Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Boy shuns Pledge of Allegiance for Gay Rights
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 226 of 234 (542957)
01-14-2010 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by New Cat's Eye
01-13-2010 11:59 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
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.
Well, no. No, she didn't become a lesbian. If we were to talk to her about her feelings, she'd make the same point.
It's called "bisexuality." Now, whether or not she's come to terms with her sexuality is another matter.
There's a reason that the "reparative therapy" groups don't actually keep statistics regarding the outcomes of their patients: It doesn't work.
But you have avoided the direct question yet again. Let's try it one more time, shall we?
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:
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.
And all the courts disagree.
What do they know that you don't?
quote:
But the law is not treating anyone differently, it applies equally to all.
Except it doesn't.
Have you done any research into this question at all? All the courts disagree with your interpretation.
What do they know that you don't?

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.

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 not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 227 of 234 (542958)
01-14-2010 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by New Cat's Eye
01-13-2010 12:27 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
They specifically outlawed certain marriages based on race.
DOMA doesn't do it like that.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Just what is it you think that DOMA does?
quote:
And for the record, I don't care if they do.
Now, that's not exactly an honest statement, now is it? Do you really want me to go back to your previous posts and quote what you have said?
Here's a simple question: If you had lived in California, would you have voted for or against Prop 8?
quote:
She went full-fledged lesbian.
No, she didn't. If we were to ask her, she'd point it out that her feelings didn't go away.
quote:
Its apparent to me that poeple's sexual orientation can change.
And yet, the people who have actually studied human sexuality have been unable to find anybody who has changed sexual orientation.
What do they know that you don't? Surely you aren't trying to claim that your anecdote is truly evidence? That you put in sufficient controls to make full observations? Did you interview her? Nobody is denying your description of her sexual history.
The question is how it is you know what her sexual orientation is.
quote:
How so? Who would be discriminated against?
Those who are of differing religions.
You did read the Loving v. Virginia decision, yes? It specifically addresses your very argument and found it flawed.
You mean you didn't actually do any research on this subject before pontificating about the jurisprudence?
quote:
No, that is clearly discriminating against balck people.
And how does a law that only allows for heterosexual marriage, defining it as a relationship that only heterosexuals can achieve, not discriminate against those who aren't heterosexual?
quote:
Except that the RIA was not equally applied to all.
Incorrect. Everyone was free to marry.
Have you bothered to read the Loving v. Virginia decision?
So how is a law that defines marriage as a heterosexual relationship not discriminatory against those who aren't heterosexual?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-13-2010 12:27 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 228 of 234 (542960)
01-14-2010 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by New Cat's Eye
01-13-2010 12:31 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
There's over 1000 laws that contain the word marriage and the term needs to be defined.
Strange...we managed to survive for over 200 years without this federal definition. Marriage is something that states regulate. The feds simply accepted the contract.
How is it that those 1013 federal laws managed to be accounted for when there was no federal definition?
quote:
Straight people are not allowed to marry people the same sex either
Yes, and rich and poor people alike aren't allowed to sleep under bridges and yet you never hear about a rich person trying to.
Straight people don't marry people of the same sex. Gay people do. As the court specifically stated, that makes the law discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation.
You did actually do some reserarch on this subject before you started pontification on the jurisprudence, yes?
You mean you didn't?
Then what on earth makes you think you have anything of any usefulness to say?
quote:
The law does apply equally to everyone.
Incorrect. The court specifically denied this rationale.
You did actually research this topic before you joined in, yes?
What do they know that you don't?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-13-2010 12:31 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 229 of 234 (542963)
01-14-2010 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by New Cat's Eye
01-13-2010 1:04 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
DOMA doesn't specifically outlaw any marriages.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Just what do you think DOMA says? You made a reference to it. Did you bother reading it first?
quote:
Lets not go down the No True Scotsman route.
Indeed, let's not.
But also let's not go down the road of claiming that anecdote is evidence or that you have any real understanding of her sexual orientation.
quote:
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.
But would you marry him? Would you be willing to go through all the trouble of actually getting married, having people assume that the two of you are having sex, having to go through the trouble of having your marriage annuled when you decide to have it dissolved and having to prove that you didn't have sex?
It's a nice hypothetical, but please don't pretend that you're being sincere.
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.
You pretend that heterosexuals don't do that right now.
We went through all this the last time. There isn't a single reason that a same-sex couple has to get married that hasn't already been used by a mixed-sex couple.
So if we don't complain when the straights do it, why on earth should there be any complaint when the gays do it?
quote:
Hell, there was even a movie about it.
Um, you do realize that I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry was a piece of fiction, yes? That it wasn't real, yes?
Will there be marriages of convenience? Of course. Straight people do it all the time.
So why would it be problematic for gay people to do it?
quote:
But that makes me wonder about consummation...
Aren't they laws about that too?
Indeed. That's because marriage is about legitimizing a sexual relationship.
If there is failure to consummate the relationship, a marriage can be annuled. No, not divorce, annulment. That means the marriage never existed in the first place. Divorce recognizes that the marriage contract was legitimate and then breaks it. Annulment says that the contract was not valid and thus there was no marriage.
Of course, to do that, you have to prove you didn't have sex which means people are going to be looking into your sex life.
That's why straight people of the same sex don't marry each other: They don't have sex with each other.
This is also why various states that have domestic partnership laws make a separate distinction for elderly couples, especially those who are blood relatives. At that age, it is beneficial for couples to pool resources. It provides them with many of the legal benefits of marriage without having to go through all the sexual aspects that marriage assumes.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-13-2010 1:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-14-2010 10:42 AM Rrhain has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 234 (542996)
01-14-2010 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Rrhain
01-14-2010 5:08 AM


From Message 222:
My inability to change my sexual orientation doesn't mean that other people cannot. I've seen what I believe was someone's sexual orientation changing.
What sort of man turns you on?
Ann Coulter.
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
...
Your assessment is not shared by the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court.
You didn't show the where marriage was defined nor where it said that people had to be of the same race. You showed that a non-white marrying a white was criminalized to preserve the whiteness.
is your argument that Loving v. Virginia was incorrectly decided?
No.
And you couldn't have interracial couples married with the then definition of marriage.
Couldn't a black marry an indian? Or a brown marry a yellow? Aren't those interracial marriages?
It wasn't about "interracial couples" per say, it was about preserving the whiteness.
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?
All the citizens are being treated equally, its just that the conditions of the contract of what marriage is require it to be between people of the opposite sex. Certainly that could be changed and gay people could be granted marriages, but I don't agree that it must happen because we're currently being unconstitutional. But I don't know for sure, so I'll wait until the courts decide and I'll stand by their decision.
How many times do we have to be taught the same lesson before it finally sinks in?
You can teach me that 2+2=5 all day everyday but if I don't think you're right then its never going to sink in.
From Message 225:
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?
The RIA specifically prohibited and criminalized certain marriages based on race, DOMA defines what a marriage is.
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.)
I don't agree with their view: "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." They're basically just stating what I'm questioning and saying its unquestionable. I think they're wrong.
I don't agree with this either: " 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,"
If a new contract called Garriage was invented and only allowed between people of the same sex, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I think I already know who I'd Garry too.
From Message 226:
Well, no. No, she didn't become a lesbian
From Message 227:
The question is how it is you know what her sexual orientation is.
I don't see the point in copying and pasting from a previous message into a new message to say the same thing when I haven't even had a chance to reply yet. You really junk up the boards and make this a worse place to read.
Here's a simple question: If you had lived in California, would you have voted for or against Prop 8?
Nope, I wouldn't have voted.
quote:
How so? Who would be discriminated against?
Those who are of differing religions.
How so? Every single person would be being discriminated against?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Rrhain, posted 01-14-2010 5:08 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Taz, posted 01-17-2010 4:04 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 233 by Rrhain, posted 01-18-2010 6:14 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 231 of 234 (543374)
01-17-2010 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by New Cat's Eye
01-14-2010 10:42 AM


CS writes:
My inability to change my sexual orientation doesn't mean that other people cannot.
I've been reading your posts in horror, CS.
(1) Being able to change or not has absolutely nothing to do with the gay rights movement. I'm a straight married man. If I decide tonight to dump my wife and start sleeping with other men, I ought to be able to do so without fearing the tyranny of the majority. If I decide to have a divorce tomorrow and then marry another man the next day, I ought to be able to do that as well.
Again, being able to change or not has nothing to do with any human rights movement. So, stop focusing on this bloody diversion.
(2) You basically say that you (a straight person) cannot change your sexuality but that you believe other people (especially gay people) can and should change.
Why am I such a jackass about this topic? Your train of thought was what ultimately led to bullshit things like Paragraph 175. And despite what we've learned from history, we still have jackasses like you being able to vote and share your bigoted opinion.
Anyway, I'm done ranting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-14-2010 10:42 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 232 of 234 (543377)
01-17-2010 4:18 PM


I don't get it, sorry
I don't really get the distinction between "legislation prohibiting marriages based on race" and "legislation prohibiting marriages based on sex".
I don't get where one was any more or less unconstitutional than the other - they both say, quite frankly, that certain people aren't equal. Or even worse, they imply that everyone's equal, but some people are more equal than others.
I don't get why "marriage" needed to be defined as "one man and one woman" to protect the sanctity of marriage from "one man and another man" or "one woman and another woman" from getting married, as I don't see why a lifetime together for gary and stu is any less an example of love than mary and stu.
I don't see why Rudolph Valentino and Jean Acker's marriage of 6 hours needs protecting from the awfulness of two guys saying "I do" and living together to enjoy the same rights and priviledges in an equal society.
I don't see why Dennis Hopper and Michelle Phillips' marriage of 8 days needs protecting from the terrible curse of comparing it with two women saying "I love you" and tying the knot.
I don't get it.
Marriage needs protecting from the love of one person for another, based on how many penises and vaginas are in the mix? based on the amount of kids they can have?
yes, that's right - I forgot. Apparently marriage is only about having kids - so all those couples who can't have kids, or don't, marriage needs protecting from those heathens too, right?
marriage must need protecting from single mums and dads, yeah?

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 233 of 234 (543447)
01-18-2010 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by New Cat's Eye
01-14-2010 10:42 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
My inability to change my sexual orientation doesn't mean that other people cannot.
What makes you so special? If you are so certain that it can happen, then you are no different than any other human.
So what would it take? What sort of man turns you on? What kind of man makes you want to bend over and have him take you in ways you've only dreamed about? And clearly you have been dreaming about it because you are so certain that sexual orientation can change.
quote:
I've seen what I believe was someone's sexual orientation changing.
Except you haven't. We've been through this before: What you saw had no controls, you didn't interview her, you have absolutely no idea what was going through this woman's mind, and for you to claim that you have any idea what happened is disingenuous at best.
There are people who have spent years trying to find these so-called "ex-gays." They have actually taken the time to interview those who are highly motivated to change their sexual orientation.
And in every single case, they couldn't find anybody who had managed to do it. Surely you aren't saying that we've had the spectacular result of watching a coin flip 85 heads in a row, are you? Bonus points if you catch the reference. That in all the history of the entire "ex-gay" movement, they have only managed to attract people who couldn't change their orientation?
quote:
You didn't show the where marriage was defined
Nor do I have to. I go with the Supreme Court's declaration. Are you saying they were incompetent? That Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?
How many times must I ask you that directly before you answer?
quote:
nor where it said that people had to be of the same race.
Incorrect. I quoted the law to you. Did you fail to read it? You have previously admitted that you don't actually read my posts. Why should I expect this time is any different when it comes to your ability to keep up with the conversation?
quote:
You showed that a non-white marrying a white was criminalized to preserve the whiteness.
And how is that not regulating marriage based upon race? How is restricting the marriage of a white person only to other white people not "have to be of the same race"?
And if trying to "preseve whiteness" is not a legitimate reason to restrict marriage, why is trying to "preseve heterosexuality" suddenly fair dinkum?
If it's a crap argument when it applies to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
quote:
is your argument that Loving v. Virginia was incorrectly decided?
No.
And yet, they didn't define "marriage" though they felt they could say that it shouldn't be denied on the basis of race. They recognized that "marriage" was a legal contract that was carried out by the States and thus, that contract had different rights and responsibilities in each State. Louisiana has the Napoleonic Code and thus has very different rules regarding the status of property with regard to a married couple compared to the rest of the States.
For the Supreme Court to define "marriage" the way you are requesting would be a violation of the Tenth Amendment. Instead, the SCOTUS pointed out that if a State is going to have marriage, it cannot be restricted on the basis of race. A State cannot make a regulation regarding the race of the participants.
So if it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
Couldn't a black marry an indian? Or a brown marry a yellow? Aren't those interracial marriages?
Irrelevant. As the decision directly said, these claims that there were marriages available to people who wished to get married does not change the fact that the State is restricting marriage on the basis of race and doing so unconstitutionally. The SCOTUS pointed out that this claim of yours ("But it was only preventing whites!") made the actions of the State even more "invidious" (their word). Your defense is actually making the situation worse.
You did read the decision before you responded, yes? I've quoted it to you. Ah, but I forget: You don't actually read posts before responding.
quote:
It wasn't about "interracial couples" per say, it was about preserving the whiteness.
And when the ones making the rules are all white and consider the "lesser races" to be, essentially, a morass of putrefaction waiting to infect their pristine society, how is that not a racial question?
If it's crap to "preserve whiteness" through marriage, how does it suddenly become legitimate to "preserve heterosexuality" through marriage?
quote:
All the citizens are being treated equally
No, they're not. The SCOTUS decision dealt precisely with that argument of yours.
You did read the Loving v. Virginia decision before you decided to respond, yes? Ah, I forget: You don't actually read anything first. You've admitted that you go out of your way to avoid learning about a subject before posting.
How many times must you fail in precisely the same way before you learn to do your homework first?
quote:
its just that the conditions of the contract of what marriage is require it to be between people of the opposite sex.
But the SCOTUS specifically and repeatedly rejected that argument when it came to race. You did read the decision before you responded, yes? Why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? Especially in the light of Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas? Even Scalia has said that those decisions necessarily require protection for same-sex marriage.
What does he know that you don't?
Have you read the decision?
quote:
Certainly that could be changed and gay people could be granted marriages, but I don't agree that it must happen because we're currently being unconstitutional.
Since the Supreme Court considered that a crap argument when it came to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when it comes to sexual orientation?
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). 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 discriminations. 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.
You have read the decision, haven't you? If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? Especially in the light of Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas which even Scalia says necessarily requires same-sex marriage to be a constitutional right?
Have you read the decision?
quote:
But I don't know for sure, so I'll wait until the courts decide and I'll stand by their decision.
Bullshit. The fact that you are repeatedly parroting justifications that the SCOTUS has already shot down shows that you do know for sure. You even said so in the previous sentence: "I don't agree that it must happen because we're currently being unconstitutional." You do think that the SCOTUS shouldn't follow the same logic they did before, that the very justifications that were made previously and found to be a load of excrement are perfectly legitimate when applies to sexual orientation.
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
quote:
The RIA specifically prohibited and criminalized certain marriages based on race, DOMA defines what a marriage is.
And? RIA defined marriage based upon race. And the Supreme Court shot it down. You have read the decision, yes? You did bother to do your homework before responding, yes? Have you bothered to read the Virginia Code? Surely your argument isn't based upon the presence or the absence of the word "define," is it?
Have you read the decision? The SCOTUS shot down your argument. So if it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? Especially in the light of Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas? Even Scalia points out that this requires same-sex marriage be recognized as a protected right.
What do they know that you don't?
quote:
I don't agree with their view
But you just said you didn't think Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided. So which is it? Was it correctly decided or do you disagree with their view? Scalia thinks it was wrongly decided. And you can certainly disagree all you want, but you aren't the one who gets to make the decision about what the law actually means.
Did you bother to compare the state of the California Supreme Court to that of the US Supreme Court? Did you notice that their reasoning was identical?
California Supreme Court writes:
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.
US Supreme Court writes:
There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality."
"Distict treatment on the basis of sexual orientation"
"Distinctions drawn according to race"
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
They're basically just stating what I'm questioning and saying its unquestionable.
But your argument was already shot down. You did read the decision, didn't you?
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
When are you going to sit down and read the decision? It isn't very long...only a few pages. Take the 15 minutes and do your homework.
quote:
I don't agree with this either
But you aren't the one who makes the decisions, now are you? You're trying to have it both ways. You're currently saying that "under current law, there is no way to have same-sex marriage because it's 'defined' as being between mixed-sex couples." And yet, when the courts come along and call that bogus, you're trying to say that they don't get to actually have any effect upon what the law says. If the Supreme Court says that that's what the law says, then that is what the law says.
At any rate, you once again have shown that you haven't bothered to read the decision because the US Supreme Court specifically and directly tossed your claim out as bogus:
The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races.
You did read the decision before responding, yes? If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
We have rejected the proposition that the debates in the Thirty-ninth Congress or in the state legislatures which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment supported the theory advanced by the State, that the requirement of equal protection of the laws is satisfied by penal laws defining offenses based on racial classifications so long as white and Negro participants in the offense were similarly punished.
You did read the decision before responding, yes? If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
If a new contract called Garriage was invented and only allowed between people of the same sex, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
That's because you're a bigot. There's already a term for those who cannot handle the concept of equality under the law: "Holy matrimony." Thus, gays and those straights who understand what the Constitution demands can have the legal contract of "marriage" while everybody else, gay and straight, can engage in a purely personal ceremony with no legal enforcement of their own choice.
The Supreme Court disagrees with your claim:
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.
What do they know that you don't?
You have read the decision, yes?
quote:
I don't see the point in copying and pasting from a previous message into a new message to say the same thing when I haven't even had a chance to reply yet.
That's because you don't actually read posts before responding. Thus, I will continue to ask the same questions over and over again until you bother to do your homework, pay attention, and start showing some integrity and honesty in your statements.
You long ago admitted that you don't actually read the posts to which you respond. Thus, it doesn't really matter if we wait for you to do so or not. You won't actually address direct questions asked of you. You don't actually read the posts to which you respond.
As you put it, "You really junk up the boards and make this a worse place to read."
quote:
Nope, I wouldn't have voted.
In other words, you would have voted for Prop 8.
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot?
quote:
How so? Every single person would be being discriminated against?
No, those who have differing religions would be discriminated against. You did read the decision, yes?
We have rejected the proposition that the debates in the Thirty-ninth Congress or in the state legislatures which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment supported the theory advanced by the State, that the requirement of equal protection of the laws is satisfied by penal laws defining offenses based on racial classifications so long as white and Negro participants in the offense were similarly punished.
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to religion? Especially in light of the First Amendment?
"Equal application" is not legitimate when you're not supposed to be applying anything in the first place. There is no justification for any sort of racial test of any kind no matter how clever one thinks one can be with the wording.
And if it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? Especially in the light of Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas? Even Scalia thinks that this requires same-sex marriage to be declared a fundamental right.
What does he know that you don't?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-14-2010 10:42 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 234 of 234 (547156)
02-16-2010 7:30 PM


Complete Strangers Married in Florida to Protest for Gay Rights
Complete Strangers Married in Florida to Protest for Gay Rights
Brian Feldman and Hannah Miller, two Orlando-area residents and complete strangers, were married last Friday. Feldman, a performance artist, put out a call to any ladies who wanted to take part in the project on Facebook. Three showed up, and he spun a water bottle to decide which one with which he would enter into holy matrimony.
Ah, the sanctity of a traditional marriage.
Edited by hooah212002, : wrong word

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024