|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Harm in Homosexuality? | |||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Zachariah writes:
quote: What about them? Kids have the right to be raised in a loving, supportive environment free from those trying to tear their families apart simply because you disapprove of the parents. Why are you so determined to destroy families? Don't you care about the children? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes responds to me:
quote: "Separate but equal." It doesn't work.
quote: Laws reflect society. While there is a long history of marriage being a monetary contract, that isn't why most people get married in this country.
quote:quote: Non sequitur. Shall we try again? Do gay people love each other the way straight people do? What is different about the relationship between people that is dependent upon the sex of the participants.
quote: But that's the argument you're supporting. By calling it something else, you necessarily define it as distinct and different. Separate can never be equal.
quote:quote: (*sigh*) Do I need to construct a quote file for you, too? And how very nice of you not to link to the post to which you were responding which makes it difficult to trace the thread back in order to find your original words.
Message 199 Fifth, if you wish to use this as a reason that rights should be given, then why are you not fully behind polygamy, incestuous, and pedophilic marriages. Message 119 It hurts because pretty much worldwide, in just about every religious tradition, there is no such thing as gay marriage. So that's twice you invoked religious history in order to justify a denial of same-sex marriage. I wasn't the one who brought it up, holmes. That was you.
quote:quote: Which is the very definition of "separate but equal."
quote:quote: Right. Then you can give me an example where it happened. Show me where a legal contract was called two different things and were always treated identically.
quote: But that's because they're different contracts! A limited liability corporation is not the same as an incorporated entity and neither are the same as a partnership nor a sole proprietorship. They have different rules and responsibilities. That's why they have different names. They're not the same thing. If they were the same thing, they'd have the same name. This is basic law, holmes.
quote: Right...so when you sue a sole proprietorship, can you go after the assets of the proprietor or are you limited only to the assets of the business? Only in the most naive sense does "business law pertain to all of them." They are all business structures, they are all regulated by law, therefore "business law" as an entire field applies to all of them. However, business law treats them differently because they are different entities.
quote:quote: But that isn't the way the law works. By definition, if you call it something different, then you are explicitly declaring that they are different. Why else would you have a separate term for something that is identical?
quote:quote: Prove it. I want to see the message where I said it. We had no such discussion. Oh, we talked about polygamy, yes, and we discussed how some polygamists engage in a hub-and-spoke type of relationship in comparison to a maximally interconnected relationship. You may recall that I pointed out that this is a question that shows how polygamy is fundamentally distinct from same-sex marriage when comparing it to mixed-sex marriage: Polygamy changes the administrative design of marriage while same-sex marriage does not. The fact that you have to ask the question of "What do you mean by 'polygamy'" shows that it is logically distinct from same-sex marriage. But we never, ever discussed anything about marriage contracts actually being issued.
quote:quote: Incorrect. As I pointed out to you, and you so glibly ignored, the reason why the various legal challenges to the marriage laws were carried out in the states that they were was specifically because those states did not explicitly state that marriage was between a man and a woman. For example, Maryland had marriage legally defined as between a man and a woman since 1973. New Hampshire's the same way: The law was on the books long before Baehr v. Miike and DOMA. Previous legal challenges to anti-marriage laws were carried out in states that explicitly stated that marriage was between a man and a woman and were always rejected. Then, in Hawaii, a case was brought specifically because the Hawaii marriage laws do not mention the sex of the participants and specifically because the Hawaii constitution has an equal rights clause on the basis of sex.
quote:quote: Not just brevity but plain not saying what you mean. In direct contradiction to your stated claim, same race WAS set law. It wasn't just "discrimination" in the sense that a mixed-race couple would walk in to city hall and the clerk would refuse to give them a license because they didn't want to. It was because it was illegal to get married to someone not of your race. That was entire point behind Loving v. Virginia: They were married in DC and were threatened with arrest when they returned to Virginia. The choice was to go to jail or leave the state.
quote:quote: Yes, it does. At the time that Loving v. Virginia was decided, 70% of the country thought that it should be illegal for mixed-race couples to marry. Even when Kentucky finally took its miscegenation law off the books in 2000, 40% of the population voted to keep it.
quote:quote: Because "separate but equal" is unconstitutional and legally impossible.
quote: But they don't. Try making your argument when the cop pulls you over in your car and you show him your driver's license that is only rated M2. It's a driver's license, but it does not give you the right to drive a car. It only gives you the right to drive a moped. That's why they call it "M2" rather than "C."
quote: No, you can't. You can't drive a car in the carpool lane with only one occupant. You can't drive a truck outside of the designated truck lanes. You can't take a moped onto the freeway.
quote: No, those are different, too. That's why they're called different things. An LLC is not an Inc.
quote: (*chuckle*) And if wishes were horses then beggars would ride. We can speculate all we want about what the world might be like if the moon were really made of green cheese and the earth were the center of the universe, but that doesn't really help us when trying to determine what happens in reality. Oh, but I forget...us "reality-based" folk are out of favor these days. Wishing makes it so.
quote: Incorrect. It's a constitutionally mandated statement and a direct outcome of the method of jurisprudence we have. The law is dependent upon words. If you are using a different word, then you are directly stating that there is a difference between them. If there is no difference, then you would use the same word. "Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate."
quote:quote: But there is no definitional distinction between the two, so why are you using a different term?
quote:quote: But there is no definitional distinction between the nature of the participants, so why are you using a different term?
quote:quote: But that means it is dependent upon the good will of those in the majority to make sure that it gets repealed rather than upon the strict requirement of equality laid out in the constitution. In other words, it necessarily creates separate and unequal states.
quote: If they're the same thing, why are you calling them different things? There is no definitional distinction between the two. By calling them different things, you are necessarily declaring that there is a difference.
quote: Incorrect. It's the other way around.
quote: However, you have the arrow backwards.
quote:quote: Then why do the psychologists and psychiatrists who examine and treat pedophiles make it? Why do the pedophiles, themselves, make this claim?
quote: Some do. The vast majority do not. The fixation is upon children, not gender. Children are chosen precisely because they are androgynous.
quote: "Assault"? When did we go from a loving, mutually supportive relationship to assault? You're trying to turn the arrow backwards.
quote: No, I'm not going to have sex with you, holmes. Now that we have the ad hominem commentary out of the way, can we get back to the issue at hand? Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024