|
Author
|
Topic: Boy shuns Pledge of Allegiance for Gay Rights
|
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.
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 820 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
Lewt me rephrase this for you:
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?
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.
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
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 215 by Rahvin, posted 01-13-2010 12:50 PM | | hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied |
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 820 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
Straight people are not allowed to marry people the same sex either... Yes, because you know how many straight people who wish to marry someone of the same sex? I didn't think so. Then they wouldnt exactly be defined as being "straight" would they? I certainly hope this is your attempt at playing devils advocate......
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
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 216 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-13-2010 1:04 PM | | hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4039 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.0
|
how is she a "full fledged lesbian" if she is now married? Sounds like an experiment to me. 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." I have known and dated several girls who have had exclusive relationships with other women. Bisexuality doesn't just mean "has sex with everybody." A person who is attracted to both genders is still bisexual even while they're in a monogamous relationship with an individual. The question CS is dodging (poorly) is whether the actual orientation of a person is a choice. I never decided whether I would be attracted to men, women, or both. I don;t know anyone who has ever made that choice, and I wager that CS has never met anyone who has either.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 213 by hooah212002, posted 01-13-2010 12:35 PM | | hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied |
|
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 |
|
Species8472
Junior Member (Idle past 4901 days) Posts: 29 Joined: 01-13-2010
|
quote:
Catholic Scientist writes 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.
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. I don't have to marry another guy to do this. I could simply do it with my friend (a gal).
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? If kings and queens did it in the past, and I'm pretty sure evil business men and women do it nowadays, wouldn't this be an argument against straight marriage?
quote:
That's not the question. The question the court will be addressing is: quote:Can sexual orientation change?
Why is this even an issue? I'm having a hard time understanding why this question needed to be addressed at all. 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. 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?
quote:
Not really... DOMA doesn't specifically outlaw any marriages.
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.
quote:
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.
Wow, someone on this forum actually uses this argument. I honestly thought I would only see this type of argument on a forum like teens4christ and other immature fundamentalist websites. 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. Edited by Species8472, : No reason given. Edited by Species8472, : No reason given. Edited by Species8472, : No reason given.
|
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.
|
Species8472
Junior Member (Idle past 4901 days) Posts: 29 Joined: 01-13-2010
|
quote:
Catholic Scientist writes 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.
Too late 
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
Race is immutable while sexual orientation is not.
Then perhaps you can be the first person to bring forth of an example of someone who has changed his sexual orientation because all the people who have been looking for this person have been unable to find him. Exodus would love to be able to find this person because so far, all of their poster children from their founders to their literal poster boy keep on having their sexuality rebel against the "cure" they're peddling. We're back to the questions you didn't answer the last time you tried to make this claim: What sort of man turns you on? Since you're the one claiming that your sexuality can change, then surely you have a type. Is it the big, hairy bears or do you go for the twinks? What kind of man gets you hard and aching to bend over and let him do things to you that you'd never admit to anybody else? What is your temptation that would make you abandon women and start pleasuring a man over and over, that you would want him to do the same to you, and that would have you consider spending the rest of your life with him? Time to put your money where your mouth is. What would it take to turn you gay? Be specific.
quote:
And also, the Racial Integrity Act didn't define marriage, and it didn't say that people had to be of the same race
Ah, yes...because we can't find a specific word, then clearly there is no actual meaning there. One wonders why there is even a court system because laws are self-explanatory. Your assessment is not shared by the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court.
Other central provisions in the Virginia statutory scheme are 20-57, which automatically voids all marriages between "a white person and a colored person" without any judicial proceeding, and 20-54 and 1-14 which, [388 U.S. 1, 5] respectively, define "white persons" and "colored persons and Indians" for purposes of the statutory prohibitions. The Lovings have never disputed in the course of this litigation that Mrs. Loving is a "colored person" or that Mr. Loving is a "white person" within the meanings given those terms by the Virginia statutes. [388 U.S. 1, 6] Virginia is now one of 16 States which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications. Penalties for miscegenation arose as an incident to slavery and have been common in Virginia since the colonial period. The present statutory scheme dates from the adoption of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, passed during the period of extreme nativism which followed the end of the First World War. The central features of this Act, and current Virginia law, are the absolute prohibition of a "white person" marrying other than another "white person," a prohibition against issuing marriage licenses until the issuing official is satisfied that [388 U.S. 1, 7] the applicants' statements as to their race are correct, certificates of "racial composition" to be kept by both local and state registrars, and the carrying forward of earlier prohibitions against racial intermarriage. In their decision, they pointed out the justification cited by the Virginia Appleas Court:
In Naim, the state court concluded that the State's legitimate purposes were "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens," and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride," obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy. Id., at 90, 87 S. E. 2d, at 756. When even the Virginia court system thinks that their statutes were about defining marriage on the basis of race, what justification do you provide to show that they were wrong and clearly didn't understand their own laws? Are you saying they were wrong? Of course, there's the simple fact that you clearly haven't read the Virginia statute in question (Section 20-59 of the Virigina Code):
Section 20-58: Leaving State to evade law. If any white person and colored person shall go out of this State, for the purpose of being married, and with the intention of returning, and be married out of it, and afterwards return to and reside in it, cohabiting as man and wife, they shall be punished as provided in 20-59, and the marriage shall be governed by the same law as if it had been solemnized in this State. The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage. Section 20-59: Punishment for marriage. If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years. This idea that you have that marriage wasn't defined by race in the Virginia Code is laughable at best. The fact that law did not string the specific words of "Marriage is defined as between people of the same race" in that particular order doesn't mean that the law didn't do exactly that. But more specifically, is your argument that Loving v. Virginia was incorrectly decided? I have asked you this question multiple times and you duck it every single time. I do not ask it for my health. I truly want to hear your answer: Was Loving v. Virginia wrongly decided? Scalia thinks so, so let's hear your answer.
quote:
You can't have gays married with the current definition of marriage.
And you couldn't have interracial couples married with the then definition of marriage. So has the Supreme Court been routinely getting it wrong in their multiple declarations of marriage being a fundamental right? It isn't just Loving v. Virginia, you know. There are plenty of cases where the Supreme Court has pointed out that marriage cannot be denied to citizens from those precious "immutable" characteristics of yours to the disdained "chosen" ones you denigrate. Zablocki v. Redhail said even those who haven't paid child support can't be denied marriage, for example. So please, do explain why it is that in a world where marriage is considered a fundamental right up and down the governmental system and there is a Constitutional mandate that all citizens are to be granted equal treatment under the law, somehow there is any question about the rights of gay people to be able marry? How many times do we have to be taught the same lesson before it finally sinks in?
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.
Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
Maybe not "in general", but I was refering to the legal definition: DOMA
Do you claim that an unconstitutional law is valid? What on earth do you think is the point of going to court?
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.
Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
anglagard
Member (Idle past 855 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: 03-18-2006
|
Gay Guppy
Catholic Scientist writes: Race is immutable while sexual orientation is not. I had a male guppy a few years back when we had a fish tank. It displayed as guppies do, only to males rather than females. I am curious as to what social pressure in guppy land made it gay?
The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
But the RIA made it illegal for whites to marry non-whites, which is clearly discriminatory.
And the various DOMAs around the country make it illegal for people of one sex to marry someone of the same sex. So how is that not also clearly discriminatory? If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
Define marriage as between one man and one woman does not necessarily discriminate and is applied to everyone equally.
Incorrect. As the courts so eloquently put it, this argument holds no water. We went through this when the IN RE case was decided. The Court specifically rejected this argument.
In Perez, Loving, and a number of other decisions (see, e.g., McLaughlin v. Florida (1964) 379 U.S. 184, 192), courts have recognized that a statute that treats a couple differently based upon whether the couple consists of persons of the same race or of different races generally reflects a policy disapproving of the integration or close relationship of individuals of different races in the setting in question, and as such properly is viewed as embodying an instance of racial discrimination with respect to the interracial couple and both of its members. And it seems you haven't actually read the Loving case because the decision clearly and directly addresses your very argument:
Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element [388 U.S. 1, 8] as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race. ... Because we reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose. The mere fact of equal application does not mean that our analysis of these statutes should follow the approach we have taken in cases involving no racial discrimination where the Equal Protection Clause has been arrayed against a statute discriminating between the kinds of advertising which may be displayed on trucks in New York City, Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949), or an exemption in Ohio's ad valorem tax for merchandise owned by a nonresident in a storage warehouse, Allied Stores of Ohio, [388 U.S. 1, 9] Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522 (1959). In these cases, involving distinctions not drawn according to race, the Court has merely asked whether there is any rational foundation for the discriminations, and has deferred to the wisdom of the state legislatures. In the case at bar, however, we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race. So if it isn't a valid argument when applied to race and all the courts agree that this is so, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation? The court clearly stated that it doesn't:
In arguing that the marriage statutes do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, defendants rely upon the circumstance that these statutes, on their face, do not refer explicitly to sexual orientation and do not prohibit gay individuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex. Defendants contend that under these circumstances, the marriage statutes should not be viewed as directly classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation but at most should be viewed as having a disparate impact on gay persons. In our view, the statutory provisions restricting marriage to a man and a woman cannot be understood as having merely a disparate impact on gay persons, but instead properly must be viewed as directly classifying and prescribing distinct treatment on the basis of sexual orientation. By limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, the marriage statutes, realistically viewed, operate clearly and directly to impose different treatment on gay individuals because of their sexual orientation. By definition, gay individuals are persons who are sexually attracted to persons of the same sex and thus, if inclined to enter into a marriage relationship, would choose to marry a person of their own sex or gender. A statute that limits marriage to a union of persons of opposite sexes, thereby placing marriage outside the reach of couples of the same sex, unquestionably imposes different treatment on the basis of sexual orientation. In our view, it is sophistic to suggest that this conclusion is avoidable by reason of the circumstance that the marriage statutes permit a gay man or a lesbian to marry someone of the opposite sex, because making such a choice would require the negation of the person’s sexual orientation. Just as a statute that restricted marriage only to couples of the same sex would discriminate against heterosexual persons on the basis of their heterosexual orientation, the current California statutes realistically must be viewed as discriminating against gay persons on the basis of their homosexual orientation. (Accord, Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Fair Employment and Housing Com. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 517, 533, 541, fn. 7.) The classic example from judicial studies is the claim that laws that prevent sleeping under a bridge are not discriminatory as they apply to the wealthy and the poor alike as if there is not a very clear distinction between the wealthy and the poor that might affect whether or not they would be in a position to be sleeping under a bridge.
quote:
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.
Incorrect. It would be discriminatory. The courts have clearly said so on multiple occasions. Are you saying they are all wrong?
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.
Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
™ Version 4.2