Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8846 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2018 7:45 AM
256 online now:
jar, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle (6 members, 250 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 835,412 Year: 10,235/29,783 Month: 899/1,583 Week: 368/291 Day: 17/59 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
30313233
34
35Next
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2061 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 496 of 519 (474827)
07-11-2008 10:50 AM


quote:
I don’t think its homophobic discrimination. Marriage has always been between one man and one woman, that’s what it is. A guy can’t marry a toaster because it’s impossible. That isn’t discrimination against toastersexuals. Now, if some state wants to change their definition of marriage so that a guy can marry a toaster, then I don’t really care. But the Constitution doesn’t demand that all the other states have to allow toastersexual marriages as well.

of course its not, but calling people names makes them feel better, and i guess makes them feel like they have legitimized thier cause. seems rather funny those that preach tolerance are always the most intolerant of opposing views.

quote:
They’re not necessarily afraid of gays. What they feared was one state being forced to recognize the marriage from another.

that is why Missouri amended thier constitution. They didn't want voters in TAXachusetts to determine policy in Missouri, as they shouldn't.

Its called self determination.

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.



Grammar Police - the last ploy, when one has nothing left to say, other than attempt to further attack the opposition.
Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by FliesOnly, posted 07-11-2008 11:09 AM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 1977 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 497 of 519 (474829)
07-11-2008 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 495 by New Cat's Eye
07-11-2008 9:54 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:

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.

How is that possible? I need a bit more of an explanation here, Catholic Scientist. How can you both support and yet not support the same thing? It's like saying: "I support laws preventing murder, but I'm OK with it if someone murders someone else".

Catholic Scientist writes:

Except, they couldn’t. They needed legislation and/or judicial interpretation in order to get married.

Oh come on now...this is getting ridiculous. To say "they needed judicial interpretation" is pathetic. What this means, of course, is that once homosexuals decided to marry, their right to do so was challenged and States passed laws and amended Constitutions to forbid it. Of course, the "judicial interpretation" has pretty much consistently been that homosexuals do indeed have the right to marry a member of the same sex. The needed "judicial interpretation" to get back that which was improperly taken from them.

Catholic Scientist writes:

They’re not necessarily afraid of gays. What they feared was one state being forced to recognize the marriage from another.

And this makes them not homophobic how? If they did not fear homosexual marriage, then why did they fear having to recognize homosexual marriage. Seriously Catholic Scientists...you are amazing in your ability to contradict yourself in consecutive sentences and yet deny any sort of contradiction.

Catholic Scientist writes:

What it says now is the same as what it previously meant.

Bwa ha ha ha! I love that..."what it meant". Of course...not "what it said". They felt the need redefine marriage because it previously did specifically state "between one man and one women". So again, thanks for admitting (in your own, contradictory way) that I was correct.

Catholic Scientist writes:

Maybe by your interpretation but not by mine. Its up to the SCOTUS.

Well on this we finally agree.

Catholic Scientist writes:

You’re just misunderstanding me.

It's hard to understand you in any other way.

Catholic Scientist writes:

I have no desire to allow gay marriage.

Now I'm completely confused. Your OK with gay marriage, but you don't want to allow it. And there's no contradiction there...correct?

Catholic Scientist writes:

States wouldn’t be ignoring it.

Well, thus far the Courts seem to be disagreeing with you on this one.

Edited by FliesOnly, : No reason given.

Edited by FliesOnly, : typos


This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-11-2008 9:54 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-11-2008 11:35 AM FliesOnly has responded

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 1977 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 498 of 519 (474832)
07-11-2008 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 496 by Artemis Entreri
07-11-2008 10:50 AM


Artemis Entreri writes:

of course its not,...

I just asked my toaster to marry me. He didn't respond. So I then asked him to sign a marriage license and pre-nup. Again...no response.

How many times do we need to remind you of "consent". Christ, it's like dealing with a thread full of Leonard Shelbys. So enough already with the stupid comparison between homosexual sex and tree sex, child sex, animal sex, and now a new one...toaster sex.

Artemis Entreri writes:

Its called self determination.

And likely to eventually be called Unconstitutional.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-11-2008 10:50 AM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 500 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-11-2008 11:39 AM FliesOnly has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 499 of 519 (474833)
07-11-2008 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 497 by FliesOnly
07-11-2008 10:57 AM


How is that possible? I need a bit more of an explanation here, Catholic Scientist. How can you both support and yet not support the same thing? It's like saying: "I support laws preventing murder, but I'm OK with it if someone murders someone else".

Right. A person could consider murder something that should be illegal all the while having no moral opposition to it.

Bwa ha ha ha! I love that..."what it meant". Of course...not "what it said". They felt the need redefine marriage because it previously did specifically state "between one man and one women".

No, there never was an explicit definition of marriage before DOMA. They didn’t need a definition until people started trying to include things as marriages that weren’t marriage according to the implicit definition that was understood.

Catholic Scientist writes:

I have no desire to allow gay marriage.

Now I'm completely confused. Your OK with gay marriage, but you don't want to allow it. And there's no contradiction there...correct?

Right. I lack a desire to allow gay marriage and I also lack the care for whether or not they are allowed to marry.

Catholic Scientist writes:

States wouldn’t be ignoring it.

Well, thus far the Courts seem to be disagreeing with you on this one.

States courts, where it should be decided.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by FliesOnly, posted 07-11-2008 10:57 AM FliesOnly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 503 by FliesOnly, posted 07-11-2008 1:35 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 500 of 519 (474834)
07-11-2008 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 498 by FliesOnly
07-11-2008 11:09 AM


I just asked my toaster to marry me. He didn't respond. So I then asked him to sign a marriage license and pre-nup. Again...no response.
How many times do we need to remind you of "consent". Christ, it's like dealing with a thread full of Leonard Shelbys. So enough already with the stupid comparison between homosexual sex and tree sex, child sex, animal sex, and now a new one...toaster sex.

You failed to notice one of the premises...

quote:
Now, if some state wants to change their definition of marriage so that a guy can marry a toaster,

That change would have to be that consent is no longer required ;)

Artemis Entreri writes:

Its called self determination.

And likely to eventually be called Unconstitutional.

Hell, one day the libs will probably find the Constitution to be unconstitutional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by FliesOnly, posted 07-11-2008 11:09 AM FliesOnly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 501 by FliesOnly, posted 07-11-2008 1:12 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 1977 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 501 of 519 (474840)
07-11-2008 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 500 by New Cat's Eye
07-11-2008 11:39 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:

You failed to notice one of the premises...

No...the premise changes nothing. You guys still want to make the stupid comparison between homosexual sex and sex with trees, and kids, and animals, and now, apparently, toasters.

Catholic Scientist writes:

Hell, one day the libs will probably find the Constitution to be unconstitutional.

Blah, blah, blah...whatever. Yeah...us stupid whiny libs...sticking up for and defending our Constitution. Damn us to Hell, how dare we love our Country so much that we're willing to speak out when we disagree with discrimination based solely on sexual orientation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 500 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-11-2008 11:39 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 502 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-11-2008 1:31 PM FliesOnly has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 502 of 519 (474841)
07-11-2008 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 501 by FliesOnly
07-11-2008 1:12 PM


No...the premise changes nothing.

Other than making your response pointless.

You guys still want to make the stupid comparison between homosexual sex and sex with trees, and kids, and animals, and now, apparently, toasters.

Not in the slightest. It doesn't have anything to do with sex.

I'm making the comparison between different definitions of the word "marriage".

You guys are teh ones who run and cry anytime someone exposes the slippery slope of an ambiguous definition of the word "marriage" because, since there's no good response all you can do is slander your opponent by claiming that their comparing things that they aren't.

So basically, you want us to want to compare gay sex to ridiculous sex. Its too bad I wasn't.

Blah, blah, blah...whatever. Yeah...us stupid whiny libs...sticking up for and defending our Constitution. Damn us to Hell, how dare we love our Country so much that we're willing to speak out when we disagree with discrimination based solely on sexual orientation.

No, how dare you purposely wear your shit colored glasses and make everything out to be something its not just so you can vilify your opponents.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by FliesOnly, posted 07-11-2008 1:12 PM FliesOnly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 506 by FliesOnly, posted 07-11-2008 1:57 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 1977 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 503 of 519 (474842)
07-11-2008 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 499 by New Cat's Eye
07-11-2008 11:35 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:

Right. A person could consider murder something that should be illegal all the while having no moral opposition to it.

Then could not this person also consider murder something that could be legal? If they have no objection to it (as you claim you have no objection to homosexual marriage), then why not just allow murder and not worry about the law? If they have a reason for wanting to keep murder illegal (morally or otherwise), then your premise (as I understand it) fails.

Catholic Scientist writes:

They didn’t need a definition until people started trying to include things as marriages that weren’t marriage according to the implicit definition that was understood.

You keep saying this, but if it wasn't a legally binding definition then who gives a shit? Courts don't work off of "implicit definitions". Marriage only needed to be redefined once homophobic bigots decided that they had to prevent two guy from marrying each other. Seriously, if you don't give a shit if two guys marry each other, why do you feel any need whatsoever to support DOMA and/or State laws preventing homosexual marriage?

Catholic Scientist writes:

Right. I lack a desire to allow gay marriage and I also lack the care for whether or not they are allowed to marry.

First off, I don't believe you...but hey, what do I know...we only "know" each other via this forum. It's just that based on other stuff you have said, I have a hard time accepting that you truly are not bothered by homosexual marriage. And I also must ask...why are you even in this thread then?

Catholic Scientist writes:

States courts, where it should be decided.

But aren't most of these decision based in Federal precedents...many from SCOTUS. Wouldn't this mean, therefore, that their decision are often primarily based on the U.S. Constitution?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-11-2008 11:35 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2061 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 504 of 519 (474843)
07-11-2008 1:39 PM


It's hard to understand you in any other way.

I understand what catholic scientist it typing. our only difference is im not going to call him names and make generalized character assumptions when i do not understand.

How is that possible? I need a bit more of an explanation here, Catholic Scientist. How can you both support and yet not support the same thing? It's like saying: "I support laws preventing murder, but I'm OK with it if someone murders someone else".

because you are looking at the wrong things, and all hung up about the homosexual marriage part of it. that is not the big deal of it. the big deal is allowing states to recogninze or not recognize the full faith and credit clause of Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution. It alows the states to determin thier own stance on this issue. by not caring about the homosexual marriages in CA, or MA, but not supporting it in IL, or MO you can not care about an issue in other states while not wanting it in your state. I realize this might be hard for Socialists to understand, but please try and think outside of your box.
Its about States' Rights.

this is how i see it, how about you Catholic Scientist, am i close?

And this makes them not homophobic how? If they did not fear homosexual marriage, then why did they fear having to recognize homosexual marriage. Seriously Catholic Scientists...you are amazing in your ability to contradict yourself in consecutive sentences and yet deny any sort of contradiction.

i think i just explained this.

what is amazing is your lack of ability to understand other views without labeling them in a very negative light, while saying you are about tolerance.

And likely to eventually be called Unconstitutional.

like the declaration of independance (a valid document of self determination)

Blah, blah, blah...whatever. Yeah...us stupid whiny libs...sticking up for and defending our Constitution. Damn us to Hell,

those are your words not mine
Replies to this message:
 Message 508 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-11-2008 2:33 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 510 by lyx2no, posted 07-11-2008 5:13 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2061 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 505 of 519 (474845)
07-11-2008 1:52 PM


No, how dare you purposely wear your shit colored glasses and make everything out to be something its not just so you can vilify your opponents.

d00d its in the liberal handbook. when you cant reason or have a lack of logic to think about a specific issue, then just slander and vilify your opponet to show how much you care and they dont. go off topic on purpose, and change the subject over and over again. its a common tactic of the left.

Im here for states rights, and minding your own business in your own locallity. self determination. I can care less what the laws are in California, I dont go there, and I wont live. they can legalize what ever they want and do thier own thing, as long as they dont make laws that effect me, we're cool (and im not going to vote on laws for them, its none of my business). Since its hard to argue with liberty and self determination in the United States, the only thing the socialist left has is to slander us, our opinoins, and perform character assassinations on us. they have no other substance other than that.

And I also must ask...why are you even in this thread then?

Its still really funny to read thier posts though and try and wrap your mind around the crazy talk, thats why I'm here. Also to clear our names though, this is always met with more slander, you can actually meet other people who are fans of similar philosphies to your own.


Replies to this message:
 Message 507 by FliesOnly, posted 07-11-2008 2:01 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded
 Message 511 by subbie, posted 07-11-2008 5:34 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 1977 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 506 of 519 (474846)
07-11-2008 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 502 by New Cat's Eye
07-11-2008 1:31 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

I'm making the comparison between different definitions of the word "marriage".

Bullshit. Why would someone want to marry a fucking toaster? It's a stupid, meaningless comparison, just like all the times we read how you guys all think that this slippery slope is obviously gonna lead to some guy that's
gonna wanna marry a tree...or their child....or a sheep...or whatever. And it still comes down to consent. The day you can get a fucking tree to either verbally agree to the marriage or to sign a consent form, then we can start worrying about your stupid slippery slope. Until then, lets try to keep this discussion based in reality.

Catholic Scientist writes:

So basically, you want us to want to compare gay sex to ridiculous sex. Its too bad I wasn't.

Well, if you would bother to look back over the last 1000 posts or so, you would see that quite the opposite is true. We actually would greatly appreciate it, and would like nothing more than, if you guys to stop making these stupid comparisons.

Blah, blah, blah...whatever. Yeah...us stupid whiny libs...sticking up for and defending our Constitution. Damn us to Hell, how dare we love our Country so much that we're willing to speak out when we disagree with discrimination based solely on sexual orientation.
Catholic Scientist writes:

No, how dare you purposely wear your shit colored glasses and make everything out to be something its not just so you can vilify your opponents.

If my glasses are shit colored, it's only because I've been buried up over my head by your bullshit. For Christ sake, Catholic Scientist...what the hell are laws preventing two guys from marrying each other based on if they're not based on their sexual orientation? Height? Hair Color? How they dress? What? What are laws preventing two guys from marrying each other based upon?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-11-2008 1:31 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 509 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-11-2008 2:43 PM FliesOnly has not yet responded

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 1977 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 507 of 519 (474848)
07-11-2008 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 505 by Artemis Entreri
07-11-2008 1:52 PM


Artemis Entreri writes:

d00d its in the liberal handbook. when you cant reason or have a lack of logic to think about a specific issue, then just slander and vilify your opponet to show how much you care and they dont. go off topic on purpose, and change the subject over and over again. its a common tactic of the left.

This may now be the funniest thing I have ever read on this site. Seriously, Artemis, this is destined to become a classic. Wow!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 505 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-11-2008 1:52 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 508 of 519 (474849)
07-11-2008 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by Artemis Entreri
07-11-2008 1:39 PM


because you are looking at the wrong things, and all hung up about the homosexual marriage part of it. that is not the big deal of it. the big deal is allowing states to recogninze or not recognize the full faith and credit clause of Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution. It alows the states to determin thier own stance on this issue. by not caring about the homosexual marriages in CA, or MA, but not supporting it in IL, or MO you can not care about an issue in other states while not wanting it in your state. I realize this might be hard for Socialists to understand, but please try and think outside of your box.
Its about States' Rights.

this is how i see it, how about you Catholic Scientist, am i close?

Yes, real close. I was sorta comming at it from a different angle though.

People were trying to say that the Constitution grants gays a right to gay marriages and to disallow them it is unconstitutional so therefore gay marriage must be allowed.

I think that is bullshit.

So since I was arguing against gay marriage, I was a "fucking homophobic bigot", when the core of the issue isn't really even the gayness.

Plus, I think that marriage has always been understood to be between one man and one woman. That's just what it is. It was never explicitly defined because people knew what it meant So, I think DOMA isn't a bad law because of is accuracy in defining. Also, the second part of it that allow states their right's is just a good thing in general. I'd hate for the people in California and New York to run the Midwest too.

So there you have it, the opinion of a "fucking homophobic bigot". And I don't even fear or hate gays!

They've pretty much turned "bigot" into a meaningless word. Well, it could just mean a person who disagrees with a liberal :D

what is amazing is your lack of ability to understand other views without labeling them in a very negative light, while saying you are about tolerance.

I can understand that in order to be tolerant, then you have to be intolerant of intolerance, but the libs are so quick to jump on people for having even a slight variance from their own status quo that they, themselves, are exemplifying the same behavior they oppose. I think there's a word for that....... hypocracy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-11-2008 1:39 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 509 of 519 (474850)
07-11-2008 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 506 by FliesOnly
07-11-2008 1:57 PM


Bullshit. Why would someone want to marry a fucking toaster? It's a stupid, meaningless comparison,

The point is that the definition of "marriage" needs to tight. It can't be a general definiton like "a contract between people" because it opens up the 1000+ laws that mention the word marriage to exploitation. 'Consent' needs to be in there, 'adult' needs to be in there, 'one' person needs to be in there.

My argument was that sense the 1000+ laws were written with the understanding that marriage was between one man and one woman, then that is the way that marriage should be explicitly defined when the need for the explicit definition arrose.

Alos, if somebody found a way to personal gain from marrying a toaster, I don't doubt that they would do it.

Well, if you would bother to look back over the last 1000 posts or so, you would see that quite the opposite is true. We actually would greatly appreciate it, and would like nothing more than, if you guys to stop making these stupid comparisons.

Yeah, but yall are saying that people are comparing things that they're not (in an effort to slander and villify them).

what the hell are laws preventing two guys from marrying each other based on if they're not based on their sexual orientation? Height? Hair Color? How they dress? What? What are laws preventing two guys from marrying each other based upon?

They are based on what marriage actually is. Its not about sexual orientation at all. It dosen't matter if they are hetero, homo, bi, or tostersexual, marriage is between one man and one woman. Period.

Now, people could certainly change the definition of marriage if they want too. And that should be done on a state by state basis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by FliesOnly, posted 07-11-2008 1:57 PM FliesOnly has not yet responded

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2549 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 510 of 519 (474857)
07-11-2008 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by Artemis Entreri
07-11-2008 1:39 PM


14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
quote:
Section 1. … 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.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Artemis Entreri writes:

the big deal is allowing states to recogninze or not recognize the full faith and credit clause of Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution.

Full Faith and Credit does not apply to essential freedoms. And the States themselves agreed to this when passing the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

Everyone deserves a neatly dug grave. It is the timing that's in dispute.

牛持ちでない方は、男です。


This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-11-2008 1:39 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
30313233
34
35Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018