|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
AndyGodLove  Suspended Member (Idle past 5799 days) Posts: 18 From: Wentworth Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4259 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
quote: i think Catholic Scientist just wants to define the word. as do i. that is not bigotry or denying rights. what about the intolerance of someone else's defintion of a word, because it is a defferent definition than yours?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4175 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: Let me get this straight. You don't care if two people of the same sex get married? Actually married. Not a civil union...but married? Actually, I've posted multiple times now that I don't care if gay people get married. You're against DOMA. You don't agree with States passing new laws, redefining marriage, or amending their Constitutions to disallow gay marriage. You have been actively trying to repeal such laws and new definitions and have certainly spoken out and/or written your State and Federal Congressmen as well as you State and Federal Senators telling them that you are against any such bans on gay marriage. Do I have this correct?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
rueh Member (Idle past 3692 days) Posts: 382 From: universal city tx Joined: |
Ok how is this. If the concern revolves around having to redefine a word. In any area that list the defintion as husband and wife, include or any combination of the above TWO. There, the simpilist way to define marriage that can include same sex couples while leaving out all the strawmen like polygamy or pedophiles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4259 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
quote: not in every case. In recent case of D.C. vs. Heller, had the SCOTUS ruled in favor of "collective" gun rights over "individual" gun rights, then the USA would have effectively violated its agreement with the state of Montana's statehood contract, and therefore made Montana its own seperate self-governing nation. the feds cannot do what ever they want. people have the right of self determination in the form of local government, as it is clearly expressed in the declaration of independence. if the federal government violates this then it is violating its own rules, and stripping itself of any validity. and it shouldn't in rules that are left up to the states, such as marriage.
quote: only if they are ready to be the cause of the 2nd american civil war
quote:yeah we are big fans of liberty and freedom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4175 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Artemis Entreri writes: Look, this really isn't that difficult. As long as I am not actively trying to prevent you from expressing your definition, then it is not bigotry. Now, keep in mind that that doesn't really allow you to make up a definition just to suit your fancy. I mean, you can't just redefine bigotry to mean simply a matter of disagreeing with someone, and not expect me to call you out on it. i think Catholic Scientist just wants to define the word. as do i. that is not bigotry or denying rights. what about the intolerance of someone else's defintion of a word, because it is a defferent definition than yours? Edited by FliesOnly, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Let me get this straight. You don't care if two people of the same sex get married? Actually married. Not a civil union...but married? Right, I don't care.
You're against DOMA. I think DOMA accurately defines the word "marrige" as it was understood to be when the 1000+ laws were written that explicitly use the word "marriage". I'm not against it.
You don't agree with States passing new laws, redefining marriage, or amending their Constitutions to disallow gay marriage. They're not REdefining it If a state wants to allow or disallow gay marriage, then that's their prerogative.
You have been actively trying to repeal such laws and new definitions and have certainly spoken out and/or written your State and Federal Congressmen as well as you State and Federal Senators telling them that you are against any such bans on gay marriage. Nope. I've done absolutely nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
As long as I am not actively trying to prevent you from expressing your definition, then it is not bigotry. I'm not actively trying to prevent gay people from getting married, but ZOMFG!!! I'm arguing on them Internets!1! IMMA horriblez fucking bigot... O NOES!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4259 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
quote: yeah let the people decide the definitions in thier own states. if more people in my state want to say marriage is between tow people reguardless of gender, then guess what? im for it. pedophile is a realative term to some degree. age of consent laws very state by state (because the states make thier own rules reguarding marriage). Take the socalled polygamists at the YFZ ranch in Texas who were marrying girls at age 14. this could be pedophillia in another state, but in Texas the age of consent is 14 (with parental permission). Polygamy is not really an issue, because those people who practice it only have one leagal wife, the other wives are spiritual marriages accepted by the community, and not recognized by the state, so really they are doing nothing wrong. unless of course you support adultery laws, but then i would find it odd you support adultery laws when you are not a fan of sodomy laws that supposedly discriminate between same sex partners. I think neither the sodomy laws nor the adultery laws are really enforced anymore, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
rueh Member (Idle past 3692 days) Posts: 382 From: universal city tx Joined: |
Just to clarify your fact it is 14 in Texas so long as the other party is 17. The actual age of consent is 17. Age of consent by State I just threw the last sentence in there because I have seen that argument brought up so many times already. Thought I might be able to preempt it.
Edited by rueh, : Man I am terrible at spelling. Thank god for F7
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4259 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
quote: my bad. you are right. i said the wrong thing. you are right as far as sexual consent goes, though its interesting that in texas it is only between a male and female (as per your link). since we were talking about marriage, i got my marriage laws and consent laws mixed up. From wikepedia:
quote: I meant marriage then intercourse, sorry to make such a broad assumption. these young girls are getting married 1st. also its deiffernt in the various counties within a state, and i made the assumption that it was the whole state. my bad again. but still you can get married at 14, and then as a married person engage in intercourse legally, in TX at 14.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: Yes, in every case. That's what the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means. (Some stuff about Montana, that does raise some fascinating legal issues, off topic on this thread.)
quote: No. The Declaration of Independence is of no legal effect, and guarantees nobody any rights against the federal government.
quote: So then I assume you would be against a federal Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. However, even in this statement you are still wrong. This issue was decided 41 years ago in Loving v. Virginia. While the regulation of marriage is traditionally a matter for the states, they cannot have laws that run afoul of the Constitution.
quote: I doubt it would come to that. After all, requiring the states to recognize gay marriage wouldn't change one single heterosexual marriage. I doubt that people would go to war over something that wouldn't demonstrably change their lives in any way.
quote: I spent 7 years in Misery. You can have it. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4259 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
quote:yep. quote:i was typing WRT the supreme courts making state constitutions obsolete, sorry for the vagueness i will spell everything out for you in the future. quote: i will and i'll take a real baseball team like the cardinals too
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4175 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: I find this a bit difficult to swallow. Your next quote is the reason why I find this difficult to swallow.
Right, I don't care. Catholic Scientist writes: You, on the one hand, claim that you're fine with two guys getting married...married in exactly the same way the two members of the opposite sex can get married. And then on the other hand, you claim to be in support of a law that prevents two guys from getting married. Do you not see any contradictory behavior here?
I think DOMA accurately defines the word "marrige" as it was understood to be when the 1000+ laws were written that explicitly use the word "marriage". I'm not against it. Catholic Scientist writes: Prior to DOMA and all of the "new" States laws the now define marriage as being between one man and one women, the laws didn't define them as such. Therefore, two guys could get married. Homophobes got their panties all in a bunch over the idea of two guys getting married and changed the definitions of marriage to specifically prevent such a terrible thing from happening. How is that not redefining marriage? It now says something that it previously did not.
They're not REdefining it. Catholic Scientist writes: Not according to that stupid, pain in the ass Constitution that you seem to be forgetting about.
If a state wants to allow or disallow gay marriage, then that's their prerogative. Catholic Scientist writes: Yeah...that's the point. To sit there are say that because you are not actually, physically doing something to stop this homophobic discrimination, that you are somehow or another absolved of being called a bigot is a bit of a stretch of the definition of bigotry, don't you think? Especially in light of your admission that you support DOMA and your belief that States should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to accept or recognize gay marriage. Nope. I've done absolutely nothing. You just seem to be a big bag of contradictions. You want to allow gay marriageYet, you support laws the prevent gay marriage You don't consider yourself a bigot because you don't "actively" prevent gays from getting married.Yet, you also don't 'actively" do anything that would allow for gay marriage. You support our Constitution.Yet, you say it's OK for States to ignore it and set their own marriage laws. Strange.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: Oh, silly me. I thought you were saying something relevant to the real world. My mistake. The Supreme Court is no more likely to make state constitutions obsolete than you are to learn correct capitalization. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You, on the one hand, claim that you're fine with two guys getting married...married in exactly the same way the two members of the opposite sex can get married. And then on the other hand, you claim to be in support of a law that prevents two guys from getting married. Do you not see any contradictory behavior here?
Nope, they’re not mutually exclusive. Supporting DOMA doesn’t necessitate that I not be fine with two guys getting married and being fine with two guys getting married doesn’t necessitate that I oppose DOMA.
Prior to DOMA and all of the "new" States laws the now define marriage as being between one man and one women, the laws didn't define them as such. Therefore, two guys could get married.
Except, they couldn’t. They needed legislation and/or judicial interpretation in order to get married.
Homophobes got their panties all in a bunch over the idea of two guys getting married and changed the definitions of marriage to specifically prevent such a terrible thing from happening.
They’re not necessarily afraid of gays. What they feared was one state being forced to recognize the marriage from another.
How is that not redefining marriage? It now says something that it previously did not.
What it says now is the same as what it previously meant.
Catholic Scientist writes: Not according to that stupid, pain in the ass Constitution that you seem to be forgetting about. If a state wants to allow or disallow gay marriage, then that's their prerogative.Catholic Scientist writes: Yeah...that's the point. To sit there are say that because you are not actually, physically doing something to stop this homophobic discrimination, that you are somehow or another absolved of being called a bigot is a bit of a stretch of the definition of bigotry, don't you think? Especially in light of your admission that you support DOMA and your belief that States should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to accept or recognize gay marriage. Nope. I've done absolutely nothing. You just seem to be a big bag of contradictions.
You’re just misunderstanding me.
You want to allow gay marriage Yet, you support laws the prevent gay marriage I have no desire to allow gay marriage.
You don't consider yourself a bigot because you don't "actively" prevent gays from getting married. Yet, you also don't 'actively" do anything that would allow for gay marriage. Doing nothing is not doing something.
You support our Constitution.
States wouldn’t be ignoring it.
Yet, you say it's OK for States to ignore it and set their own marriage laws.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024