Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay marriage and the law
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 46 of 206 (449426)
01-17-2008 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Hyroglyphx
01-17-2008 9:47 PM


Re: The law
Right, and the law says that homosexuals cannot marry, my feelings be damned. Sooooo.... Where do we go from here?
Here's an idea. Address the topic of this thread, in particular, the Fourteenth Amendment. The mere fact that the law says something doesn't mean the law is right. My analysis says it's wrong. So far, you've managed to ignore that in every single post in this thread.
Give it a go. It won't hurt, I promise.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-17-2008 9:47 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-18-2008 12:11 PM subbie has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 206 (449430)
01-17-2008 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by DrJones*
01-17-2008 6:31 PM


Re: A refusal to deal with the central issue
Yeah TJ fucked his slaves, but he still owned them. He's hardly a good example of someone overcoming racist ideologies.
Jefferson was a bit of a paradox being that it was he that coined the phrase, "all men are created equal," and yet he bought and sold slaves.

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by DrJones*, posted 01-17-2008 6:31 PM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Rahvin, posted 01-17-2008 10:14 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

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


Message 48 of 206 (449441)
01-17-2008 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Hyroglyphx
01-17-2008 9:55 PM


Re: A refusal to deal with the central issue
I say again: Immediately support your contention that the law in the US states that homosexuality is an abomination, or retract your disgusting lies.
Rule number 4: Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
Rule number 8: Avoid any form of misrepresentation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-17-2008 9:55 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-17-2008 10:28 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 80 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-18-2008 1:37 PM Rahvin has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 206 (449448)
01-17-2008 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by molbiogirl
01-17-2008 8:48 PM


Re: Nice dodge, CS
But you still haven't answered my question. Why should a 20th century American definition of marriage trump all the others?
That's the definition that was being used when the laws were written. If you change the definition it will affect thousands of laws.
Isn't it interesting that we managed 200+ years without laws on the books defining marriage? Why do you think that is?
The definition was 'understood' to be between a man and women. They failed to see the need for it to be defined. Basically, everybody knew what they were talking about.
Why do you think?
Why do you suppose these very recent laws were written to specifically EXCLUDE a group of people?
DOMA? The was in response to the 'misunderstanding' of the definition that was understood to be, yet remained undefined.
People were using the lack of definition to create another group that was a minority that was being discriminated against. It turns out that the definition that was understood doesn't actually discriminate against gays.
If we do need to update the laws, I don't think we should just change the way a single word is defined when it will affect thousands of laws. All the laws need to be updated as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by molbiogirl, posted 01-17-2008 8:48 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by subbie, posted 01-17-2008 10:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 68 by molbiogirl, posted 01-18-2008 8:32 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 50 of 206 (449449)
01-17-2008 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by New Cat's Eye
01-17-2008 10:24 PM


Re: Nice dodge, CS
If you change the definition it will affect thousands of laws.
The only effect it will have on other laws is that gay couples will be included. That's not really very hard to cope with.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-17-2008 10:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-17-2008 10:30 PM subbie has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 206 (449450)
01-17-2008 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Rahvin
01-17-2008 10:14 PM


Re: A refusal to deal with the central issue
I say again: Immediately support your contention that the law in the US states that homosexuality is an abomination, or retract your disgusting lies.
Relax... He wasn't quoting the law. If that's how he interprets what the law says, can't he simply remain wrong? Must he really quote the law conforming exactly to his interpretation? The laws aren't written like people think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Rahvin, posted 01-17-2008 10:14 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Rahvin, posted 01-17-2008 10:47 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 206 (449451)
01-17-2008 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by subbie
01-17-2008 10:27 PM


The only effect it will have on other laws is that gay couples will be included. That's not really very hard to cope with.
What makes you so sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by subbie, posted 01-17-2008 10:27 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by subbie, posted 01-17-2008 10:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 206 (449452)
01-17-2008 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Granny Magda
01-17-2008 8:05 PM


Emotive arguments
You can marry the love of your life, but gay people can't? That is clearly discriminatory.
Just like it would be discriminatory for you to have barred Oscar Wilde from marrying his true love? If you're going to make an emotive argument, you have to be real careful that the tables don't turn on you.
child abuse remains illegal in Denmark
So was homosexuality in America. But we see how that turned out.
I like your photo by the way. Which one is you?
The one next to you of course.

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Granny Magda, posted 01-17-2008 8:05 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by subbie, posted 01-17-2008 10:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 58 by Rahvin, posted 01-17-2008 10:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 59 by molbiogirl, posted 01-17-2008 11:03 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 64 by Granny Magda, posted 01-18-2008 5:34 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 54 of 206 (449454)
01-17-2008 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by New Cat's Eye
01-17-2008 10:30 PM


What makes you so sure?
Because I'm a lawyer and I've looked into it.
What makes you think otherwise?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-17-2008 10:30 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 55 of 206 (449457)
01-17-2008 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hyroglyphx
01-17-2008 10:34 PM


Re: Emotive arguments
child abuse remains illegal in Denmark
So was homosexuality in America. But we see how that turned out.
When was homosexuality ever illegal?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-17-2008 10:34 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 56 of 206 (449459)
01-17-2008 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by New Cat's Eye
01-17-2008 10:28 PM


Re: A refusal to deal with the central issue
Relax... He wasn't quoting the law. If that's how he interprets what the law says, can't he simply remain wrong? Must he really quote the law conforming exactly to his interpretation?
He needs to show a law that supports his assertion, or admit that he was lying. Period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-17-2008 10:28 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by molbiogirl, posted 01-17-2008 10:51 PM Rahvin has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 57 of 206 (449461)
01-17-2008 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Rahvin
01-17-2008 10:47 PM


C'mon Juggs!
He needs to show a law that supports his assertion, or admit that he was lying. Period.
Hey Juggs! You just gonna ignore me n Rahvin? Where's your support for your contention that...
The LAW says, without invoking any religious connotations, that homosexuality is an abomination.
Where's your LAW now, Juggs? Where's your LAW now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Rahvin, posted 01-17-2008 10:47 PM Rahvin has not replied

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


Message 58 of 206 (449462)
01-17-2008 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hyroglyphx
01-17-2008 10:34 PM


Re: Emotive arguments
Just like it would be discriminatory for you to have barred Oscar Wilde from marrying his true love? If you're going to make an emotive argument, you have to be real careful that the tables don't turn on you.
Except that it it not discriminatory to require that anyone who enters any contract be a consenting adult.
Stop trying to pull that idiotic argument. If giving gays the right to enter a contract allows children to do so, why can't they enter other contracts without parental consent? Since you seem to like to apply it to bestiality as well, why can't a dog enter a contract?
Your arguments are not only bigoted, they're stupid and repugnant.
So was homosexuality in America. But we see how that turned out.
Quite well so far. What has legal homosexuality done in America that is so wrong?

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-17-2008 10:34 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 59 of 206 (449465)
01-17-2008 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hyroglyphx
01-17-2008 10:34 PM


Re: Emotive arguments
Just like it would be discriminatory for you to have barred Oscar Wilde from marrying his true love? If you're going to make an emotive argument, you have to be real careful that the tables don't turn on you.
Oooo! A pedophile! Huh.
Let's take a look at the statistics, shall we?
98% of these male perpetrators are heterosexual.
Sexual Abuse of Boys
JAMA. 280(21):1855-1862, December 2, 1998.
If you're going to make an emotive argument, better be careful the tables don't turn on ya, Juggs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-17-2008 10:34 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Rahvin, posted 01-17-2008 11:55 PM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 85 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-18-2008 2:11 PM molbiogirl has replied

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


Message 60 of 206 (449476)
01-17-2008 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by molbiogirl
01-17-2008 11:03 PM


Re: Emotive arguments
Clearly, heterosexual males should not be allowed to marry!!
Lets look at the rest of NJs retarded argument: known, convicted pedophiles are allowed to marry, as long as they're heterosexual. They're allowed to have children. But for some reason homosexuals are not, despite the fact that most pedophiles are heterosexual, by a massive margin.
Yet he uses this as rationale for making gay marriage illegal.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by molbiogirl, posted 01-17-2008 11:03 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by molbiogirl, posted 01-18-2008 2:01 AM Rahvin has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024