|
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
CS writes:
I agree. I've been in love with more than one woman at a time. I think my person record is five. But I couldn't marry them all at once, not legally. So, as you say, I don't have the RIGHT to concurrently marry every woman I love. 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. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4174 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: Catholic Scientist writes: No...you said "that's the definition used"...read you own quote.
Actually, I said that the definition is defined by how the word was used. Catholic Scientist writes: So you do think that two men should be allowed to marry each other? Sorry for the confusion.
Where have I said that I don't want them to have the same rights? Catholic Scientist writes: If...for some unknown reason, men were not allowed to marry women, only other men...you would be saying this same stupid thing?
Also, everyone does have the right to get married. Catholic Scientist writes: Provide this "legally binding, Government dictated definition please.
Marriage already had a definition before gays wanted in on it. Catholic Scientist writes: Again, please provide this definition that prevented homosexuals from marrying.
They want something that doesn't fit within the definition. So we either need to change the definition or provide a new word. Catholic Scientist writes: How am I forcing my intolerance upon you? And where did I say that I do not "respect" your opinion? Seriously, Catholic Scientist, stop playing stupid semantics and at least try to understand what it means to truly be a bigot. Can you not see the difference between me disagreeing with your point of view (but respecting your right to hold such a point of view), and not allowing some individuals the same rights you have simply because of their sexual orientation?
Unwillingness to respect contrary opinion, hmmmm. You've been drinking too much Kool-Aid. Face it, you're an intolerant bigot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
FO writes:
Sorry to butt in here, but isn't bestiality a sexual orientation? Can you not see the difference between me disagreeing with your point of view (but respecting your right to hold such a point of view), and not allowing some individuals the same rights you have simply because of their sexual orientation? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
The three requisite elements of a contract are offer, consideration and acceptance. Sheep are unable to comply with any of them.
Kindly A mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
FliesOnly writes: Catholic Scientist writes: I can see how this would turn into a boring conversation.
FliesOnly writes: Provide this "legally binding, Government dictated definition please. Although I'm basically on your side in this, FO, I can't help but notice that you've switched roles a bit here: it used to be CS and his side of the debate hiding behind the "letter of the law." If there was a "legally-binding, Government-dictated definition" of marriage (as you've asked him to provide), would you even respect it? Wouldn't you just say it was unethical, anyway? My understanding is that your side of the debate is asking directly for just such a legally-binding, government-dictated definition to be overturned. I don't think it's very fair of you to ask CS to provide as evidence for his argument something that you're probably not going to honor anyway. And, he also didn't say the definition was legally-binding or government-dictated: it was a "spirit of the law" argument wherein a definition was always implicitly understood until somebody tried to push the envelope. So, he's actually right, although I don't know that I'd agree with using his logic to defend the DOMA definition as ethical, moral and Constitutional (because I don't think it is any of these). Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
lyx2no writes:
You mean to say the sheep don't dig it?
The three requisite elements of a contract are offer, consideration and acceptance. Sheep are unable to comply with any of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
You mean to say the sheep don't dig it? I'm sure I wouldn't know; however, getting them to state as much or to sign a paper to that effect is problematic. AbE: And as a nod to the topic: For your logic to hold that gay men already have the same rights to marry as do you, for women to have rights equal to and not beyond men, they too should only be allowed to marry women. For a man to have the same rights as a women, he must be allowed to marry a man. Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given. Kindly A mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4174 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes: You know...this is a serious topic that has real-world ramifications for millions of Americans...and you treat it like some sort of kindergarten playground spat. Grow up and debate seriously. 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. Can you even put forth a valid argument as to why homosexuals should not be allowed, in this Country, to marry one another. And if you want to cite DOMA as your excuse, then see if you can give me a moral, legal, valid reason why DOMA should stand and not be over turned on the grounds that it's Unconstitutional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4174 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: Oh, I see...now you're using an "implied definition" as your bullshit about the definition of marriage being defined as between one man and one women prior to DOMA. You're a real piece of work, ya know that Catholic Scientist.
No, marriage was implicitly defined as between a man and woman before DOMA. Catholic Scientist writes: Hog wash. You know it, I know it, everyone with the IQ above that of a doughnut knows it.
The reason was not to exclude homosexuals from marriage. Catholic Scientist writes: Are you going to support this claim with anything other than your "implied definition" nonsense?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4174 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes: Yes...that's exactly what I mean to say.
You mean to say that they are not as free to choose as I am? Hoot Mon writes: Really? How so.
Not true! Hoot Mon writes: Special treatment! Are you fucking kidding me? Self chosen aberrations! Are you serious? 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. Look, we've covered the whole "majority of Americans" crappola numerous times. Just because you are too fucking thick headed to get it through your skull that the Constitution is written precisely to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, doesn't mean the rest are. But can you in any way, whatsoever, support your claim the homosexuality is a choice? It never ceases to amaze me the level of intolerance some people have towards homosexuals. What are you so afraid of Hoot Mon? Why do you give a crap if two guys or two girls get married?
Hoot Mon writes: So now you're equating homosexuality with BBQing puppies. Nice.
It's not much different from people who want to raise dogs for BBQ purposes. Hoot Mon writes: I could not care less.
Why should anyone care if I want to put chopped puppy livers in my salad?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No...you said "that's the definition used"...read you own quote. yeah... when it was written. Like, when the laws where written the definition for marriage that they understood was between a man and a woman. I did have a grammatical error there. It should have said "because that was the definition used when it was written.
Catholic Scientist writes: So you do think that two men should be allowed to marry each other? Where have I said that I don't want them to have the same rights? According to current law, no. But they still have the same rights as me. I cannot marry a man either. What right do I have that they don't?
Catholic Scientist writes: Provide this "legally binding, Government dictated definition please.
Marriage already had a definition before gays wanted in on it. Catholic Scientist writes: Again, please provide this definition that prevented homosexuals from marrying.
They want something that doesn't fit within the definition. So we either need to change the definition or provide a new word. The reason DOMA was needed is because there wasn't a legally binding government dictated definition of marriage. People understood the word to mean husband and wife so it went unstated, but as things changed the definition needed to be explicit and goverment dictated. Thus DOMA.
How am I forcing my intolerance upon you? And where did I say that I do not "respect" your opinion? Seriously, Catholic Scientist, stop playing stupid semantics and at least try to understand what it means to truly be a bigot. To be a bigot is to be intolerant of another's opinions. To be intolerant is to be unwilling to respect another's opinions. When you called my opinion 'fucked up, shitty, petty, stupid, and condescending', you were being unwilling to respect my opinion. Ergo, you're a bigot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Oh, I see...now you're using an "implied definition" as your bullshit about the definition of marriage being defined as between one man and one women prior to DOMA. You're a real piece of work, ya know that Catholic Scientist. Well its the truth. If you want to deny the truth, then so be it.
Catholic Scientist writes: Hog wash. You know it, I know it, everyone with the IQ above that of a doughnut knows it. The reason was not to exclude homosexuals from marriage. What about the people who actually passed the law: From Congress of the United StatesHouse of Representatives SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACTAS INTRODUCED ON MAY 7, 1996 quote: Catholic Scientist writes: Are you going to support this claim with anything other than your "implied definition" nonsense? 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. So now what kind of bullshit are you going to make up?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4174 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Bluejay writes: Well, he (CS) has been arguing about the existence of a supposed preDOMA definition that prevented homosexuals from marrying. I've simply asked him to provide it.
If there was a "legally-binding, Government-dictated definition" of marriage (as you've asked him to provide)... Bluejay writes: I would want to see it's Constitutionality tested by SCOTUS. My hope would be that the Justices would uphold the Constitution and strike down DOMA as being discriminatory against a portion of American citizens.
...would you even respect it? Bluejay writes: True...but what I wanted from CS was his definition prior to DOMA. He claimed repeatedly that such a definition existed (which made me wonder why we even needed DOMA then), and I just wanted to see it. Now I find out it's implied. Sorry...but that doesn't really cut it in my book...nor apparently in the homophobic Republican Congress at the time...otherwise there truly would have been no need for DOMA.
My understanding is that your side of the debate is asking directly for just such a legally-binding, government-dictated definition to be overturned. Bluejay writes: Why is that? What does it matter if I personally honor it or not? I simply want proof of his claim.
I don't think it's very fair of you to ask CS to provide as evidence for his argument something that you're probably not going to honor anyway. Bluejay writes: If it's going to used in a Court of Law to prevent homosexuals from being treated the same as heterosexuals, then it had better damned well be legally binding.
And, he also didn't say the definition was legally-binding or government-dictated: it was a "spirit of the law" argument wherein a definition was always implicitly understood until somebody tried to push the envelope. Bluejay writes: How so? I have yet to see a preDOMA definition. I only have his assertion that is was implied. I say "bullshit" to that. If it were implied then DOMA was not needed. A Court would have stated that the definition was implied and, as such, two men (or two women) cannot get married. So he (and you, I guess) has yet to show in anyway how "he's actually right"
So, he's actually right Bluejay writes: Neither do I...and I can only hope that neither do even the ultraconservative Justices the W appointed to the Supreme Court.
...although I don't know that I'd agree with using his logic to defend the DOMA definition as ethical, moral and Constitutional (because I don't think it is any of these).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
And from the vast, undifferentiated plane we get this:
For a man to have the same rights as a women, he must be allowed to marry a man.
Well, he can always have a sex change, you know. Then he could marry the man he loves. He's free to do that; so am I. The only thing that separates us from doing that is CHOICE. And his choices are EXACTLY the same as mine. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4174 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: You know, debating this topic with people (like yourself) that state this sort of crap just drives up my blood pressure. It's not worth it. You're right. Fuck the homosexuals (no pun intended). Seriously CS, when you put forth such a loaded, total piece of crap, stupid, insulting argument like: "I cannot marry a man either", then what's the point? How do I counter such an asshole statement...by being a bigger asshole? Well, I'm not sure that's possible. But they still have the same rights as me. I cannot marry a man either. What right do I have that they don't?
Telling a homosexual man to basically just shut up and marry a women is a about as bigoted, derogatory remark as is possible. I have nothing left..you win...fuck off. but first
Catholic Scientist writes: And what was it that changed? Be careful here, because you do claim that it (DOMA) was not meant to deny homosexuals the right to marry someone of the same sex. So what changed such that a Republican Congress felt that DOMA was needed? The reason DOMA was needed is because there wasn't a legally binding government dictated definition of marriage. People understood the word to mean husband and wife so it went unstated, but as things changed the definition needed to be explicit and goverment dictated. Thus DOMA. and then this
Catholic Scientist writes: No...you're simply assuming that I do not respect your opinion. I do respect your opinion, I just happen to think that it's "fucked up, shitty, petty, stupid, and condescending"...but I would never deny you the right to express or hold that opinion. Look, I know you're not stupid so I'm relatively certain that you can see the difference between accepting or disagreeing with someones opinion, and doing some overt act to prevent that person from having access to the same rights you have. And please don't repeat the same ole "they can marry a man" argument. It's stupid, petty, condescending, derogatory, and extra stupid...and you're smart enough to know that.
To be intolerant is to be unwilling to respect another's opinions. When you called my opinion 'fucked up, shitty, petty, stupid, and condescending', you were being unwilling to respect my opinion. Ergo, you're a bigot.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024