|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay marriage and the law | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2672 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
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 BoysJAMA. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024