|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote: Right...because a tree is exactly the same thing as a human being. Why is it the thought of having sex with someone of the same sex immediately makes you think of being sexually gratified by foliage? Why is it you never seem to think of this when the thought is of having sex with someone of the opposite sex? Just what is it about being gay that leads to sex with plants that being straight doesn't? Be specific.
quote: Indeed. And nobody will be confused by the statement that Jane and June are "married." Everybody understands that "marriage" is a description of a relationship, not a description of the genitalia of the participants.
quote: Morally correct. Refusal to accept bigotry is not bigotry. Refusal to accept intolerance is not intolerance. 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: |
Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote: Incorrect. You need to read Loving v. Virginia. Marriage is defined as a fundamental right. Too, you need to read the Constitution. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, please. I am not here to do your homework for you.
quote: No, "self-evident truths" are in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The DoI is not a legal document with respect to the law of the land in the United States. The Constitution is. Ninth and Tenth Amendments, please. Go look them up.
quote: Loving v. Virginia, please. Go look it up.
quote: So when the SCOTUS overruled the states with regard to interracial marriage, they were wrong to do so?
quote:quote: That's not an answer. It's a very simple question: Was the SCOTUS wrong to decide that the will of the people and the law of the states were to be overturned because marriage is a fundamental right? At any rate, you're arguing the opposite of what is being discussed. The SCOTUS didn't overturn the miscegenation laws because the people didn't like it. They overturned the miscegenation laws despite the people not liking it.
quote: So why do you feel it appropriate to deny citizens their rights? Loving v. Virginia, please. Go look it up.
quote: Indeed. "We the People" have decided that the Constitution is the final arbiter of what we are all allowed to do. It doesn't matter if the majority of people want to enslave blacks. They are not allowed to do so because the Constitution says they're not. Why do you have such a problem with the Constitution? It seems you only want to abide by it when it suits 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to bluescat48:
quote:quote: Huh? You were the one saying that there was a "threat" and a "plight." Are you now saying you can't even describe what that "threat" and "plight" are? Then how do you know it exists? And why do these phantom "threat" and "plight" get to deny citizens their rights?
quote: But what would be lost? You've gone on and on about this, but you have yet to come up with a single example of anything that would be lost. How does your neighbor's marriage affect you? Does your marginal tax rate go up? Are they then granted an easement? You now have to park on alternate sides of the street every other Thursday? You'll immediately be deported? Be specific.
quote: Right, because the majority have always respected the fundamental rights of the minority. If the majority would vote to protect the minority, then there wouldn't be any need for a vote because it would already be a reality. Rights aren't very useful if the only time you get them is when nobody is thinking of taking them away in the first place. 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: |
Taz responds to Nemesis Juggernaut:
quote: Indeed. In fact, the Loving v. Virginia decision specifically pointed this out as an invalid argument. Fundamental rights are not beholden to borders but follow you everywhere you go. Saying that they simply needed to move somewhere where their marriage wouldn't land them in jail is not a legitimate response. It seems NJ hasn't bothered to read the case law on the subject. But then again, he holds the Constitution is such contempt that it isn't surprising: The Constitution is only good when it supports him. When it denies him, it's just a piece of paper. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5521 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
Isn't that the attitude of a bigot? Where do you get your moral authority, bigot? Nem Jug writes:
Morally correct. If a person who doesn't agree with your view is a bigot on those pretenses, then what does that make you? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5521 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
Suppose Mr. and Mrs. Smith out in Iowa are sitting on their front porch and feeling very distraught about their son's recent announcement that he's gay and he wants to marry Clifford, the next door neighbor's son. You stop to help them out by telling them that they are immoral and have no good reason to feel that way. In fact, you tell them they ought to be ashamed of themselves for being so close-minded, selfish, and stupid. Hoot Mon writes:
But what would be lost? You've gone on and on about this, but you have yet to come up with a single example of anything that would be lost. How does your neighbor's marriage affect you? Does your marginal tax rate go up? Are they then granted an easement? You now have to park on alternate sides of the street every other Thursday? You'll immediately be deported? What they say they lose from legalizing "gay marriage" may not be reasonable to you. And then you say, "What's the matter with you people, anyway? You're acting like a couple of degenerate heterosexual bigots." Mrs. Smith slowly raises her head from her knees and says, "You better get your queer ass back on out that Hershey Highway, son, before I get out my pig sticker. What right do you have to tell me what is moral and what is not?" Rrhain, you need to explain why, in the case of "same-sex marriage," a minority can be more moral than a majority. So far all we get from you are your passionate opinions. If you could come down from your self-righteous perch and touch the ground of reality you would know that gravity and marriage are two things that most people regard as being purely NATURAL. Gravity doesn't pull up and marriage doesn't unit two members of the same sex. I've got a lot of empirical evidence on that to show you. You got nuthin' but opinion. ”HM Edited by Hoot Mon, : fussing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4737 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Predictably, you ended up emasculating your argument with your own qualifiers. The Defense of Marriage Act is one of those instances where the government regulates those contracts, and you thus invalidate your own justification which all the more strengthens my assertion. Degree of interest ranges from “this would be handy” to “I fear for the Republic, Obi Wan.” When it comes to repressing self-determination we need to be a bit closer to the latter. This has be expressed down thread several times.
Again, I ask why you should allow homosexuality on the basis of want while denying others that right. You mention that marrying someone under age is not legal, and therefore it is the qualifier. But neither is gay marriage legal, and yet it doesn't prevent you from trying to find some reason to exonerate it from legality. The Gov recognizes that children only read the bit in a contract about seeing spot run, therefore, not getting the gist of what it was that they were signing. The number of noncompliance suits was just enormous. The solution was “Age of Consent (informed consent) Doctrine”. Under what doctrine do we prevent Gays from getting married? Gay folk enter into other contract types without interference, so there isn’t a more general precept to work from. Gov and time have both established that there is no interest in recognizing the genders of the parties to the marriage contract. Maybe you are right, the Republic might fall if we allow Gays to marry, but at this point the burden of proof has shifted to you.
quote: No.
Can I get a little more information on that? Rrhain, bless him, has done it well a hundred times to no apparent end. The “Word to the Wise Doctrine” doesn't seem to be in effect this week.
In the meantime I will tell you why I personally believe it to be a win/win situation. Do you also call the moves on both sides of the checker board?
Yet, it [civil union] does not jeopardize the sanctity of the institution of marriage [; whereas, gay marriage does.] No one does not understand the fear of change. Aristophanes, exactly 6001 years ago today, complained about the vulgarity of youth regarding Hadrian’s pipers and had a wall built. They get over it.
Everybody wins this way. You really don't see that? Nobody wins that way. One in not a bigot because they get the willies when they see two men kissing. The number of gay men and women who get the willies seeing me kiss a woman is only exceeded by the number of straight women who do. Why do I always get teary-eyed when kissing a beautiful girl? It’s the mace. One becomes a bigot when on begins to contemplate controlling that behavior. Allowing gay marriage requires no action from the objectors.
Sorry about the crazy tangent. A bit of tit-for-tangent: My moral outlook is based on the axioms that all men are equal, there are only individual rights, and that fair has nothing to do with feelings. (Again, there’s more, but I like to keep it snappy.) If you don’t think that last one doesn’t get me in trouble with the simpleton left (did I just ask for it or what?) you’re sorely deluded.
If this too were a qualifier, then things like polygamy, prostitution and incest would not be illegal, so long as everyone is in agreement with the terms. And yet they all are illegal. Its kind of like this woman who requested to be murdered. Seriously. This actually happened. She requested it. Yet the man was jailed for obliging her wishes. I’m afraid I’d have to legalize prostitution and incest (among consenting adult). I just can’t see the actual harm. And my sister is, like, totally hot. Polygamy, on the other hand leads to an untenable situation in cases of divorce. It is not possible for a court to disentangle an emotionally charged situation ” property settlement is their standard , remember ” where part “A” wants to cleave only part “B”, but not part “C”. While part “B” wants to keep part “C”. And the guy on his rear . said, “Oh dear”. (Johnny Cash)
That's why when someone tells you to go [screw] yourself, you aren't going to take that as a term of endearment. But that one doesn’t take it as a good thing might very well indicate that words are flexible ” more so than we.
You don't need to be married to have a cosigner. Automatic cosigners are a lot more attractive.
All I am saying is there are consequences to any action we make . It is highly unlikely that there will be any fallout from gay marriage at all. But I could be wrong. Look what those pipers did to Scotland. Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar Kindly There is a spider by the water pipe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4166 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to Rrhain:
I do not want to speak for Rrhain, but WOW, Hoot Mon...what a complete gem of a response.
Hoot Mon writes: So you come up with a hypothetical situation to support your bigotry...how nice. Suppose Mr. and Mrs. Smith out in Iowa are sitting on their front porch and feeling very distraught about their son's recent announcement that he's gay and he wants to marry Clifford, the next door neighbor's son. You stop to help them out by telling them that they are immoral and have no good reason to feel that way. In fact, you tell them they ought to be ashamed of themselves for being so close-minded, selfish, and stupid. But, of course, you also got your own make-believe bullshit wrong. Christ, Hoot Mon, as it turns out, you can't even make up a valid excuse. See, here's you error. It doesn't matter how they (your fictitious parents) feel. It's what they do that makes them potentially problematic. You see, they have every right to feel distraught, if that's how the truly feel (who knows, Hoot Mon...maybe they're not actually bigoted homophobes like yourself, and would be quite accepting of their sons personal choices...but I digress). What would make them bigots would be something along the lines of what you, Catholic Scientist, and Nemesis Juggernaut want to do. Namely, trying to deny them their Constitutional rights.
Hoot Mon writes: You know, your constant use of the term "Hersey Highway" is really quite offensive. It's hard to accept you at your word of not being a homophobe when you repeatedly use this term? But, hey, you certainly have the right to use it...
"You better get your queer ass back on out that Hershey Highway, son, before I get out my pig sticker." Hoot Mon writes: But we're not talking about morals.
What right do you have to tell me what is moral and what is not?" Hoot Mon writes: More moral...what sort of crap is that? Look, this is about Constitution rights, not morality.
Rrhain, you need to explain why, in the case of "same-sex marriage," a minority can be more moral than a majority. Hoot Mon writes: I certainly don't want to speak for Rrhain, but what a complete pile of shit, Hoot Mon. You have to be acting this way on purpose just for the sake or argument. I mean, nobody can be this completely brain-dead and still function. Either that or you have not actually bothered to read anything that Rrhain has written. So far all we get from you are your passionate opinions. Which is it Hoot Mon? Have you read (and comprehended anything at all) that Rrhain has written, or are you functionally illiterate and apparently "running" on just your brain stem?
Hoot Mon writes: You're comparing Gravity with marriage? How strange. Why is it that your side always makes these bizarre comparisons. Sex with trees, sex with children, sex with animals...and now we're told that marriage and gravity are the same basic thing. If you could come down from your self-righteous perch and touch the ground of reality you would know that gravity and marriage are two things that most people regard as being purely NATURAL. And yet you suggest the Rrhain "touch the ground of reality" How strange.
Hoot Mon writes: Ha...you said "unit"...you must be a closest homosexual.
Gravity doesn't pull up and marriage doesn't unit two members of the same sex. Hoot Mon writes: Let's see...you get to define marriage as being between one man and one women, and then you get to claim it as evidence that to members of the same sex can't get married. And this seems like "emperical evidence" to you?
I've got a lot of empirical evidence on that to show you. Hoot Mon writes: Well, I guess so...if you ignore the numerous Constitutional citations (via SCOTUS and other Court rulings) the he (Rrhain) has provided for you...that apparently either you did not bother to read...or that you read, but are completely incapable of understanding...or you do understand them but just want to take a big ole dump on our Constitution. You got nuthin' but opinion. Why do you hate America so much?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5521 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
FO writes:
Your side of the argument most certainly is. Take a look at Message 410. Rrhain claims he's:
But we're not talking about morals. Morally correct. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What would make them bigots would be something along the lines of what you, Catholic Scientist, and Nemesis Juggernaut want to do. Namely, trying to deny them their Constitutional rights. I haven't tried to deny them Constitutional rights in two ways... First, I haven't done anything to deny them rightsSecond, they don't have a Constitutional right for what I am supposedly denying them in the first place. You're comparing Gravity with marriage? How strange. Why is it that your side always makes these bizarre comparisons. Sex with trees, sex with children, sex with animals...and now we're told that marriage and gravity are the same basic thing. Really? Then you guys are saying that gays are the same basic thing as black people. What a stupid thread this is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Really? Then you guys are saying that gays are the same basic thing as black people. No just treated the same way. Bigotry is the same no matter what group is being discriminated against solely buy perceived differences. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4166 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: So you do not support or agree in any way with DOMA? You have not yet voted for, nor will you ever vote for, any laws that limit marriage and/or redefine marriage as a union between one man and one women only, effectively denying the rights of homosexuals to marry whom the choose? You do support the rights of homosexuals to marry someone of the same sex? Funny, I did not get that impression from anything you wrote. My bad, sorry for the confusion.
I haven't tried to deny them Constitutional rights in two ways... First, I haven't done anything to deny them rights Catholic Scientist writes: Really? The Constitution doesn't apply to homosexuals...is that what you're saying here? The 9th and 14th Amendments are not applicable to homosexuals. Second, they don't have a Constitutional right for what I am supposedly denying them in the first place.Here are the 9th and 14th Amendments as read by most poeple I know, and with special yellow highlighted portions that apparently reflect how Catholic Scientist (and some others) see/read them.): Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Except for homosexuals. Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. 6. Except for Homosexuals. Ya know...I never noticed those last sentences before. Why did you wait so long to point this point this out to us, Catholic Scientist? Hell, you could have saved us from over 400 wasted postings.
Catholic Scientist writes: Well...actually...no...for the same reasons I mentioned numerous times to Hoot Mon. Please, go read Message 384 by me, and then for a somewhat more calm explanation, go ahead and read Message 386 by NoseyNed as well. Really? Then you guys are saying that gays are the same basic thing as black people. Why are you guys so seemingly incapable of reading and actually understanding what the words mean? Edited by FliesOnly, : To provide links to previous messages
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5521 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
bluescat48 writes:
Then I suppose men discriminate against women, and vice versa, in public restrooms. Bigotry is the same no matter what group is being discriminated against solely buy perceived differences. Really, bluescat, this bigotry/discrimination thing has gone too far. At our ages we ought to be more worried about discrimination against the elderly who wouldn't know a Hershey Highway from a hot fudge sundae. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
I am against discrimination of any group, all humans are of the same species, superficial differences shouldn't matter, all should be equal.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So you do not support or agree in any way with DOMA? You have not yet voted for, nor will you ever vote for, any laws that limit marriage and/or redefine marriage as a union between one man and one women only, effectively denying the rights of homosexuals to marry whom the choose? You do support the rights of homosexuals to marry someone of the same sex? Funny, I did not get that impression from anything you wrote. My bad, sorry for the confusion. No, I haven't voted for any laws that limit marriage. I think that DOMA defines marriage correctly, but I not as sure about the powers reserved to the state part. I do not support the right of right of homos to marry. That isn't active denial of a right though. I'm not doing anything to deny homos rights.
Really? The Constitution doesn't apply to homosexuals...is that what you're saying here? Nope. I'm saying that they don't have a Constitutional right to marriage within the same sex. The aren't excuded from anything that the 9th and 14th refer too. Marriage has limitations that apply to everyone.
Well...actually...no...for the same reasons I mentioned numerous times to Hoot Mon. Please, go read Message 384 by me, and then for a somewhat more calm explanation, go ahead and read Message 386 by NoseyNed as well. In a similiar way, NJ and HM's comparisons don't say that gays and gravity, or trees or whatever, are basically the same thing.
Why are you guys so seemingly incapable of reading and actually understanding what the words mean? I was wondering the same thing about you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024