|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban | |||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
80's music 80's music should be illegal... All great truths begin as blasphemies
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Fuck you asshole. Hey look you CAN say fuck...and asshole too! All great truths begin as blasphemies
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
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. So what if the definition is chaned to include 2 men or 2 women? Would that help in making it ok for them to marry?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
The problem here, as always, is that the Christian Fundamentalists have their own definitions for words.
Like in the evolution debate where they are only capable of using their definitions for words like "theory", "evidence", "fact", "transitional" etc, here we see the exact same problem. The Fundamentalists have their definition of "marriage" - One man, One Woman and Jesus. That's it. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that the US Government does not recognize church weddings are sufficient for marriage. Marriages are CONTRACTS. You sign a piece of paper, then you are married. The church, the priest, the rings, the flowers - all just for show. Any two mentally capable adults are allowed to enter into any other kind of contract - but because the fundamentalists don't want to use everyone else's definition, then apparently "homosexual" adults are forbidden from entering into this particular kind of contract. The solution, really, is simple:Remove all marriage - entirely. The state ONLY issues "Civil Union" contracts. ALL paperwork, ALL laws, ALL insurance claims, ALL medical rules, etc, ALL get changed to reflect "civil union". Then, if you are a fundamentalist and get married by the "Church of the Bigotted Sheppard" you can claim that you are "married". However, be aware, that ANYONE else can ALSO get "married" by ANY other figure they deem a reasonable authority. No one is attempting to pass any laws to "force" any private religious institution into doing anything. However, you're private religious institution likewise has no sway over anyone else's.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Good plan. What would you bet that within a month everyone would be calling the civil unions "marriages" followed by "Oh damn! Civil union."
Kindly A mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Nuggin writes:
As has been pointed out many times, this is an impractical and impossible goal. Most people will not support such a change. By setting up an impractical and impossible goal like this, in the end nothing gets done and we're back to square one. The solution, really, is simple:Remove all marriage - entirely. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Except that, if this solution is presented to the fundamentalists and they discard it, then it is fair game to say, "Alright, if you don't want a workable solution, we'll just allow gay marriage."
Treat them like 3 year olds, they act like them anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes: 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? No, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman because that's the definition used when it was written. Actually, I said that the definition is defined by how the word was used.
Yeah...I see...you're not homophobic...you just don't want them to have the same rights as the rest of us Where have I said that I don't want them to have the same rights? Also, everyone does have the right to get married.
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? Marriage already had a definition before gays wanted in on it. They want something that doesn't fit within the definition. So we either need to change the definition or provide a new word.
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. quote: Unwillingness to respect contrary opinion, hmmmm. You've been drinking too much Kool-Aid. Face it, you're an intolerant bigot.
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. Marriage already had a definition before the issue came up so it wasn't defined in order to deny marriage to gays.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
lyx2no writes:
But why does it matter what they call themselves? The only thing that really matters is that the government gets out of the business of marriage. Some people on this thread call themselves educated, and they still use the word "bigot" to describe people who disagree with them. That proves to me that you can be educated and still be ignorant. Good plan. What would you bet that within a month everyone would be calling the civil unions "marriages" followed by "Oh damn! Civil union." ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
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). A classic example of circular reasoning. DOMA doesn't stop anyone marrying so long as we use DOMA's definition of marriage... the one that was introduced with... DOMA! The whole raison d'tre of DOMA was to exclude homosexuals from marriage and if marriage was not defined in pre-DOMA law as being solely between men and women, then it must have been between any two people. Thus DOMA removed an extant right to marriage from gays and lesbians.
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. For God's sake CS, the example you respond to there was about the situation pre-DOMA. I was trying to shed light upon the reasons why DOMA was introduced in the first place. It's no use falling back on DOMA's definition of marriage before the damn thing existed. Try to keep up. States that refused to recognise gay marriages fro other states would have fallen foul of FFC before DOMA was introduced.That is why it was introduced.
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. Blah, blah, blah... It has already been patiently explained to you that this line of reasoning is flawed. Try; "That marriage is defined as being between two people of the same race doesn’t discriminate against anyone in particular, it just constrains what can be considered a marriage." I think you see where I'm coming from. This particular variety of nonsense was shot down forty years ago.
I don’t think the federal government should force a state to change what they have set up as being a marriage. Do you not believe in the constitution? If it were demonstrated to your satisfaction that bans/failures to recognise gay marriage were unconstitutional, would you still insist that states be allowed to violate the constitution?
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. What? Where did I call you names CS? What name did I call you, and in which message? Let's have it. Find me that quote or retract that accusation, because I have not called you any names. I told you not to get your knickers in a twist. I told you that your argument was bad. I told you that you were talking rot, but I did not call you any names. You, on the other hand, called me a bigot almost as soon as we started this exchange. If you think you are being called names, my advice is to either;a) take it like a goddamn man or b) complain to an admin about my breach of forum rules. Don't just whine about it. That's pathetic and extremely hypocritical. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Taz writes:
It's worse than that. I've lost my appetite for Hershey bars. Now I have to make my somemores with peanut butter. He's senile. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
FliesOnly writes:
Not if I want to keep out of trouble with him and the law. He's big s.o.b., and he claims the law is on his side. Well, damn it, I suppose it is. Bigoted bastard! I'd like to send a 2x4 up his Hershey Highway. Hoot Mon writes:
Yes you can. I can't marry the wife of the guy who lives next door. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
A classic example of circular reasoning. DOMA doesn't stop anyone marrying so long as we use DOMA's definition of marriage... the one that was introduced with... DOMA! The whole raison d'tre of DOMA was to exclude homosexuals from marriage and if marriage was not defined in pre-DOMA law as being solely between men and women, then it must have been between any two people. Thus DOMA removed an extant right to marriage from gays and lesbians. No, marriage was implicitly defined as between a man and woman before DOMA. The lack of an explicit definition was the reason for DOMA. It explicitly defined marriage to match the implicit definition. The reason was not to exclude homosexuals from marriage.
For God's sake CS, the example you respond to there was about the situation pre-DOMA. I was trying to shed light upon the reasons why DOMA was introduced in the first place. It's no use falling back on DOMA's definition of marriage before the damn thing existed. Try to keep up. DOMA’s definition is what the definition was before it existed. Your premise that marriage was not considered to be between a man and a woman before DOMA is false.
States that refused to recognise gay marriages fro other states would have fallen foul of FFC before DOMA was introduced.That is why it was introduced. No, DOMA was introduced to provide an explicit definition due to the ambiguity cause by an implicit definition.
It has already been patiently explained to you that this line of reasoning is flawed. Try; "That marriage is defined as being between two people of the same race doesn’t discriminate against anyone in particular, it just constrains what can be considered a marriage." I think you see where I'm coming from. This particular variety of nonsense was shot down forty years ago. What was shot down was a different variety. The RIA explicitly forbid marriages between whites and blacks. DOMA does not explicitly forbid marriage between gays so it doesn’t violate the FFCC.
Do you not believe in the constitution? If it were demonstrated to your satisfaction that bans/failures to recognise gay marriage were unconstitutional, would you still insist that states be allowed to violate the constitution? I think that explicit bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional but failures to recognize them are not.If the SCOTUS deems DOMA unconstitutional, then I won’t support it (DOMA) anymore. 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.
What?Where did I call you names CS? What name did I call you, and in which message? Let's have it. Find me that quote or retract that accusation, because I have not called you any names. I told you not to get your knickers in a twist. I told you that your argument was bad. I told you that you were talking rot, but I did not call you any names. Well if you’re going to be pedantic about it, I didn’t actually say that you did call me names.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
FiesOnly writes:
You mean to say that they are not as free to choose as I am? Not true! They have EXACTLY the same options available to them as I have to me. What they want is special treatment under the law, special exemptions for self-chosen aberrations that the majority of Americans deem inconsistent with the spirit of the law as it was written. It's not much different from people who want to raise dogs for BBQ purposes. The law says they can't. Now, what kind of bigoted law is that? Why should anyone care if I want to put chopped puppy livers in my salad? Hoot Mon writes: Bullshit, Hoot Mon. We're having this debate because they are not free to choose. They are free to choose, just like me. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
They have EXACTLY the same options available to them as I have to me. People typically respond to this by saying that you have the right to marry the one that you love while gays don't. But in the eyes of the law, a marriage is simply a social contract and it doesn't have anything to do with love. So, you don't really have the RIGHT to marry the one you love in the first place.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024