quote:A private contractor has a duty to his contract (a description of his job). Our pharmacist is refusing a contract. There is no job description.
So that license requires no obligation? The licensing board has no power to actually indicate what it is that pharmacists are supposed to do in order to maintain the license?
Hmm...here's part of the Arizona statutes regarding pharmacists:
A. A pharmacist licensed pursuant to this chapter may implement, monitor and modify drug therapy and use only under the following circumstances:
[...]
3. The pharmacist follows the written drug therapy management protocols prescribed by the physician who made the diagnosis.
The practice of pharmacy requires following the doctor's orders.
Inserting himself between the doctor and patient is the practice of medicine without a license.
quote:
quote:Query: Should a pharmacist be allowed to deny treatment based upon the race or sex of the person asking? If not, why are they allowed to deny treatment based upon the medication?
If he feels it to be in his best interests not to contract with others based upon race he has that right.
So all those laws that prohibit public accomodations from refusing service on the basis of race are out of line?
quote:Remember, this "has that right" is in the same vein as Gays having the right to marry. Just because it is currently denied does not mean the right doesn't exist.
Huh? Since when did your private desire to not associate with people of a certain type turn into a public right to deny service? A hotel cannot refuse to rent you a room on the basis of your race. A restaurant cannot refuse you a table on the basis of your sex.
Are you saying they should be able to do so?
quote:And before you head off to the 14th Amendment, the protection is "under the law". The Constitution was meant to restrict the government, not control private individuals.
So legal regulation of public services that prevent discrimination are all bogus? A bank does have the right to refuse to give a loan to someone based on race, sex, religion, disability, etc.?
quote:Who said the pharmacist had to know diddly?
What part of his "conscience" is being violated by the act of dispensing of a drug? Surely you're not saying that someone isn't dispensing mifepristone because of concerns about phenyl groups, are you?
Let's not play dumb.
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.
quote:You seem to think that a pharmacist is required to carry every drug that is available.
Where did I even hint at such a thing? Given the pharmacopeia that exists, it is impossible to carry every drug.
But let's not play dumb. This isn't about carrying the drug. This is about dispensing it. Carrying the drugs is a different question.
quote:What if the demand is too low? Or they don't have the money to stock up on a particular drug?
And if you could show that that was the reason why, you'd have a point, but let's not play dumb. The refusal to stock certain drugs has nothing to do with demand. It has to do with what the drugs are used for. The pharmacist is simply assuming that the drugs will be used for certain treatments and is deciding that no, certain treatments will become unavailable.
But again, this isn't about carrying the drugs. This is about dispensing it.
The question about carrying a drug is a different question entirely.
quote:How much experience do you actually have with pharmacists?
How much do I need?
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.
By suggesting that a pharmacist is "stepping in between" the patient and the doctor.
And what part of "I'm not going to fill this prescription for you" is suggestive of not having the drug to dispense? Most drugs have multiple uses. There are reasons for men to take mifiprestone, for example. I sincerely doubt that these pharmacists who are claiming "conscience" for their refusal to fill prescriptions are going to refuse when it's a man asking for the drug.
That's what we're talking about. Please try to pay attention. We know you don't like actually reading posts, but it helps all of us keep the conversation flowing when you do.
quote:
quote:But let's not play dumb. This isn't about carrying the drug. This is about dispensing it. Carrying the drugs is a different question.
Why? They can simply not carry the drug, then they don't have to dispense it.
I asked you nicely not to play dumb. We're not talking about carrying it. We're talking about dispensing it.
quote:
quote:And if you could show that that was the reason why, you'd have a point, but let's not play dumb. The refusal to stock certain drugs has nothing to do with demand. It has to do with what the drugs are used for. The pharmacist is simply assuming that the drugs will be used for certain treatments and is deciding that no, certain treatments will become unavailable.
You always accuse of "playing dumb" when your refuted.
(*chuckle*)
So said the person who doesn't read posts.
quote:
quote:
quote:How much experience do you actually have with pharmacists?
How much do I need?
Enough to realize that saying that a pharmacist must provide a drug is wrong.
When the drug is there, yes, that is wrong. When there are many uses of a drug, yes, that is wrong.
If a pharmacist wants to play doctor, then he can go become a doctor. Until then, he's a pharmacist and is in no position to tell the doctor and patient what treatments are allowed.
quote:Now, if a pharmacist works for, say Walgreens, that stocks a drug that they don't want to dispence, and Walgreens employee policy states that the pharmacist must provide every drug on the shelf, then they'd be violating their employment policy.
And they'd also be violating the ethical duty that comes with being a pharmacist.
Or is there no such thing as ethics? I must agree with Miss Manners that it is sad that we have to resort to the law in order to enforce what is really a matter of etiquette. Of course a pharmacist doesn't decide not to fill prescriptions and claim "conscience." If you are uncomfortable with the uses of certain drugs for certain treatments, then the position of pharmacist is not for you.
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.
quote:Yes, I know the law currently coerces people by withholding business licenses so that they will accommodate the social will; how tedious. The law also currently doesn't allow Gay marriage. Should I stop arguing for that too?
Huh? How on earth is the justification for business regulation related to marriage rights?
If I didn't know better, I'd say you were wandering off into libertarian land.
quote:No person is the tool of another person. I am not willing to force people into doing things my way by violating their right to self-determination.
So when you are robbed, it is wrong to force the person who robbed you to return what was stolen or pay restitution or be imprisoned. That would be "violating their right to self-determination," right.
Tell me you're not about to wander into libertarian land.
quote:I'll assume you meant "ones private desire"; otherwise, you'd be calling me a prick.
"You" generically, not specifically. I don't know you from Adam.
quote:A right to another man's services is called slavery.
So there is no justification for a hotel to be prevented from denying renting a room to someone on the basis of race? A restaurant is justified in refusing you a table based on your sex?
quote:
quote:So legal regulation of public services that prevent discrimination are all bogus? A bank does have the right to refuse to give a loan to someone based on race, sex, religion, disability, etc.?
They are bogus.
Well, then there's nothing left to talk about. We have such profound differences of opinion regarding the obligations of society and the ethics that go with being in society that I doubt there is any common ground.
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.
quote:Since you are seeking to deny others that which you demand for yourself, what is it you are having trouble with?
Rrhain, have you been circumcised? I have, although they never asked for my permission, since I was a newborn when they did it. But, if I followed your logic to the T, all females should be circumcised at birth, too.
Huh? You do realize that you are reversing your implications and claiming they are identical, yes? One involves acting upon a person without their consent and the other is not acting upon a person without their consent.
Are you saying you agree that I should be allowed to perform surgery on you without your consent? Why don't you come here and let me exercise my rights, then.
quote:Is it even moral?
No, it isn't. Male genital mutilation is just as reprehensible as female genital mutilation and it is bigotry to say that she has a right to her sexual organs while he does not have a right to his.
quote:Rrhain, this is a blatant case of sexual inequality. You need to jump on it right away.
Indeed, it is. What makes you think I haven't?
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.
quote:If you are utterly intolerant of the people who are utterly intolerant of homosexuals, would you be proud or ashamed of it?
Huh? We're back to the silly claim that you are somehow being called a bigot due to your "opinion."
Nobody here has ever claimed that you don't have a right to your opinion. Again, if you think same-sex marriage is wrong, then nobody is going to force you to marry someone of the same sex. Go ahead and live your life the way you see fit.
Having an opinion doesn't make you a bigot. It's seeking to deny others that which you demand for yourself that does it.
quote:
quote:You seek to deny others that which you demand for yourself. What part of that are you having trouble with?
Show me, somewhere other than your mind, where this qualifier can be found anywhere in the English language next to the word "bigot," and then maybe we can talk.
Um, you just read it. Therefore, you have found it in the English language. Surely you're not about to say that dictionaries are proscriptive, are you?
quote:What part of "due process" has anything to do with bigotry?
When due process applies to some but not to others, that's textbook bigotry: The denying to others of that which you demand for yourself.
Let's try to remember the conversation:
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
Those of us who are bigoted towards rapists are quite happy being utterly intolerant to it -- I know I am.
in response, Rrhain writes:
Why? What part of "due process" are you having trouble with?
"Bigotry" toward rapists would be to deny them that which you demand for yourself. I demand due process for me with regard to my actions, and I demand the same to others accused of heinous crimes.
Perhaps you could help us out and tell us what you mean by "bigoted towards rapists."
quote:How is it then that even the Klansman is afforded due process, even though you might argue that he would restrict from someone else?
Because I demand due process for myself. To deny to others that which I demand for myself is bigotry. It doesn't matter that the people I'm denying it to are bigoted.
In the classic, and real, example, the Klan has every right to have a parade. If we're going to allow other groups to have a parade, then it is bigotry to deny it to others simply because of who they are.
quote:You are using a legal term to try and define an opinion.
The law can be bigoted. That's what the Fourteenth Amendment is all about: "Equal treatment under the law."
You don't have to like something in order to treat it equally, even with regard to non-legal issues.
quote:Like it or not, bigotry is nothing more than an extreme aversion to someone else's beliefs or opinions.
No, it's the desire to deny to others that which you demand for yourself. It manifests as "extreme aversion to somone else's beliefs or opinions," but the underlying action is one of imposing a double standard.
I have an "extreme aversion" to eating lutefisk. I have an "extreme aversion" to the "opinion" that it is anything other than revolting. But what makes me not a bigot about it is that I don't wish to stop other people from eating it and I simply chalk it up to "no accounting for taste" with regard to those who claim it to be delicious.
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.
quote:I'm saying that changing the legal definition of "marriage" for the convenience of a minority group of homosexuals is subjective.
"I'm saying that changing the legal definition of 'marriage' for the convenience of a minority group of races is subjective."
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:I'm saying that preserving the meaning of "marriage" for the vast majority of heterosexuals is objective
"I'm saying that preserving the meaning of 'marriage' for the vast majority of whites is objective."
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:In all objectivity, "marriage" means a civil union between a man and a woman.
Says who? Other than the demand that the participants be of mixed sex, what part of the application of marriage requires the participants to be of mixed sex? Only a woman can transfer property to a man? Only a man can sponsor a woman for citizenship?
You keep saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman, but you keep on forgetting to explain why.
"In all objectivity, 'marriage' means a civil union between people of the same race."
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:How much more objective can that be?
Because if a same-sex couple were to say that they were "married," nobody would be confused as to what was meant. Therefore, where is the "objectivity" that "marriage" only means mixed-sex?
quote:But do they need to call it a "marriage" to do that?
Since "separate but equal" is unconstitutional and since "marriage" is the contract that currently exists and is referenced in literally thousands of laws and regulations across dozens of states as well as the federal level, the only legitimate solution is to call it "marriage."
When Loving v. Virginia declared that the word "marriage" was to be applied to mixed-race couples, was that the wrong decision? After all, it was "objective" that "marriage" was only between couples of the same race.
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:The real issue is about which one of us deserves to be call a "bigot."
You wish to deny to gays that which you demand for yourself. You demand "marriage" for yourself yet only want "domestic partnership" for gays. Since no domestic partnership has ever been equal to marriage and since the entire concept of "separate but equal" is unconstitutional, there is no other way around it.
quote:Can't people have differing POVs without being called bigots?
It isn't a question of "differing POVs." It's that you want to deny others that which you demand for yourself.
A "differing POV" is whether or not you want to marry someone of a particuar characteristic. Nobody cares about your personal POV.
"Bigotry" is when you demand that you be allowed to marry someone you want but deny others the right to marry someone they want.
quote:You can measure bigotry in the noise made by those who accuse others of it.
And if someone was simply disagreeing with your opinion, then you might have a point. Instead, all responses have been regarding the effect you are trying to achieve: The denial to gays of that which you demand for yourself.
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.
quote:Do you think and a man and man = a man and a woman.
When it comes to marriage, how are they not? What about marriage requires the participants to be of mixed sex? Only a woman can transfer property to a man? Only a man can sponsor a woman for citizenship?
quote:All I'm saying is that a man and a woman can get "married" in accordance to the meaning of the word, but because a man and a man can't get "married,"
Why not? If two men were to say they were "married," nobody would be confused as to what was meant.
"All I'm saying is that two white people can get 'married' in accordance to the meaning of the word, but because a white person and a black person can't get 'married,'"
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:they ought to be able to get civilly united if they choose, so as to gain all the legal rights and benefits married heterosexuals enjoy.
But "civil unions" don't provide all the legal rights and benefits of marriage.
How are you going to provide the same contract and yet call it something different? Do you truly believe there is such a thing as "separate but equal"?
quote:That's because I'm counting the wheels.
So explain why a mixed-sex couple is different from a same-sex couple when it comes to marriage. Only a woman can transfer property to a man? Only a man can sponsor a woman for citizenship?
Be specific.
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.
quote:I don't know which would be worse: you actually performing a circumcision on me, or you just fumbling around with my unit before hand.
And you wonder why the term is homophobia. You will note that I said nothing about sexual activity and yet you jumped there immediately, so scared of what you might do.
I'm not going to have sex with you, Hoot Mon, so stop asking me.
quote:Now, what to do about male circumcision?
You leave it up to the person the foreskin is attached to.
quote:I'm sorry they didn't get to you.
You act as if you've seen my penis. Look, I'm not going to have sex with you. Please stop asking.
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.
quote:If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
Because race and sexual orientation are as different as Mars and a tomato.
Why? Nothing in the marriage contract is specific to race. So what in the marriage contract is specific to sexual orientation? Only a woman can transfer property to a man? Only a man can sponsor a woman for citizenship?
Be specific.
quote:You forgot to include these inequalities, too: children and sexual orientation, multiple spouses and sexual orientation, and other species and sexual orientation.
Why is it that the thought of having sex with someone of your own sex immediately makes you think of molesting multiple children and their pets? Are you trying to tell us something, Hoot Mon?
What is it about being gay that leads to pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality that being straight does not?
Be specific.
quote:But do I also need to explain why men shouldn't use the lady's room?
What does sexual orientation have to do with using the bathroom?
quote:Do I need to explain why a man shouldn't be allowed to marry his daughter or his dog?
You need to explain why the thought of having sex with someone of the same sex immediately makes you think of molesting a child and her dog. Are you trying to tell us something?
What is it about being gay that leads to pedophilia, polygamy, and bestiality that being straight does not?
Be specific.
quote:Do I need to explain why public nudity is immoral?
What does this have to do with anything? Only straight people can be nude? Are you trying to tell us something?
quote:I demand urinals in all mens' public restrooms, and I don't need no stinkin' women squatting over them, either. Boy, am I bigot for my bigoted POV!
Huh? What on earth does this have to do with sexual orientation and marriage? Only single heterosexuals go to the bathroom?
quote:The truth is that I desire for gays exactly what I desire for myself: a heterosexual marriage
"The truth is that I desire for blakcks exactly what I desire for myself: A same-race marriage."
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
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.
quote:But you never answered my question, Rrhain. It is right or wrong or bigoted to circumcise males and not females?
Incorrect. I answered you directly.
Message 222, in response to your question, "Is it even moral?"
Rrhain writes:
No, it isn't. Male genital mutilation is just as reprehensible as female genital mutilation and it is bigotry to say that she has a right to her sexual organs while he does not have a right to his.
How is that not an answer? What part about "No, it isn't" is not a direct answer? What part about "just as reprehensible" fails to respond to your question?
Continuing on in the same post, in responsed to you statement, "Rrhain, this is a blatant case of sexual inequality. You need to jump on it right away."
So how is that not an answer to your question? You did read the post before responding, yes?
quote:How utterly subjective are those ordinations in the eyes of those who were deprived of them!
Indeed, they are subjective. So what? What is it about subjectivity that makes you so nervous? We, as a society, need to come to a decision about what it is that we accept and what it is that we do not accept. It will always be subjective.
But so what? One of the things we have decided we will not tolerate is bigotry. Denying to others that which you demand for yourself is textbook bigotry. Why is this so hard?
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.
And what about a man's crotch in another man's face "ain't right"?
Oh, I certainly agree that Nike was coming at it from the point of view of basketball, so completely dominating another player, but the way they went about it was to do it through homophobia: That it is not only basketball domination, but sexual domination as well.
There are ways to show physical domination in basketball without resorting to homophobia to do it. Compare this to another ad in the line:
Same point, no homophobia.
quote:Will somebody please close that closet door.
You're the one who doesn't want to see what's happening outside of it. You close 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.
quote:Rrhain, do you really believe that Nike was using calculated homophobia to sell its sneakers?
The fact that something is ubiquitous doesn't make it any less calculated. You seem to be falling into the "doesn't kick puppies" mode of thinking: That so long as we can prove that they weren't sitting around a conference table, rubbing their hands, and cackling, "Let's call 'em faggots!" then somehow there wasn't any bigotry going on.
They decided to use a common homophobic image of a man's crotch in another man's face to show humiliation: "I so dominate you, I can make you suck my dick."
quote:Objectively, the world didn't give a hoot about homophobia until you gays ran it up the flag pole.
"You gays." Right...because nobody can ever think homophobia is a bad thing unless they happen to be gay, themselves.
I know I haven't mentioned my sexual orientation. It is for precisely this reason: I want you to respond to what I say, not what you imagine I ought to have said based upon a characteristic I happen to have.
That said, you're quite right that the world didn't give a hoot about homophobia until gay people brought it up. The world never cares about the crappy treatment it doles out on those not in power until those pissed upon decide to fight back.
Guess we should go back to enslaving people, treating women as chattel, and making sure them uppity Protestants just keep their mouths shut.
quote:Now we're all homophobes just for for asking: How can two men marry each other?
If you don't like it when your bigotry is pointed out, then you have a couple of options: Stop showing it or stop being it.
You still haven't explained just what it is about marriage that requires the participants to be of the opposite sex. Only women can transfer property to men? Only men can sponsor women for citizenship?
Be specific.
quote:Doesn't that contradict the meaning of marriage?
No. Why would it? What is it about marriage that requires the participants to be of the opposite sex? Only women can transfer property to men? Only men can sponsor women for citizenship?
Be specific.
quote:And why am I a bigot for bringing it up?
Because you're looking for a justification to deny to others that which you demand for yourself. That's textbook bigotry.
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.
quote:And that's all it is, gruber”just an opinion.
So when you step into the ballot box, you're going to actually vote for equality in marriage since it's "just an opinion" that you think gays can't get married?
quote:Do the gays have any more than that to bring to the table?
Gays don't have the right to get married. Gays don't have the right to be secure in their households and not be evicted for being gay. Gays don't have the right to be secure in their jobs and not be fired for being gay. Gays don't have the right to be secure in their parenthood and not have their children taken away because the parents are gay. Gays don't have the right to serve in the military. Gays don't have the right not to be tortured because they are gay.
What more do you need?
quote:Is calling "homophobia" on everything they find objectionable anything other than reverse bigotry?
If you don't like having your bigotry called out, you have a couple options: You can stop showing it or stop being it.
quote:At some point, though, we're going to be hearing from other special groups of people who also want to come out of closet: polygamists, pedophiles and the rest. And they'll all want to get married, too. Why are their opinions and desires any less important than those of gays?
Huh? Why is it the thought of having sex with someone of your own sex immediately makes you think about raping your children? What is it about being gay that leads to polygamist pedophiles that being straight does not?
Be specific.
Here's a few things to think about to help you: How does the sex of the participants in a marriage change the number, age, species, or familial relationship of the participants? If they don't, then why does same-sex marriage lead to such conceptions while mixed-sex marriage does not?
There may or may not be justifications for other recognitions of marraige, but you're not going to find the justification in same-sex marriage.
quote:I think in all these threads about gays and bigotry I've proven an important point: the gays are out after a titular prize”"marriage"”and they intend to steal it from the heterosexuals.
"Steal it"? Just what is stolen from mixed-sex couples when same-sex couples get married?
How does the neighbor's marriage affect you? Do you need to give them an easement? You're no longer allowed to own a pet? You'll be deported?
Be specific.
quote:For my proof I offer the repeated observation (from these threads) that the gays would not be completely satisfied with all the rights and privileges of legalized civil unions
"For my proof, I offer the repeated observation (from these threads) that the blacks would not be completely satisfied with all the rights and privileges of legalized civil unions."
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
That said, "civil union" does not provide all the rights and privileges of marriage. In every case it has been attempted, a civil union falls short...even when the judiciary ordered the legislature to make them equivalent.
By calling the same relationship two different things based upon certain characteristics of the participants, you necessarily make the legal claim that the two relationships are not the same. Since they are not legally the same, they can legally be treated differently.
And thus, you show that you really don't want equality...you want to discriminate. That you are so upset over the use of a single word for a single contract shows you really don't think they're the same and don't want them to be the same.
The only way to guarantee equality at all levels is to have a single contract.
quote:they also want to mutate the meaning of marriage for their vain purposes.
Huh? What is "mutated"? Only women can transfer property to men? Only men can sponsor women for citizenship? What is it about marriage that requires the participants to be of mixed sex?
Be specific.
quote:What is the dollar value in loss of liberties for a gay couple to be civilly united by the law but denied the title of marriage under the law?
Since no civil union is the legal equivalent of a marriage, quite a lot. Cross the border, and suddenly you are no longer joint owners of anything.
quote:Why can't "marriage" be something only heteros do when they get civilly united, and "_______" be something only gays do when they get civilly united?
"Why can't 'marriage' be something only whites do when they get civilly united and '_____' be something only interracial couples do when they get civilly united?"
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
The reason why, of course, is that "separate but equal" doesn't exist anywhere. It never has. It never will. By using two names, you necessarily indicate that they are not the same. If they're not the same, then you can treat them differently. This gives the lie to your claim that they're equal.
quote:Even Steven”equal rights all around. Honestly, I just don't see how anybody is harmed by this.
Since a "civil union" is not the legal equivalent of a marriage, one wonders how you conclude "equal rights all around." When you are suddenly legal strangers to each other simply because you've crossed a border, how is that not harm?
quote:I just cannot ignore the very basic difference between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual whatever.
And what, precisely, is it? You've been asked to describe this difference for months and so far, you have done everything you can to avoid doing so. Only women can transfer property to men? Only men can sponsor women for citizenship? What is it about marriage that requires the participants to be of mixed sex?
Be specific.
quote:It's the biggest old elephant in the room I've ever seen.
Then it should be easy for you to tell us what it is. Only women can transfer property to men? Only men can sponsor women for citizenship? What is it about marriage that requires the participants to be of mixed sex?
Be specific.
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.
quote:They are afforded all the legal benefits of heterosexual people in all areas of the law except one. Marraige.
Incorrect. Gay people are discriminated against in most all aspects of life:
Gays don't have the right to get married. Gays don't have the right to be secure in their households and not be evicted for being gay. Gays don't have the right to be secure in their jobs and not be fired for being gay. Gays don't have the right to be secure in their parenthood and not have their children taken away because the parents are gay. Gays don't have the right to serve in the military. Gays don't have the right not to be tortured because they are gay.
Marriage is just one aspect of many.
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.
™ Version 4.2
