Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 181 of 448 (467497)
05-22-2008 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Fosdick
05-21-2008 7:32 PM


Opinions and Comparisons
Hoot Mon writes:
You are assuming, bluecat, that their is a single moral authority on this issue. All we have here are opinions and comparisons.
First, there is an "s" in his name, after the "blue" part.
Second, you are the one assuming a single moral authority. You assume that all people should conform to a single standard (as in a specific, narrow definition of marriage, or as in forcing everyone to choose one of several different opinions), whereas subbie, Taz, bluescat, etc. are not assuming that any single opinion or person is the moral authority, and that everyone should be given an equal right to follow their own moral compass--gay or straight, black or white, etc.
I'm rather glad, too: a simple majority vote would render many of the things I enjoy in my life illegal (evolutionary biology, Mormonism, speaking Chinese in public, listening to 80's music, etc.).

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Fosdick, posted 05-21-2008 7:32 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Fosdick, posted 05-22-2008 9:57 AM Blue Jay has replied
 Message 196 by onifre, posted 05-22-2008 10:33 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 182 of 448 (467548)
05-22-2008 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Blue Jay
05-22-2008 2:03 AM


Re: Opinions and Comparisons
Bluejay writes:
I'm rather glad, too: a simple majority vote would render many of the things I enjoy in my life illegal (evolutionary biology, Mormonism, speaking Chinese in public, listening to 80's music, etc.).
In America we are duty bound to discriminate against any Mormon evolutionary biologist who speaks Chinese in public and listens to 80s music. It's just not American!
”HM
Edited by Hoot Mon, : oopsie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Blue Jay, posted 05-22-2008 2:03 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Blue Jay, posted 05-22-2008 1:28 PM Fosdick has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 183 of 448 (467552)
05-22-2008 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by New Cat's Eye
05-21-2008 5:44 PM


Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
No. DOMA doesn’t violate the constitution. All it does is define the word marriage and prevent states from being forced to recognize gay marriages.
It violates equal protection by virtue of the simple fact that it excludes citizens from having a marriage which is recognised by federal government, purely on the basis of gender. US citizens have a right to marry, as defined in Loving v. Virginia. DOMA's definition effectively removes federal recognition of that right for same-sex couples. That sounds pretty unequal to me.
DOMA does not legitimize bans.
But it does, albeit indirectly. A state ban on the recognition of same-sex marriage (26 states have such bans) would be fundamentally undermined if same-sex couples could marry in other states, go home and demand that their marriage be recognised in their home state, under the Full Faith and Credit clause. DOMA explicitly prevented this, thus legitimising bans that would otherwise have fallen foul of FFaC. That was the point of the act. That DOMA itself appears to violate FFaC is another argument.
That’s the thing though. If, without a definition of marriage, gay marriage were legit, then there wouldn’t be a problem in the first place. But they’re not, so there is.
If, without a definition of marriage, gay marriages were not legit, then there wouldn’t have been a need for DOMA in the first place. But they were, so there was. At least, it must have seemed like there was a need to all those folks who shudder at the mention of gay marriage.
What laws perpetuate those inequities and how does DOMA enable them?
OK, I'll concentrate on the example of wills if that's all right with you.
Let's take the example of two couples, couple A (gay) and couple B (straight). Both marry in, say, California. Both then move to Arizona. Subsequently, both couples suffer a death, leaving one partner alive. Now, Arizona is a "Community Property" state, meaning that most of the assets of married couples are considered to be the joint property of both spouses. It is thus illegal for a will to disinherit the surviving spouse. This is a clear example of a legal protection that is afforded to married people.
The surviving member of Couple B is protected from being disinherited, should that be the effect of the will.
The surviving member of Couple A does not enjoy the same protection, because Arizona does not recognise same-sex marriages. Why not? Because DOMA affords it the protection necessary to institute such a ban. Well, it does until such time as this whole sorry mess ends up before SCOTUS.
This is a clear case of discrimination by the state and a breach of the Equal Protection clause.
I chose something very unimportant on purpose as a rub.
Oh, I see. You choose to counter an argument that no-one had yet made with a deliberately trivial and patronising example, just to get a rise out of people. Well, that makes it all OK then.
Edited by Granny Magda, : Slight change of wording.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-21-2008 5:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-22-2008 3:00 PM Granny Magda has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 184 of 448 (467553)
05-22-2008 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Fosdick
05-21-2008 11:24 AM


Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
Hoot Mon writes:
There is NOTHING mentioned in the U.S. Constitution about gay people and their equal rights to get married.
There is nothing in the Constitution about straight people and their equal rights to get married...but yet straight people CAN get married. So that's kinda the great thing about the Constitution, Hoot Mon. It Guarantees equal treatment under the law for everyone. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
Hoot Mon writes:
They are free to choose, just like me.
Bullshit, Hoot Mon. We're having this debate because they are not free to choose.
Hoot Mon writes:
But bigots like you have turned it into a comic strip.
I notice that even though many of us have defined what a "bigot" is to you, you still don't understand. By allowing gays the same rights as the rest of us, we are stopping bigotry. You, by wanting to limit the rights of others because of their sexual orientation, are being bigoted. Again, why are these simple concepts so difficult for you to grasp. My ten-year old niece gets it Hoot Mon, maybe you should repeat the 4th grade.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Fosdick, posted 05-21-2008 11:24 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Fosdick, posted 05-22-2008 11:34 AM FliesOnly has replied
 Message 187 by Taz, posted 05-22-2008 1:00 PM FliesOnly has not replied
 Message 209 by Fosdick, posted 05-23-2008 11:16 AM FliesOnly has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 185 of 448 (467558)
05-22-2008 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by FliesOnly
05-22-2008 11:06 AM


Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
FliesOnly writes:
here is nothing in the Constitution about straight people and their equal rights to get married...but yet straight people CAN get married. So that's kinda the great thing about the Constitution, Hoot Mon. It Guarantees equal treatment under the law for everyone. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
I can't marry the wife of the guy who lives next door. And I can't get married to more than one woman at a time. And I can't use the ladies restroom. The law says I can't do these things, even if I don't want to. I'm no better off than gay people. In fact they have an advantage over me. They can solicit sex much better in public restrooms when they are segregated according men's and women's. We know from Sen. Larry Craig's queer foolishness that men's rooms in airports are nifty gathering places for inter-stall toe tapping. Not a bad way to score a BJ.
I notice that even though many of us have defined what a "bigot" is to you, you still don't understand. By allowing gays the same rights as the rest of us, we are stopping bigotry. You, by wanting to limit the rights of others because of their sexual orientation, are being bigoted. Again, why are these simple concepts so difficult for you to grasp. My ten-year old niece gets it Hoot Mon, maybe you should repeat the 4th grade.
But there is a preponderance of opinion against yours. What gives you the right to call your other people bigots just because they disagree with your opinion. Isn't THAT closer to the true definition of bigotry?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by FliesOnly, posted 05-22-2008 11:06 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by FliesOnly, posted 05-22-2008 1:45 PM Fosdick has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 186 of 448 (467561)
05-22-2008 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by New Cat's Eye
05-21-2008 3:30 PM


Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
Catholic Scientist writes:
This is a reason for not simply changing the definition without considering the ramifications at all.
We (those of us in support of gay marriage) don't want to change the definition of marriage. You guys are the one wanting definition changes to be implemented based (currently) on sexual orientation. All "we" want is for gay people to be allowed to marry. No changes needed.
Catholic Scientists writes:
So now you’ve redefined consummation.
Well, I'm not so sure you are correct about you "consummation" law. Are you required, by law, to consummate the marriage or is the lack of consummation simply grounds for annulment if one party decides as such? There's a difference there, CS.
Catholic Scientist writes:
It doesn't matter CS...it's a meaningless argument. The Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law. It supersedes other laws. An inconvenience is not grounds for denying someone their Constitutional rights.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-21-2008 3:30 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 187 of 448 (467565)
05-22-2008 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by FliesOnly
05-22-2008 11:06 AM


Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
FliesOnly writes:
Again, why are these simple concepts so difficult for you to grasp. My ten-year old niece gets it Hoot Mon, maybe you should repeat the 4th grade.
He's senile.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by FliesOnly, posted 05-22-2008 11:06 AM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Fosdick, posted 05-23-2008 10:47 AM Taz has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 188 of 448 (467567)
05-22-2008 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Fosdick
05-22-2008 9:57 AM


Re: Opinions and Comparisons
Hoot Mon writes:
In America we are duty bound to discriminate against any Mormon evolutionary biologist who speaks Chinese in public and listens to 80s music. It's just not American!
Um... I'm not sure this helps your cause, Hoot.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Fosdick, posted 05-22-2008 9:57 AM Fosdick has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 189 of 448 (467568)
05-22-2008 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Fosdick
05-22-2008 11:34 AM


Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
Hoot Mon writes:
I can't marry the wife of the guy who lives next door.
Yes you can.
Hoot Mon writes:
And I can't get married to more than one woman at a time.
And I think that you should be allowed to...so I'm in agreement with you here.
Hoot Mon writes:
In fact they have an advantage over me. They can solicit sex much better in public restrooms when they are segregated according men's and women's. We know from Sen. Larry Craig's queer foolishness that men's rooms in airports are nifty gathering places for inter-stall toe tapping. Not a bad way to score a BJ.
And this garbage supports your position on gay marriage how?
Hoot Mon writes:
But there is a preponderance of opinion against yours. What gives you the right to call your other people bigots just because they disagree with your opinion. Isn't THAT closer to the true definition of bigotry?
I'm gong to go R E A L S L O W here, try to keep up. It's not a matter of opinion...it's a matter of intolerance.
It's the intolerance...Hoot Mon...and the inability of you to grasp this concept is simply baffling.
Look, when the entire population of the planet thought that the Earth was flat and only one guy stated differently, guess what..the fucking Earth was not flat, despite the preponderance of opinion.
So again. Hoot Mon...you are confusing the word "bigot" with the word "opinion"...two different things entirely.
Edited by FliesOnly, : Fix a typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Fosdick, posted 05-22-2008 11:34 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Fosdick, posted 05-23-2008 10:58 AM FliesOnly has replied

Libmr2bs
Member (Idle past 5726 days)
Posts: 45
Joined: 05-15-2008


Message 190 of 448 (467569)
05-22-2008 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by lyx2no
05-22-2008 12:57 AM


Re: We Called Them Down Upon Our Own Heads
Not kidding at all. If there's no contract there is no need for contract law. You insist on using the word marriage. Simply delete it. What changes when you do? If it changes your relationship you shouldn't be married.
I can't believe that government is looking out for my best interests. Let me point out just a few laughables for you.
1. Who seriously thinks that government is preventing aliens from coming into this country?
2. $500,000/year given to the Metropolition Opera? I don't speak Italian.
3. $14 billion dollars for a tunnel in Boston?
4. How about a multi-million dollar bridge in Alaska that serves 20 people per day?
5. Why would it be illegal in some states to eat horse meat - dog meat?
6. Preventing bars from being constructed within 1000' of a church but no restriction on a church building within 1000' of a bar?
7. Being accused of murder for shooting someone fleeing with my car?
I could go on but it would be pointless and no one will convince me that government is responsible for my well being. Maybe vice versa or maybe versa will soon be vice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by lyx2no, posted 05-22-2008 12:57 AM lyx2no has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 448 (467576)
05-22-2008 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Granny Magda
05-22-2008 10:54 AM


Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
It violates equal protection by virtue of the simple fact that it excludes citizens from having a marriage which is recognised by federal government, purely on the basis of gender.
DOMA doesn’t exclude anyone from having a marriage, it defines marriage. Gay marriage isn’t even a marriage, by definition (at least according to DOMA).
US citizens have a right to marry, as defined in Loving v. Virginia. DOMA's definition effectively removes federal recognition of that right for same-sex couples. That sounds pretty unequal to me.
But it doesn’t remove any rights. It prevents non-marriages from being marriages. Not giving someone an orange is not the same as taking an apple from them.
A state ban on the recognition of same-sex marriage (26 states have such bans) would be fundamentally undermined if same-sex couples could marry in other states, go home and demand that their marriage be recognised in their home state, under the Full Faith and Credit clause.
Outside of an explicit ban on gay marriages, states that simply do not recognize gay marriages as marriages are not violating the FFC clause, they are just adhering to the definition of marriage. An explicit ban seems to go against the clause, but maintaining the definition does not because it is the same definition for everybody. Everyone has to use the same definition of marriage, so the definition not including some things that some people wish it included does discriminate against anyone in particular. They just want to include something that it doesn’t.
OK, I'll concentrate on the example of wills if that's all right with you.
Let's take the example of two couples, couple A (gay) and couple B (straight). Both marry in, say, California. Both then move to Arizona. Subsequently, both couples suffer a death, leaving one partner alive. Now, Arizona is a "Community Property" state, meaning that most of the assets of married couples are considered to be the joint property of both spouses. It is thus illegal for a will to disinherit the surviving spouse. This is a clear example of a legal protection that is afforded to married people.
The surviving member of Couple B is protected from being disinherited, should that be the effect of the will.
The surviving member of Couple A does not enjoy the same protection, because Arizona does not recognise same-sex marriages. Why not? Because DOMA affords it the protection necessary to institute such a ban. Well, it does until such time as this whole sorry mess ends up before SCOTUS.
This is a clear case of discrimination by the state and a breach of the Equal Protection clause.
It’s not discrimination because all four people have access to the “Community Property” benefit as long as they fulfill the requirement of being married as set by the state. Everyone must abide by the same requirements. That marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman doesn’t discriminate against anyone in particular, it just constrains what can be considered a marriage.
I don’t think the federal government should force a state to change what they have set up as being a marriage.
If couple A doesn’t like Arizona’s laws then they shouldn’t move there.
Oh, I see. You choose to counter an argument that no-one had yet made with a deliberately trivial and patronising example, just to get a rise out of people. Well, that makes it all OK then.
And you took the bait, hook, line and sinker in an excellent display of your bigotry towards opposing opinions. You’d rather put words in my mouth and call me names than take my argument at face value.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Granny Magda, posted 05-22-2008 10:54 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by FliesOnly, posted 05-22-2008 3:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 193 by Blue Jay, posted 05-22-2008 3:40 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 205 by Granny Magda, posted 05-23-2008 10:41 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 192 of 448 (467578)
05-22-2008 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by New Cat's Eye
05-22-2008 3:00 PM


Define marriage to allow bigotry?
Catholic Scientist writes:
DOMA doesn’t exclude anyone from having a marriage, it defines marriage. Gay marriage isn’t even a marriage, by definition (at least according to DOMA).
Catholic Scientist writes:
But it doesn’t remove any rights. It prevents non-marriages from being marriages.
What sort of BS excuse is this? Define marriage as something between a man and women so you can later claim that you're not banning homosexual marriage? What a complete load of crap. Good luck with that defense. I mean, really Catholic Scientist...what a completely fucked up, shitty, petty, stupid, condescending, asshole thing to use as an excuse simply because you're a homophobe.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Not giving someone an orange is not the same as taking an apple from them.
And this relates to gay marriage how, exactly? You're denying homosexuals the orange, Catholic Scientist.
Or wait...are you now saying that an orange is and orange except if your gay...in which case an orange is defined as an apple...and therefore, you can deny oranges to gay people because you're really denying them apples..as per your pathetic definition?
Catholic Scientist writes:
And you took the bait, hook, line and sinker in an excellent display of your bigotry towards opposing opinions.
You guys really need to learn the difference between bigotry and opinion. Can you not grasp the idea of intolerance? Being inconvienenced, or having a differing opinion is not the same as being denied a basic fundamental right (as defined by our Constitution) because of you sexual orientation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-22-2008 3:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-22-2008 3:46 PM FliesOnly has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 193 of 448 (467579)
05-22-2008 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by New Cat's Eye
05-22-2008 3:00 PM


Is DOMA Right, Though?
CS, you're arguing the authority of DOMA to people who don't think DOMA should be considered authoritative. They all know what it says and provides. They want you to come up with a reason why keeping DOMA is morally, ethically and Constitutionally superior to scrapping it.
They know the legal reasons for enforcing DOMA, and they're good legal reasons. But, what is the ethical, moral and Constitutional reason for enforcing DOMA? If there isn't an ethical reason behind keeping DOMA, it implies that our laws are not based on ethics or morality. Are you okay with laws that do not have a moral reason behind them?
Keep in mind that I am also opposed to gay marriage--I have said so in earlier posts--and I feel very icky and creepy about the whole thing. But, I have been unable to come up with a moral, ethical, Constitutional, or even biological reason as to why my view should be upheld over the views of other Americans.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-22-2008 3:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 448 (467580)
05-22-2008 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by FliesOnly
05-22-2008 3:31 PM


Re: Define marriage to allow bigotry?
Define marriage as something between a man and women so you can later claim that you're not banning homosexual marriage?
No, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman because that's the definition used when it was written.
I mean, really Catholic Scientist...what a completely fucked up, shitty, petty, stupid, condescending, asshole thing to use as an excuse simply because you're a homophobe.
Well I'm not a homophobe so.... Fuck you asshole.
And this relates to gay marriage how, exactly? You're denying homosexuals the orange, Catholic Scientist.
Or wait...are you now saying that an orange is and orange except if your gay...in which case an orange is defined as an apple...and therefore, you can deny oranges to gay people because you're really denying them apples..as per your pathetic definition?
It doesn't matter if their gay or not. Marriage is between a man and a woman. The apple is marriage as defined. The orange is gay marriage. Granny claimed that DOMA removed the right to marriage from gays (took the apple). But it didn't. It does not, however, give them gay marriages (giving them an orange). Not giving them the orange is not the same as removing an apple.
You guys really need to learn the difference between bigotry and opinion. Can you not grasp the idea of intolerance?
Yes. You are intolerant of my opinion.
When you write things like:
quote:
what a completely fucked up, shitty, petty, stupid, condescending, asshole thing to use as an excuse simply because you're a homophobe.
you are displaying your bigotry.
Being inconvienenced, or having a differing opinion is not the same as being denied a basic fundamental right (as defined by our Constitution) because of you sexual orientation.
But gay marriage is not a fundamental right and they are not being denied it because of their sexual orientation (two straight men can marry each other either). They are being denied gay marriage because what they want to be considered a marriage is not a marrage by definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by FliesOnly, posted 05-22-2008 3:31 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by FliesOnly, posted 05-22-2008 4:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 197 by onifre, posted 05-22-2008 10:37 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 198 by onifre, posted 05-22-2008 10:45 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 195 of 448 (467582)
05-22-2008 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by New Cat's Eye
05-22-2008 3:46 PM


Re: Define marriage to allow bigotry?
Catholic Scientist writes:
No, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman because that's the definition used when it was written.
I can only hope you see how pathetic this excuse happens to be. You basically just wrote that the definition was defined by how it was defined? Circular perhaps?
Catholic Scientist writes:
Well I'm not a homophobe so.... Fuck you asshole.
Yeah...I see...you're not homophobic...you just don't want them to have the same rights as the rest of us. For some reason only you know...I guess...but you're not a homophobe.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Not giving them the orange is not the same as removing an apple.
Again...this is meaningless crappola. Why do we need two definitions for marriage? What is your, non-homophobic justification for thinking we need two definitions for the same fucking thing?
Catholic Scientist writes:
Yes. You are intolerant of my opinion.
When you write things like:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
what a completely fucked up, shitty, petty, stupid, condescending, asshole thing to use as an excuse simply because you're a homophobe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you are displaying your bigotry.
Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick, Catholic Scientist. I am expressing my opinion when I say "what a completely fucked up, shitty, petty, stupid, condescending, asshole thing to use as an excuse simply because you're a homophobe." My opinion. Get it!! Now, if I were trying to deny you some basic Constitutional right because of how I feel about you...then I'd be a bigot. If I were to say we need a law preventing fucked up, shitty, petty, stupid, condescending, assholes from being allowed to marry, then I'd be a bigot. Now do you see the difference? "Intolerance"...look it up.
Catholic Scientist writes:
But gay marriage is not a fundamental right and they are not being denied it because of their sexual orientation (two straight men can marry each other either). They are being denied gay marriage because what they want to be considered a marriage is not a marriage by definition.
And here we go again with the BS double-talk. We can't deny them a marriage because we defined it as being between a man and women, so we're not discriminating because they don't fit the definition we came up with in order to deny them marriage. What a crock.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-22-2008 3:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-23-2008 9:50 AM FliesOnly 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