|
Author
|
Topic: Boy shuns Pledge of Allegiance for Gay Rights
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 150 of 234 (538173)
12-04-2009 10:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 147 by iano
12-04-2009 4:28 AM
|
|
Re: Childrens rights
Will permitting adoption of orphans by single people lead to the 'market' response outlined previously? I don't think so: a single woman can already provide her own child and remain single without the need to adopt. Lesbians can get pregnant to. And gay men CAN have sex with women.
Will permitting adoption of orphans by aged couples lead to the market response outlined? I don't think so: how can a market producing non-biologically connected kids for aged couples arise when a supply of 'free' non-biologically connected kids already exists (orphans). Sure there will be abuse (an aged couple decides they want a designer-child and go to the black market) but that's a separate issue for society to deal with. What's this whole "market" thing your talking about. I don't think I understand what your getting at. Can you expound a bit? ABE It seems from Message 151 that your problem is with an increase in surrogacy? Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 147 by iano, posted 12-04-2009 4:28 AM | | iano has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 166 by Rrhain, posted 12-12-2009 5:04 AM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Equality for gays is long overdue
Once upon a time, women were treated as sub-humans, not protected by the same laws as men, and ill-treated without consequence. That time is gone for the most part. Once upon a time, slaves were kept, treated as sub-humans, not protected by the same laws as non-slaves, and ill-treated without consequence. That time is gone for the most part. Once upon a time... blacks... Once upon a time... homosexuals. How can anyone not see the correlation? I think a big difference, that other people see, that you're missing is in the perceived choice to be homosexual and the lack of choice in race and gender. (for the record though, I doubt its a choice)
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Equality for gays is long overdue
A good point, but even if it (being homosexual) is a choice, how is it any different from choosing to be a vegetarian, or a creationist, or any of the other million lifestyle choices we make? It wouldn't be different, and funny you should mention vegetarians because that is the group I was going to use to further my point with an example, but I didn't.
These choices inevitably separate us into sub-groups, but these sub-groups are meant to be equal in the eyes of the law aren't they? No, not at all, me thinks. McDonalds doesn't have to be serving of vegetarians but they do for women, or blacks. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 173 by Briterican, posted 01-11-2010 3:15 PM | | Briterican has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 176 by Rahvin, posted 01-11-2010 5:06 PM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 177 of 234 (542665)
01-11-2010 5:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 176 by Rahvin
01-11-2010 5:06 PM
|
|
Re: Equality for gays is long overdue
McDonalds doesn't have to be serving of vegetarians but they do for women, or blacks.
Indeed. Yet McDonalds is not the State. But they can't refrain from serving blacks.... Nor are they a private organization.
Private organizations are able to discriminate. I understand that.
But the State does need to issue the marriage certificate for all of those couples. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Currently, marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman (i.e. DOMA). I don't see how that, as defined, must be applied to teh gays. And I've seen the arguments with the 9th and 14th amendments and discrimination and all that already. I don't think we need to re-hash them again. I think I'm gonna wait until the courts descide before I say what the State must do.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 176 by Rahvin, posted 01-11-2010 5:06 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 182 by Rrhain, posted 01-12-2010 8:59 AM | | New Cat's Eye has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 198 of 234 (542850)
01-13-2010 11:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 182 by Rrhain
01-12-2010 8:59 AM
|
|
"Currently, marriage is defined as a union between people of the same race. I don't see how that, as defined, must be applied to interracial couples." If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? Race =/= sexual orientation... Race is immutable while sexual orientation is not. And also, the Racial Integrity Act didn't define marriage, and it didn't say that people had to be of the same race, so its not the same argument at all. You can't have gays married with the current definition of marriage.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 182 by Rrhain, posted 01-12-2010 8:59 AM | | Rrhain has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Where does that exclude homosexuals? Maybe in the religious definition of "marriage" or the biblical term, but not the term in general. Maybe not "in general", but I was refering to the legal definition:
quote:
2.The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.
DOMA
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
People always bring up Loving v. Virginia and how they struck down the Racial Integrity Act as discriminatory according to the 14th amendment as an argument that DOMA is also discriminatory according to the 14th amendment. But the RIA made it illegal for whites to marry non-whites, which is clearly discriminatory. Define marriage as between one man and one woman does not necessarily discriminate and is applied to everyone equally. We could come up with something else, say Contract X, that can only be made between people of the same eye color and that wouldn't be discriminatory either. Its just defining the terms of the contract, and it applies to everyone the same.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 205 of 234 (542861)
01-13-2010 11:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 203 by Rahvin
01-13-2010 11:47 AM
|
|
Race =/= sexual orientation... Race is immutable while sexual orientation is not. Evidence? Do you actually believe that the "pray the gay away" nonsense is true? I wasn't thinking of the "pray the gay away"... I knew a girl in highschool who dumped my good friend and became a lesbian. She moved in with her girlfriend and they we're in love and the whole deal. Now she's married to some other guy and has 2 kids.
Note that religion is definitely able to be changed, and yet it's not legal to bar a couple from marrying simply because their religious beliefs are different. If a contract was created, lets call it "Best Friends", and it was defined so that you could only be Best Friends with someone who has the same religion as yourself, then I don't see that as discriminating against anyone.
it specifically excludes a subset of the population from equal treatment under the law But the law is not treating anyone differently, it applies equally to all.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 203 by Rahvin, posted 01-13-2010 11:47 AM | | Rahvin has replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 207 of 234 (542863)
01-13-2010 12:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 204 by PaulK
01-13-2010 11:48 AM
|
|
Your major point seems to be that the opponents of gay marriage managed to pass a law enforcing their preference. Is your point purely a legal technicality (since a bad law was passed it needs to be repealed first) or are you suggesting that it means anything more ? Yeah, it was just a minor technicality. As marriage is currently defined, the state doesn't have to issue marriages to the gays.
quote:
But the State does need to issue the marriage certificate for all of those couples. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Currently, marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman (i.e. DOMA). I don't see how that, as defined, must be applied to teh gays. And I've seen the arguments with the 9th and 14th amendments and discrimination and all that already. I don't think we need to re-hash them again. I think I'm gonna wait until the courts descide before I say what the State must do.
DOMA could be done away with and marriage could be defined as between any two people and then it would have to be given to the gays. But not right now. We'll have to see what the courts decide.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 204 by PaulK, posted 01-13-2010 11:48 AM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 211 of 234 (542873)
01-13-2010 12:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 209 by Rahvin
01-13-2010 12:10 PM
|
|
From Message 208:
The miscegenation laws struck down in Loving v. Virginia were the same thing. No they weren't. They specifically outlawed certain marriages based on race. DOMA doesn't do it like that.
The Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that the State has no compelling interest in restricting which consenting adults may or may not be married, and that the choice of whom to marry is reserved exclusively for the individuals. Homosexuals are being denied the right to marry the person of their choice by the State for no compelling reason at all. Even if it were granted that the application of the Loving v. Virginia decision to homosexuals were flimsy (and it's not), the State still has no compelling interest to deny gays the right to marry the partner of their choice. At all. None. Zip. Zilch. That's fine. I'm not arguing that we can't allow gays to marry or even that we shouldn't allow it. And for the record, I don't care if they do. My point earlier was that its too early to say what the state must do and that the current definition of marriage doesn't allow for gay marriages. From Message 209:
...so you're telling me you've never heard of bisexuality? She went full-fledged lesbian. Its apparent to me that poeple's sexual orientation can change.
The definition itself is discriminatory on religious grounds. How so? Who would be discriminated against?
You may as well say that identifying a drinking fountain as the "black drinking fountain" isn't discriminatory because of the definition of the "black drinking fountain." No, that is clearly discriminating against balck people.
That exact same argument was used in Loving v. Virginia, CS. It was wrong and bigoted then. It still is now.
Except that the RIA was not equally applied to all. It differed between whites and non-whites.
We've had a lot of gay marriage threads and I'd rather not go through all the same old arguments again and I'm gonna be busy after lunch so there might not be much more for me on this in this thread.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 209 by Rahvin, posted 01-13-2010 12:10 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
From Message 206:
On what grounds to they determine that it is only between a man and a woman? There's over 1000 laws that contain the word marriage and the term needs to be defined. From Message 210:
But the law is not treating anyone differently, it applies equally to all.
Unless you happen to be the group it DOES apply to. Like the same sex couples who want to get married. This law has absolutely no bearing on *straight* couples. So, no, it does not apply equally to all. Unless by all, you mean all homo-sexuals? Straight people are not allowed to marry people the same sex either, and gay people are not prohibited from marry people of a differnt sex. The law does apply equally to everyone.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
From Message 213:
CS writes: They specifically outlawed certain marriages based on race hooah212002's reinterpretation writes: They specifically outlawed certain marriages based on sexual orientation See how that works?
Not really... DOMA doesn't specifically outlaw any marriages.
She went full-fledged lesbian. Its apparent to me that poeple's sexual orientation can change. Really? Here, in Message 205, you say:
I knew a girl in highschool who dumped my good friend and became a lesbian. She moved in with her girlfriend and they we're in love and the whole deal. Now she's married to some other guy and has 2 kids. how is she a "full fledged lesbian" if she is now married? Sounds like an experiment to me. I guess I'll have to take her word for it. Lets not go down the No True Scotsman route. From Message 214:
Yes, because you know how many straight people who wish to marry someone of the same sex? I was riding my dirtbike with a buddy who didn't have health insurance and we thought that if same sex marriages were allowed then we could get married so he could get on my health insurance plan at work. I'd bet there's some evil business men who are thinking of ways they could use marriage to unite businesses to make more money or something, kinda like kings used to use it to unite territories. Hell, there was even a movie about it.
Then they wouldnt exactly be defined as being "straight" would they? Of course they would. But that makes me wonder about consummation... Aren't they laws about that too?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 214 by hooah212002, posted 01-13-2010 12:42 PM | | hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 217 of 234 (542883)
01-13-2010 1:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 215 by Rahvin
01-13-2010 12:50 PM
|
|
It sounds to me like CS's friend is just biexual,and feels sexually attracted to members of both genders. I think CS just associates someone in a monogamous relationship with a person of the opposite sex as "purely heterosexual," and a person in a monogamous relationship with a person of teh same gender as "purely gay." No, not really. I'm just going by what she said, and that was that she was a lesbian, not bi-sexual. But who know... maybe she even didn't.
The question CS is dodging (poorly) is whether the actual orientation of a person is a choice. That's not the question. The question the court will be addressing is:
quote:
Can sexual orientation change?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 215 by Rahvin, posted 01-13-2010 12:50 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Hello Species. First post, eh.... Welcome to EvC. its kick-ass.
Funny that you and I both had the same thought. I was ice skating with my best friend and enjoying our last night together before we had to split and go back to our schools when we both thought of getting married after we both graduate to reap the rewards of tax benefits. When we were living together as undergrads, we were already acting like we were married. People often express their surprise that we're not dating and have never even dated. Why didn't you get married?
I don't have to marry another guy to do this. I could simply do it with my friend (a gal). Of course.
quote:
I'd bet there's some evil business men who are thinking of ways they could use marriage to unite businesses to make more money or something, kinda like kings used to use it to unite territories.
I'm sorry, how is this an argument against gay marriage? Its not. Have you read back through the thread for the context? I was replying to a comment that implied that straight people wouldn't have any reason to marry someone of the same sex with examples of why they might.
Why is this even an issue? I'm having a hard time understanding why this question needed to be addressed at all. I'm not sure. Anybody know?
Nowadays, Afro-Americans (for the purposes of being PC, I will call them black people from now on) do have a choice to change their skin color to white. Ahem Michael Jackson cough cough. Race is more than skin color. And one freak example of an exception to a rule doesn't mean the rule doesn't stand.
And since it was traditional since long before this country was founded that marriage was between a man and a woman of the same race, perhaps we should change back to the good old days when it was criminal to marry someone outside your own race? That was never criminal. The RIA only criminalized marriages between whites and non-whites. Browns could still marry yellows... But the RIA was found to be unconstitutional anyways.
There are alternative ways to say something without actually saying it. For example, I could say everyone but the guy whose user name is Catholic Scientist with an avatar of someone on a bike is not a twit. At this point, you might say "hey, why did you just call me a twit?" But if you look again, I didn't actually spell out you were a twit. That's correct. And the wording of laws is even more important.
By your logic, black people weren't discriminated against during segregation because white people couldn't drink out of black people's fountains, white kids had to go to white schools, etc. which meant everyone was treated equally. I'm not following the logic. Laws based on race are a violation of the 14th amendment. Having a drinking fountain that a black couldn't drink out of would be discriminatory.
I see you've edited you post with more content. Allow me to reply to that before you reply to this so we don't cross-post. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
™ Version 4.2