Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   Gay Marriage
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 519 (470893)
06-13-2008 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by FliesOnly
06-13-2008 8:35 AM


Re: Reply to Rhain from other thread
Catholic Scientist writes:
They don't, however, have a right to same sex MarriagesTM
How cute...you've made "marriage" a trade-marked word.
Just to clarify that I'm specifically talking about the current legal definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman rather than a more general definition that could also include gay marriage.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : typo
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : lol, I typo'd the typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by FliesOnly, posted 06-13-2008 8:35 AM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Rrhain, posted 06-14-2008 6:59 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 519 (470896)
06-13-2008 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by kongstad
06-13-2008 9:11 AM


Re: Reply to Rhain from other thread
You are aware that it is the lawmakers that make the laws concerning marriage right?
Thus the legal definition of marriage is whatever the law says. If your constitution gives equal protection to all citizens, then you must change the laws to fir the constitution.
Then the definition of marriage will include same sex, just like it now includes different skin tones.
Then gay marriage will be a part of marriage(TM)
You sound as if the definition of a marriage is immutable.
Yes, in order for gay marriage to be legit, the definition of MarriageTM would have to be changed.
Using the current definition of MarriageTM, and realizing that everyone is treated the same with that definition, the Constitution is not being violate just because the definition makes it so that two men cannot marry. Contracts are allowed to have restrictions on them so long as they don't discriminate against a group of people. Since the marriage definition treats everyone the same, it doesn't violate the Constitution.
The laws that were written to prevent interacial marriage said that whites couldn't marry blacks. That violates the Constitution because it discriminates against black people specifically, as a group.
Marriage, as a concept, has not necessarily been considered to be between the same race, as it has been for seperate sexes.
To add the part about it not being between whites and blacks (which was ruled unconstitutional) is different than maintaining the definition as being between one man and one woman.
I don't think the definition of MarriageTM is immutable. I also don't think that the current definition violates the Constitution. And I think that changing the definition, willy-nilly, to include same sex mariages is iffy. I think we should consider the ramifications first.
I don't really have to have a reason other than my hesitation so long as the it's constitutional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by kongstad, posted 06-13-2008 9:11 AM kongstad has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by FliesOnly, posted 06-13-2008 2:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 33 by Rrhain, posted 06-14-2008 7:18 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 519 (470898)
06-13-2008 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by rueh
06-13-2008 7:32 AM


Re: Trolls
Oh yes. Actualy the confusion was the fact that my name is Andy as well.
Heh... Mine too, ironically enough.
I would like to discuss what I see as fallacious in a Christian world view such as that. Or anyones world veiw, in the matter of why we would/ should discriminate against a certain set of peoples.
Sure, we can discuss that if you'd like. Would you like me to get the ball rolling? I would first start out by asking if we are understanding premises here about the nature of discrimination.
What constitutes as legitimate discrimination? Is it simply exclusion? For instance, if a convicted felon is imprisoned, could we say that they are being discriminated against and are systematically having their freedom taken way?
Or could we say that the deaf are being discriminated against by the music industry? Are the blind discriminated against by magazine companies who refuse to make brail magazines?
Answer those questions and we can take it from there. There is a moral to the questions. An analogy or illustration will appear later.

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by rueh, posted 06-13-2008 7:32 AM rueh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by rueh, posted 06-13-2008 12:03 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 19 of 519 (470911)
06-13-2008 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Hyroglyphx
06-13-2008 10:19 AM


discrimination
By strict definition of the word. I would say that, discrimination is - unequal treatment of persons, for a reason which has nothing to do with legal rights or ability. On a side note, I would like to add. IMO acts that do pertain to legal rights or ability but that are conducted maliciously should also be included, although that is not the strict legal definition of the law. In regards to the music industry or publications, there is a lack of ability on the part of the individual to participate in said activity, as well as the fact that the nature of said productions is not in turn malicious. If a company produces a CD, that in itself is not discrimination. If they produce one that makes fun of their disability, than yes that is discrimination. Although matters of free speech would also pertain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-13-2008 10:19 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 20 of 519 (470947)
06-13-2008 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by New Cat's Eye
06-13-2008 10:07 AM


Re: Reply to Rhain from other thread
Catholic Scientist writes:
Yes, in order for gay marriage to be legit, the definition of MarriageTM would have to be changed.
Well, apparently you're mistaken here. I mean, certainly the CSC disagrees with you. They saw no need to change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals. They basically saw it as a simple case of trying to discriminate against one group of people based solely on their sexual orientation. We can only hope that when the SCOTUS gets a shot at some of these laws and/or even DOMA, we'll see just how wrong you actually are.
And I have yet to see this definition you keep speaking of...the legal definition as defined by the Courts...the definition that set the precedent denying homosexual marriage. You did supply a Court decision from the 1800s that included a definition of marriage, but I'm not sure so that that was a legally binding definition...seeing as how that case was about polygamy and voters rights.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Marriage, as a concept, has not necessarily been considered to be between the same race, as it has been for separate sexes.
Where did you come up with this? How marriage has been "considered" is not the issue. Denying one group their Constitutional rights because of their sexual orientation is the issue. Again, the 9th and 14th Amendments do apply. At least the Courts seem to think so...sorry if you disagree.
Catholic Scientist writes:
And I think that changing the definition, willy-nilly, to include same sex marriages is iffy.
It was changed already...specifically to deny homosexuals the right to marry someone of the same sex. Why do you keep saying that in order to allows homosexuals to marry, that we would need to change the definition...when everyone else seems to understand that leaving it as it was, was perfectly fine...unless you were/are homophobic...in which case you felt it needed to be changed in order to prevent two people of the same sex from getting married? Seriously...if it didn't need changing, then why DOMA...then why all these State laws denying marriage to homosexual?
Hell , my State was such a bunch of homophobic assholes, that they even went to so far as to ban civil unions. And then...despite telling us (ie. lying to us) that these new laws were NOT intended to be used to deny same sex partners medical benefits...what's the first thing the fucking asshole Republican Legislature did the very next day after "The People" voted for this legislation? Yep...fought (successfully, I might add) to deny medical benefits/coverage to same sex partners who, prior to this legislation, could be covered by their partners insurance. What a bunch of fucking pricks.
Edited by FliesOnly, : fix a typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2008 10:07 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2008 3:23 PM FliesOnly has replied
 Message 22 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-13-2008 3:26 PM FliesOnly has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 519 (470949)
06-13-2008 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by FliesOnly
06-13-2008 2:59 PM


Re: Reply to Rhain from other thread
We can only hope that when the SCOTUS gets a shot at some of these laws and/or even DOMA, we'll see just how wrong you actually are.
Yup.... or not.
I will stand by SCOTUS's decision though.
Denying one group their Constitutional rights because of their sexual orientation is the issue.
Having restriction on the marriage contract doesn't deny rights to anyone if the restriction is the same for everyone.
Gays can still get married, they just can't marry each other. But that is because of what a marriage is. I can't marry a man no matter if I'm gay or not. If being gay or not doesn't matter to my ability to get married, then marriage doesn't discriminate on whether or not I'm gay.
Seriously...if it didn't need changing, then why DOMA...then why all these State laws denying marriage to homosexual?
We've been over this already.
The definition of Marriage was implicitly between one man and one woman. The lack of an explicit definition allowed for gays to start talking about getting married too. Seeing that that didn't fit with the implicit definition, an explicit one was provided (DOMA).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by FliesOnly, posted 06-13-2008 2:59 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by FliesOnly, posted 06-13-2008 5:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 34 by Rrhain, posted 06-14-2008 7:30 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 519 (470950)
06-13-2008 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by FliesOnly
06-13-2008 2:59 PM


Re: Reply to Rhain from other thread
They basically saw it as a simple case of trying to discriminate against one group of people based solely on their sexual orientation.
Here's the thing though with sexual orientation. Are some people more or less "sexually oriented" towards pre-pubescent teenagers? Do some people have some sort of natural affinity for the pre-pubescent?
Or similarly, it is not a mystery that when being committed to someone in a monogamous relationship, you still biologically find other people attractive. That doesn't all of a sudden evaporate when being a serious relationship. Despite the "orientation," the law doesn't seem to yield to that, as it would bear no relevance to infidelity in the eyes of the court. The law won't give a whit about that.
I think we have to ask the same kind of questions in regards to homosexual marriage, otherwise its being disingenuous to the premise.
It is easy to indict DOMA as a case of discrimination. But it would be just as easy, all things being equal, to say the same things about other things this society deems as an unlawful sexual vice. How then does someone pick one without denying the other? Because if they cannot, then it is a case of hypocrisy AND discrimination.
It was changed already...specifically to deny homosexuals the right to marry someone of the same sex.
You have to appreciate the fact that no comprehensive evidence has ever been presented showing that any society has ever allowed homosexual marriage. You can't very well say that it is was changed to deny them that right when you haven't substantiated that they ever had the right to begin with.
I therefore think that those making claims that it is being denied a posteriori is barking up the wrong tree. If you really want homosexual marriage, just request that the definition legally be changed.
Seriously...if it didn't need changing, then why DOMA...then why all these State laws denying marriage to homosexual?
It had to be officially clarified in lieu of a societal shift. Its not somehow evidence that it was different in the past. It is one of those axiomatic, face-value things. Defining marriage as being between one man and one woman was once a needless tautology, since it was so self-evident before what a marriage constituted and what it didn't constitute. It was only when people of the same sex started wanting to be married did the need for clarification come up.
It is kind of like legal disclaimers. You ever see an legal disclaimer, like the smoke alarm on an airplane? Have you ever read the stipulations on that thing? "Do not touch, disable, break, thwart, etc, etc, this device." You ask, why not just keep it simple? Why not just say "Don't go near this thing or you will be prosecuted?" Its because the human mind will search for ways to usurp the law by cleverly playing a game of semantics. This then necessitates that ever angle be covered for clarification.
So, it is not that marriage somehow used to mean that members of the opposite sex married before, rather it means that it needs clarification now in lieu of the societal shift.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typos

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by FliesOnly, posted 06-13-2008 2:59 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by rueh, posted 06-13-2008 4:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 25 by FliesOnly, posted 06-13-2008 4:34 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 35 by Rrhain, posted 06-14-2008 7:43 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 23 of 519 (470958)
06-13-2008 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Hyroglyphx
06-13-2008 3:26 PM


Re: Reply to Rhain from other thread
quote:
It is easy to indict DOMA as a case of discrimination. But it would be just as easy, all things being equal, to say the same things about other things this society deems as an unlawful sexual vice. How then does someone pick one without denying the other? Because if they cannot, then it is a case of hypocrisy AND discrimination.
I disagree for two reasons.
  • The parties entering into marriage must be willing to contract. Anyone underage is unable to legaly enter a contract.
  • Discrimination only applies when it is contrary to law. No one has the right to underage sex. The legality of same sex is however changing as societal veiws change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-13-2008 3:26 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-13-2008 4:28 PM rueh has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 519 (470961)
06-13-2008 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by rueh
06-13-2008 4:09 PM


Re: Reply to Rhain from other thread
# The parties entering into marriage must be willing to contract. Anyone underage is unable to legaly enter a contract.
Then what about polygamy or incest, since all parties are seeking to enter in to a contract of their own volition? What about prostitution? Both parties agree to exchange sex for money.
You say that it isn't legal, and therefore is moot. But you overlook the fact that homosexual marriage is illegal. That would be hypocritical, not to mention discriminatory, to allow one and deny the others.
Discrimination only applies when it is contrary to law. No one has the right to underage sex. The legality of same sex is however changing as societal veiws change.
You don't see the flaw in this? Homosexual marriage is illegal, and therefore nullifies your premise. That would mean, according to your own qualifier, that denying homosexual marriage does not qualify as discrimination.

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by rueh, posted 06-13-2008 4:09 PM rueh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Rrhain, posted 06-14-2008 7:44 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 66 by rueh, posted 06-16-2008 11:39 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 25 of 519 (470962)
06-13-2008 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Hyroglyphx
06-13-2008 3:26 PM


Re: Reply to Rhain from other thread
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
Here's the thing though with sexual orientation. Are some people more or less "sexually oriented" towards pre-pubescent teenagers? Do some people have some sort of natural affinity for the pre-pubescent?
Age of consent...age of consent...age of consent. How many fucking times do we have to keep telling you people this stuff? Marriage is a contract...and you have to be able to legally inter into that contract. This crap about marrying trees, or marrying children, or screwing squirrels is meaningless to the debate.
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
Or similarly, it is not a mystery that when being committed to someone in a monogamous relationship, you still biologically find other people attractive. That doesn't all of a sudden evaporate when being a serious relationship.
And this related to homosexual marriage how? I mean, come on NJ, heterosexuals cheat on the spouses all the time...should we ban heterosexual marriage?
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
I think we have to ask the same kind of questions in regards to homosexual marriage, otherwise its being disingenuous to the premise.
WTF? So now we have to address issue that MIGHT FUCKING happen to some homosexuals couples before we can allow two members of the same sex to get married. Am I reading this wrong?
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
It is easy to indict DOMA as a case of discrimination. But it would be just as easy, all things being equal, to say the same things about other things this society deems as an unlawful sexual vice.
Homosexuality is not illegal NJ. Denying them marriage is only now "against the law" because homophobic bigots passed laws saying as much.
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
How then does someone pick one without denying the other? Because if they cannot, then it is a case of hypocrisy AND discrimination.
I am at a complete loss. I have no idea WTF you're trying to say here. Homosexuals want nothing more than to be afforded the same rights and protections that heterosexual have. Getting married has a lot of perks in addition to spending the rest of your life with the person you love. Why should these "things" be denied to homosexuals simply because of your religious bigotry?
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
You have to appreciate the fact that no comprehensive evidence has ever been presented showing that any society has ever allowed homosexual marriage. You can't very well say that it is was changed to deny them that right when you haven't substantiated that they ever had the right to begin with.
The 9th and 14t amendments to our Constitution gives them the right to marry. Societal desires do not trump the Constitution...that's why we have the fucking thing. Protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority mean anything to you NJ?
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
Dammit...listen this time. It wasn't and issue until homophobic republicans (primarily) made sure to define marriage solely to prevent homosexuals from marrying. We only now need to "re-re-define" marriage because you assholes re-defined it once already to deny homosexuals the right to marry in the first place. And don't insult my intelligence by giving me the some ole stinkin heap of bullshit that Catholic Scientist keeps spouting..."but they can get married"...because it's a terribly insulting thing to say.
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
It had to be officially clarified in lieu of a societal shift. Its not somehow evidence that it was different in the past. It is one of those axiomatic, face-value things. Defining marriage as being between one man and one woman was once a needless tautology, since it was so self-evident before what a marriage constituted and what it didn't constitute. It was only when people of the same sex started wanting to be married did the need for clarification come up.
Exactly. Until you homophobic bigots got your panties all in a bunch about two guys getting married...it wasn't an issue. So we agree. Gays could get married until homophobic bigots decided to re-define (you call it "clarification") marriage to deny them this right.
And, importantly, the Courts are pretty much ALL agreeing with my side. And for "clarification", let's make sure we understand that by "my side" I referring to those of us the feel that denying homosexuals the right to marry (the person of their choice) is discriminatory and violates our Constitution.
Catholic Scientist writes:
So, it is not that marriage somehow used to mean that members of the opposite sex married before, rather it means that it needs clarification now in lieu of the societal shift.
Blah, blah, fucking blah. Yeah, I know...I've heard it a thousand times before. Yet no one can support this claim with any legality. So it's moot...it means nothing...the Constitution says nothing specifically about denying homosexuals the right to marry. Therefore the 9th and 14 Amendments apply. And (again) the Courts are saying this too.
Luckily, our founding father decided to write a Constitution to, amongst other things, prevent "societal shifts" from becoming discriminatory...to prevent one group (the majority) from forcing their views upon another group (the minority).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-13-2008 3:26 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-13-2008 5:21 PM FliesOnly has not replied
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2008 2:40 PM FliesOnly has not replied

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


Message 26 of 519 (470965)
06-13-2008 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by New Cat's Eye
06-13-2008 3:23 PM


Re: Reply to Rhain from other thread
Catholic Scientist writes:
Gays can still get married, they just can't marry each other.
You know this is a meaningless but nonetheless completely insulting response. I've pointed out to you in the prior thread this very fact. Yet you keep saying it. Why? Why do you keep spouting this meaningless argument Catholic Scientist? You know, because I explained it to you, that with marriage comes some pretty fucking nice benefits. Telling a homosexual to basically just shut up and marry someone of the opposite sex denies them these rights. So quit acting like a third grader on the play ground and grow up.
As a matter of fact, I seem to recall in the previous thread that you called me an "ass" because you claimed to not know what I was talking about when I was speaking about the "rights" of gay marriage. You made it sound as if you had no idea I was talking about all the benefits that are afforded married couples. So I explained them...I explained what I was talking about and asked that you therefore stop using this completely insulting and childless argument about how gays can get married. And here you are fucking doing it again. So basically, you were lying in that other post? Nice, Catholic Scientist....nice.
Catholic Scientist writes:
The definition of Marriage was implicitly between one man and one woman. The lack of an explicit definition allowed for gays to start talking about getting married too. Seeing that that didn't fit with the implicit definition, an explicit one was provided (DOMA).
So...like I said...until homophobic bigots got all bent out of shape (and almost exclusively on religious grounds...I see no other reason to deny gay marriage...other than it insults or goes against your religious beliefs.) about two guys getting married, there was no need to fuck with the definition of marriage. It's nice that we agree on something at least.
Hey, you never addressed the issue I raised in the previous thread about marriage also being defined as "holy". Are you still sticking with your early definition of marriage that included the words "holy matrimony" in addition to the words "between one man and one women"? I mean, hey, if that's the definition you want to use (and let's be clear that I have serious doubts about its "standing" as being a legally applicable definition of marriage) then you do have to address the concept of "holy matrimony" as well. How are you going to rectify the problems this creates for the thousands and thousands and thousands of American citizens that had (or will have) a completely secular marriage?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2008 3:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2008 2:25 PM FliesOnly has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 519 (470969)
06-13-2008 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by FliesOnly
06-13-2008 4:34 PM


Re: Reply to Rhain from other thread
Age of consent...age of consent...age of consent. How many fucking times do we have to keep telling you people this stuff? Marriage is a contract.
That's not what I asked you. This is some what of a scientific question. Here, read it again and answer appropriately:
quote:
Here's the thing though with sexual orientation. Are some people more or less "sexually oriented" towards pre-pubescent teenagers? Do some people have some sort of natural affinity for the pre-pubescent?
Or similarly, it is not a mystery that when being committed to someone in a monogamous relationship, you still biologically find other people attractive. That doesn't all of a sudden evaporate when being a serious relationship.
  —NJ
And this related to homosexual marriage how? I mean, come on NJ, heterosexuals cheat on the spouses all the time...should we ban heterosexual marriage?
You are misinterpreting what I have written. These first two questions are about biology, not sociology.
So now we have to address issue that MIGHT FUCKING happen to some homosexuals couples before we can allow two members of the same sex to get married. Am I reading this wrong?
Yes, you are. I'm saying that allowing homosexual marriage on the pretenses of it being discriminatory will invariably leave other groups feeling discriminated against. I am questioning how you can allow for one, but not the other, in order to utilize the discrimination argument.
Homosexuality is not illegal NJ. Denying them marriage is only now "against the law" because homophobic bigots passed laws saying as much.
That's like saying paedophilia is only illegal because of paedophiliac bigots. It doesn't answer the question.
Homosexuals want nothing more than to be afforded the same rights and protections that heterosexual have. Getting married has a lot of perks in addition to spending the rest of your life with the person you love. Why should these "things" be denied to homosexuals simply because of your religious bigotry?
Why should Oscar Wilde's lover, a boy, have been denied on the same moralistic grounds? I mean, they just wanted to love each other, right? The age disparity, as they might argue, was pretty much incidental to their feelings.
The 9th and 14t amendments to our Constitution gives them the right to marry. Societal desires do not trump the Constitution.
Obviously they do if you are going to say that marriage is a right granted by the government in the first place. Its like saying that the Preamble, where it says we are entitled to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness, extends to anything that makes us happy. Drugs make people happy, but it is not a Constitutional right to do them. To say that it is is a clear manipulation of the vagueness of some of the Constitution.
Homosexual marriage may offer some happiness to homosexuals, but then so would dual marriages for polygamists, marrying sisters for the incestuous, marrying dogs for the bestialists, adultery for the adulterers, or anything else under the sun.
It wasn't and issue until homophobic republicans (primarily) made sure to define marriage solely to prevent homosexuals from marrying.
DOMA was unanimously passed by a body of Republicans and Democrats, and passed in to law by Bill Clinton. I hardly think you say this is some Republican conspiracy, especially when all of history is against you on this, never mind the history of the United States.
We only now need to "re-re-define" marriage because you assholes re-defined it once already to deny homosexuals the right to marry in the first place.
Who exactly are "you assholes?" Nice ad hominem, by the way. Let me say this again. If you can prove that ever, anywhere, in the history of the world, that homosexuals where allowed to marry, then and only then can you begin to say that marriage has been redefined. There isn't a shred of evidence showing that homosexual marriage was ever accepted in the first, anywhere in the world, at any point in history, in order to even nominally substantiate your claim.
Until you homophobic bigots got your panties all in a bunch about two guys getting married...it wasn't an issue. So we agree. Gays could get married until homophobic bigots decided to re-define (you call it "clarification") marriage to deny them this right.
No, Flies. You know that isn't true, which is why actors like Rock Hudson felt the need to hide his homosexual tendencies. Are you honestly saying that any homosexual couple could have walked in to any courthouse or any church and get married before the evil republican conspiracy came about? Are you honestly going to assert that, especially when only 30 years ago, homosexuality was considered to be a pathological sexual disorder?
And, importantly, the Courts are pretty much ALL agreeing with my side.
I don't give a damn if they do or don't. I'm simply giving you something to chew on, namely your own bigotry, hypocrisy, and irrational rationale. If the courts decide that homosexual marriage is Constitutional, then okay. We are simply going over the legality of it. And thus far, your argument is completely emotive, vapid, and devoid of anything substantive.
But again, I have to ask why civil unions are not being pushed since its a win/win situation. Both parties would be happy.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by FliesOnly, posted 06-13-2008 4:34 PM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by lyx2no, posted 06-13-2008 11:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 37 by Rrhain, posted 06-14-2008 7:48 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 38 by bluescat48, posted 06-14-2008 8:37 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 28 of 519 (471006)
06-13-2008 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Hyroglyphx
06-13-2008 5:21 PM


Screw Job
That's like saying paedophilia [sic] is only illegal because of paedophiliac bigots. It doesn't answer the question.
Provisions against having sex with children are not based on moral grounds any more then is my provision of not smashing my thumb with a hammer: It can cause real harm.
What is it with secondary characters in moralist arguments being treated as props? “Boo hoo! Poor Job, his wife and children were taken from him.” “Screw Job. What about his poor, dead wife and children?”
Why are you again neglecting that the child has a self-determination interest of its own? At lease this time you’re only acting to get them buggared. The last time you wanted to gun them down.
Why should Oscar Wilde's lover, a boy, have been denied on the same moralistic grounds? I mean, they just wanted to love each other, right? The age disparity, as they might argue, was pretty much incidental to their feelings.
In the words of FliesOnly:
quote:
Age of consent... age of consent... age of consent.
Obviously they do if you are going to say that marriage is a right granted by the government in the first place. Its like saying that the Preamble, where it says we are entitled to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness, extends to anything that makes us happy. Drugs make people happy, but it is not a Constitutional right to do them. To say that it is is a clear manipulation of the vagueness of some of the Constitution.
The Constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes them. That is the point of the 9th amendment. “ . Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happinefs.” is from the Declaration of independence and has no force in law. Whether we have a Constitutional right to them is a whole ”nother kettle of fish. It has been decided, as has been mentioned previously, that marriage, a contract preceding the Constitution, is very much one of those protected “pursuits of Happinefs”.
Homosexual marriage may offer some happiness to homosexuals, but then so would dual marriages for polygamists, marrying sisters for the incestuous, marrying dogs for the bestialists, adultery for the adulterers, or anything else under the sun.
Polygamy can be rejected on “Compelling Interest” grounds. Bestiality can be rejected on “Capacity to Consent” grounds. Adultery is legal. Are the sisters hot? Gay girl incest is so cool.
Edited by lyx2no, : Change header.

Kindly
There is a spider by the water pipe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-13-2008 5:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 29 of 519 (471067)
06-14-2008 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by New Cat's Eye
06-11-2008 11:32 AM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
quote:
What part of "this right has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution" are you having trouble understanding?
The part where it says that they have a right to a literal MarriageTM of someone of the same sex when marriage can only be between one man and one woman.
That merely begs the question. Yes, you have claimed that it is "between one man and one woman," but the Constitution clearly indicates otherwise. If marriage is a "basic, inalienable civil right guaranteed to an individual," why are you advocating that certain citizens be denied that right?
quote:
Gays have a right to have a social contract that functions like marriage. They don't, however, have a right to same sex MarriagesTM.
You do realize that those two sentences contradict each other, yes?
The only contract that "functions like marriage" is MarriageTM. Didn't you read the decision? "Civil union" does not provide the full benefits of marriage. "Separate but equal" is still unconstitutional.
So since the contract you want to provide is sub-standard and since the only constitutional solution is to have a single contract, why do you keep insisting upon having two?
Be specific.
quote:
My point was the I, myself, have not actively denied a right to gays. (not that marriage isn't a right)
You do realize that those two sentences contradict each other, yes?
Since marriage is a fundamental right and since you say, and I quote: "They don't, however, have a right to same sex MarriagesTM," how exactly is it that you can justify claiming that you, yourself, have not actively denied a right to gays?
Since marriage is a fundamental right and since gays cannot get married, your support of that state of affairs is an active denial of a right.
Civil union is not marriage. The contracts are not the same anywhere in the country and cannot be as we learned so long ago: There ain't no such thing as "separate but equal." How many times do we have to relearn this lesson before it sticks?
If you have to say, "I agree, BUT," then you don't really agree.
No exceptions.
No excuses.
quote:
and Loving v. Virginia could just as easily be read with the proper definition of MarriageTM.
Incorrect. Didn't you read the opinion? The "proper definition" of MarriageTM at the time was that the people couldn't be of mixed race. The finding of Loving v. Virginia was not that people had a "right to interracial marriage." It was that people had a right to MarriageTM and thus race couldn't be used to deny it.
Since the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal treatment under the law, this necessarily means that gays have a right to MarriageTM and as Lawrence v. Texas pointed out, you can't use sexual orientation as a basis to deny rights.
Just how much of the Constitution are you willing to ignore to calm your squick factor?
quote:
Gay people can get MarriageTM
No, they can't. If they could, there wouldn't have been a case. You did read the CSC's opinion, yes? They covered this canard. The idea that gay people have just as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex as a straight person is facile and, to be blunt, insulting.
For someone who claims to value MarriageTM so much, why do you hate it so?
quote:
but they, just like everyone else, have to abide by the rules on what marriage is.
Indeed. And the rules state that it is a fundamental right belonging to the person. The rules state that you cannot deny it based on sexual orientation. The rules state that you cannot have "separate but equal" contracts.
How much of the Constitution are you willing to ignore to calm your squick factor?
quote:
quote:
Right...because humans are the same thing as a force and a tree.
I wasn't saying that they are the same thing
Try again. See, the thing about the internet is that your posts are persistent. This is a common argument of yours: Comparing the sexual activity of two consenting adults of the same sex to everything except the only thing that logically follows: The sexual activity of two consenting adults of mixed sex.
The sex of the participants has no bearing on any other characteristic and thus comparisons to different species, even to things that aren't even alive, exist for no other purpose than to impugn the integrity of gay people.
quote:
The rights do apply to them
So why do you deny them? Gay people can't get married and you want to keep it that way.
Since marriage is a fundamental right, how is it "applying to them" when they can't exercise it?
quote:
and they apply to them the same way they apply to everyone else.
So why is it gay people can't get married?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-11-2008 11:32 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2008 2:38 PM Rrhain has not replied

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


Message 30 of 519 (471068)
06-14-2008 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by New Cat's Eye
06-11-2008 11:34 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
You're welcome to your opinions, but the Constitution disagrees with you. Our laws must follow the Constitution over people's opinions.
You do realize you just contradicted yourself, yes? You previously stated:
They don't, however, have a right to same sex MarriagesTM.
The Constitution says they do. If you truly believe that our laws must follow the Constitution over your opinion, why are you having such a hard time with this?
  1. Marriage is a fundamental right (Loving v. Virginia and many others)
  2. Fundamental rights cannot be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation (Lawrence v. Texas)
  3. "Separate but equal" is unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education)
Please explain how the denial of the right of MarriageTM to gays can possibly withstand these Constitutional decisions?
Be specific.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-11-2008 11:34 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Fosdick, posted 06-14-2008 11:48 AM Rrhain 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