larry's opinion of how best to live their lives is an opinion protected by the Constitution, while John & Mary's opinion of how best to run Chuck & Larry's lives is of no consequence. You have no argument there. You seem to be unable to recognize that Americans have a Constitutional right to self-determination regardless of the incentive for that determination. Choice is a legitimate motive for self-determination under the Constitution. You have no argument there. You seem unable to recognize that your arguments for blocking baby buggers, corpse cuddlers, dog diddlers, social security swindlers, and other officious offenders would by necessity apply to all human social contact. You have no argument there. You seem unable to recognize that you are a bigot who advocates actions that lead to the repression of millions of peaceful Americans merely to entertain a prejudice. You have no argument there. You seem unable to recognize that you have no argument anywhere. Kindly There is a spider by the water pipe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
kjsimons writes:
You've nailed me on that one. I had forgotten the negative public attitude against interracial marriage in 1957, the year I graduated from high school. Thanks for the history lesson. HM writes:
Why didn't you even try to look this up? Here is a link that shows what the public opinion was and how it changed over the years. I don't believe the SCOTUS went against the national majority opinion on the matter. Can you prove it did? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
lyx2no writes:
But I said I favored state-sanctioned civil unions for gays, but not state-sanctioned marriages for them. What's so bad about that if everything else is equal? And I also explained why the state should get out of the marriage business altogether. What more do you want from me? What questions haven't I answered? You seem to be unable to recognize that codifying John & Mary's opinion into laws that repress the self-determination of millions of Americans is no longer opinion. Chuck & Larry's opinion of how best to live their lives is an opinion protected by the Constitution, while John & Mary's opinion of how best to run Chuck & Larry's lives is of no consequence. You have no argument there. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
BB writes:
Well, it may be a horrible, horrible argument right now, or maybe not. However, I predict that it will become a matter of choice for them when the causes of gayness are understood and effective means for correction are improvised. If science can turn a man into woman, as a matter of choice, then science should be able to turn a homo into a hetero, if not now then soon. After that, homosexuality will be purely a matter of choice. However, the appropriate therapy has not yet been discovered, mainly because science doesn't know yet what causes homosexuality. The jury is still out this matter of choice. It's a horrible, horrible argument.”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BeagleBob Member (Idle past 5707 days) Posts: 81 Joined: |
quote: I think we've given you more than sufficient evidence as to how homosexuality is determined through genetic, developmental, and physiological factors. But in the end I think everyone is missing the big picture here. Whether or not homosexuality is natural or not is wholly irrelevant to its ethical implications. Genes that lead to a greater tendency towards alcoholism are perfectly natural, but alcoholism isn't considered an ethically stable position just because it's "natural." On the other hand, synesthesia is a perfectly natural neural phenomenon, but we don't think it's ethically unstable because it's natural. Natural phenomena are, at best, amoral. What matters regarding the ethical content of a proposition isn't the descriptive elements, but the prescriptive elements. If anyone wants to argue whether or not homosexuality should be accepted, it's best to divorce it from the scientific study of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4746 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
The enumeration in post 230, of certain errors, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others committed by Hoot Mon.
You seem to be unable to recognize that separate is immediately unequal. Judicial review was established in Marbury v. Madison. And they didn't mention you having input. You have no argument there.
And I also explained why the state should get out of the marriage business altogether. What more do you want from me? What questions haven't I answered? Your reasoning as to why the state should get out of the marriage business has been to be wanting. American's have a right to request the government arbitrate contract dissolution. Are you going to deny Americans that right? I'm thinking Rrhain might have had a question or two you've ignored also. Edited by lyx2no, : Submit Now rather then Preview Kindly There is a spider by the water pipe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: Incorrect. Gay men have testicles and yet are not straight. Therefore, your explanation fails by simple inspection. Having testicles does not cause heterosexuality. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to Taz:
quote: Then it's time to put your money where your mouth is. Come down here, we'll rig you up to the 12V battery, and we'll "relieve" you of your heterosexuality. Do you have the courage of your convictions? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: At the time that Loving v. Virginia was decided, more Johns and Janes opposed interracial marriage than currently oppose same-sex marriage. Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?
quote: Huh? That makes no sense. Exactly how many gay people do you think there are? If it isn't a problem when straights do it, how is it a problem when gays do it? Are you saying SSI, the most successful anti-poverty system this country has ever seen, should abandon survivor's benefits? You would rather see people starve on the street? Tell us where in the GAO report on same-sex marriage they neglected to look at Social Security. Tell us where in the GAO report it found that same-sex marriage would be a financial drain. Because the conclusion was that same-sex marriage would be a financial boon. If you're truly worried about Social Security, then you would be for same-sex marriage. Gays take less out of it. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: Incorrect. The exact opposite has been shown: You cannot change someone's sexual orientation. Don't believe me? Then put your money where your mouth is. Come down here and we'll "pound the straightness out of you." Do you have the courage of your convictions?
quote: Huh? When did we jump to marriage? We were talking about torture and yes, I do equate the torture that gay people receive with the blessings of the state to the torture that black people once received with the blessings of the state. Lynching blacks is illegal. So why is it perfectly fine to do it to gays? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: Time to put your money where your mouth is. Come down here and we'll "pound the straightness out of you" and "relieve" you of this burden you carry. You do have the courage of your convictions, yes? No? You mean you chose to be straight? So how did you make this choice? Exactly how many men did you have sex with before you decided that you didn't like it? Isn't it possible that you just never found a good gay lover? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024