Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Boy shuns Pledge of Allegiance for Gay Rights
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 196 of 234 (542831)
01-13-2010 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Stile
01-11-2010 1:42 PM


Re: To the supreme court! One day... maybe...
I don't, specifically, see how the Judge's focal points come down on the larger issue (Pizer quote). Do I just not speak legaleze very well? Or is this court already not really looking at the important aspects?
Well, the fundie clowns are going to try to pretend that there's a legitimate secular purpose behind banning gay marriage, rather than admitting that they're driven solely by hatred of their neighbor and a desire to appease the imaginary wrath of their imaginary god. They have to. They can't just come out and say: "the pursuit of happiness be damned, my imaginary friend really hates fags."
I predict that their perjury on this subject will make Kitzmiller v. Dover look like a truth-telling contest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Stile, posted 01-11-2010 1:42 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Stile, posted 01-13-2010 7:36 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 197 of 234 (542835)
01-13-2010 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by Dr Adequate
01-13-2010 7:14 AM


Re: To the supreme court! One day... maybe...
Dr Adequate writes:
I predict that their perjury on this subject will make Kitzmiller v. Dover look like a truth-telling contest.
I'm actually kinda looking forward to reading through the eventual judge's decision (likely 150+ pages) and see how many times the judge has to make up some politically correct way to say "these people are retarded."
The Kitzmiller/Dover decision had me laughing pretty good

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-13-2010 7:14 AM Dr Adequate has not 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

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by hooah212002, posted 01-13-2010 11:19 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 203 by Rahvin, posted 01-13-2010 11:47 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 204 by PaulK, posted 01-13-2010 11:48 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 222 by Rrhain, posted 01-14-2010 3:06 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 224 by anglagard, posted 01-14-2010 3:16 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 199 of 234 (542852)
01-13-2010 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by New Cat's Eye
01-13-2010 11:11 AM


You can't have gays married with the current definition of marriage.
I beg to differ:
Definition of marriage
marriage[ mrrij ]marriages Plural
NOUN
1. legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners
2. specific marriage relationship: a married relationship between two people, or a somebody's relationship with his or her spouse
"They have a happy marriage."
3. joining in wedlock: the joining together in wedlock of two people
4. marriage ceremony: the ceremony in which two people are joined together formally in wedlock
5. union of two things: a close union, blend, or mixture of two things
"Civilization is based on the marriage of tradition and innovation."
6. card games king and queen of same suit: in card games such as pinochle and bezique, a combination of the king and queen of the same suit
[ 13th century. < French mariage < marier (see marry) ]
Where does that exclude homosexuals? Maybe in the religious definition of "marriage" or the biblical term, but not the term in general.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-13-2010 11:11 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-13-2010 11:22 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 234 (542853)
01-13-2010 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by hooah212002
01-13-2010 11:19 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by hooah212002, posted 01-13-2010 11:19 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by hooah212002, posted 01-13-2010 11:26 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 223 by Rrhain, posted 01-14-2010 3:10 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 201 of 234 (542854)
01-13-2010 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by New Cat's Eye
01-13-2010 11:22 AM


Touche'. I didn't even know that existed.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-13-2010 11:22 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-13-2010 11:45 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 234 (542855)
01-13-2010 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by hooah212002
01-13-2010 11:26 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by hooah212002, posted 01-13-2010 11:26 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by hooah212002, posted 01-13-2010 12:02 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 208 by Rahvin, posted 01-13-2010 12:05 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 225 by Rrhain, posted 01-14-2010 3:34 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 203 of 234 (542856)
01-13-2010 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by New Cat's Eye
01-13-2010 11:11 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?
Would you be able to make yourself attracted to men instead of women if you tried really hard? Was there a morning you woke up and "decided" that you'd be sexually attracted to the opposite gender instead of the same?
Modern psychology sees sexual orientation as an intrinsic part of personal identity.
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.
Also worthy of note: DOMA has not yet been challenged in court, simply because until very recently there were no couples who had grounds to sue over it. DOMA itself is similar to Prop 8 in that it specifically excludes a subset of the population from equal treatment under the law...except that equal treatment is part of the Constitution, and so overrides DOMA. I expect the Prop 8 case to be a litmus test on how to expect an eventual DOMA lawsuit to turn out. If it ever gets that far - there are congresscritters who want to repeal DOMA, which would make court cases moot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-13-2010 11:11 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-13-2010 11:59 AM Rahvin has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 204 of 234 (542857)
01-13-2010 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by New Cat's Eye
01-13-2010 11:11 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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-13-2010 11:11 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-13-2010 12:03 PM PaulK has not replied

  
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Rahvin, posted 01-13-2010 12:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 210 by hooah212002, posted 01-13-2010 12:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 226 by Rrhain, posted 01-14-2010 3:42 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 206 of 234 (542862)
01-13-2010 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by New Cat's Eye
01-13-2010 11:45 AM


Reading further on in the Wikipedia article you provided, it appears that this particular act/bill has been deemed to be unconstitutional, but no judge has wanted to see it in court.
Just by reading the first 3 lines, I deemed it unconstitutional. for the government to redefine marriage? On what grounds to they determine that it is only between a man and a woman?

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-13-2010 11:45 AM New Cat's Eye has not 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

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 208 of 234 (542865)
01-13-2010 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by New Cat's Eye
01-13-2010 11:45 AM


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.
CS, you're smarter than that.
The miscegenation laws struck down in Loving v. Virginia were the same thing. Granted, a Hispanic person could marry a black person but not a Caucasian; however, everyone was able to marry within the confines of the law - blacks could marry, as long as their chosen partner was not white.
So too with gay marriage - under Prop h8, everyone is able to get married...as long as their chosen partner is not of the same gender.
Look at the decision for Loving v. Virginia.
quote:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Tell me that doesn't carry direct parallels to the issue of homosexual marriage today.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-13-2010 11:45 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 209 of 234 (542868)
01-13-2010 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by New Cat's Eye
01-13-2010 11:59 AM


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.
...so you're telling me you've never heard of bisexuality?
CS, some people are sexually attracted to people of the opposite gender. SOme are attracted to people of the same gender. Some people are attracted to both genders.
The question is whether that actual orientation can be changed. I am not sexually attracted to men. Do you think that's somehow a "choice" on my part?
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.
Then you're an idiot, CS. The definition itself is discriminatory on religious grounds. 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."
But the law is not treating anyone differently, it applies equally to all.
That exact same argument was used in Loving v. Virginia, CS. It was wrong and bigoted then. It still is now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-13-2010 11:59 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-13-2010 12:27 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 210 of 234 (542872)
01-13-2010 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by New Cat's Eye
01-13-2010 11:59 AM


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?

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-13-2010 11:59 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-13-2010 12:31 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024