Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 341 of 448 (469678)
06-06-2008 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Taz
06-06-2008 5:54 PM


Re: What about same-sex polygamy?
Taz writes:
As has been pointed out to you many times now, this is an impossible and impractical goal. By aiming for such an impossible goal, in the end nothing gets done and we are back to square one. I suspect this is your true intention.
My goal is to demonstrate that even an atheist can see through that frilly veil called "gay marriage." It's an in-your-face kind of a demand that resembles a childish tantrum. Let the churches do what they want, but just stay out of the laws with your "gay marriage." To have the laws, the ones I must obey, say that "marriage" is not necessarily a civil union between a man and a woman is to piss off many good people. But "I suspect this is your true intention."
Let's have a national referendum on the matter, Taz. How do you supposed that would turn out?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Taz, posted 06-06-2008 5:54 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by Taz, posted 06-06-2008 8:01 PM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 343 of 448 (469692)
06-06-2008 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Taz
06-06-2008 8:01 PM


Re: What about same-sex polygamy?
Taz writes:
Believe it or not, a black person ought to be treated as a fully human being rather than 3/5 of a person. I'm sure you also have a problem with this. So, why aren't you opposed to the 14th amendment and selective incorporation?
Oh, here we go again with this ridiculous comparison between the plight of blacks and the plight of gays. It's B movie. Give it up.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Taz, posted 06-06-2008 8:01 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by Taz, posted 06-06-2008 9:30 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 352 of 448 (469755)
06-07-2008 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by bluescat48
06-06-2008 9:58 PM


Re: Church documents v. Government documents
bluescat48 writes:
All are civil unions. Marriage, per your request, is a church entity. All these unions whether done in a church or not are sanctioned governmentally as civil unions with the same benefits to all.
I have no problem with that. I'm not out to deprive anyone of his or her civil rights under the law. But am out to get "marriage" out of the law. That way the churches could decide who gets married and I don't have to be involved with it. It's so simple it's silly.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by bluescat48, posted 06-06-2008 9:58 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Rrhain, posted 06-07-2008 1:21 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 353 of 448 (469760)
06-07-2008 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by Rrhain
06-07-2008 4:55 AM


Re: What about same-sex polygamy?
Rrhain writes:
It is predicated upon Constitutional principles.
Do you honestly believe the framers of the Constitution had "gay marriage" in mind when they framed it?
A prediction: You will reply that the framers of the Constitution didn't have abolition of slavery in mind when they framed it. How you get from abolition of slavery to state-sanctioned "gay marriage" is a queer bit of reasoning, indeed.
Huh? Why the sneer-capitalization? You seem to be indicating that the only purpose for sex is procreation and that sexual activity between people of the same sex is "unnatural."
We're back to that elephant in the room again. Do you really believe that same-sex sexual activity is natural? It seems unnatural to me because if you take a closer look at the equipment you can see that NATURAL EVOLUTION has not provided for sexual intercourse between gays, only straights. If you can't see that then we need to talk and the birds and bees.
It is patently ridiculous just how much are you fighting a process that doesn't affect you.
Whatever is specified in the law affects me.
Just what does the neighbor's marriage have to do with you? Be specific. You're obviously obsessed about something, so spit it out. What exactly are you afraid will happen if the neighbor's get married?
Yes, I'm obsessed about protecting the rights and interests of heterosexuals who feel that "gay marriage" is not something the law should sanction. And I'm obsessed about giving gays their legal rights to have civil unions. And I'm obsessed about finding a way to accomplish both obsessions.
You, on the other hand, are obsessed about forcing your opinion on the majority to accomplish a special-interest goal: "gay marriage." I still remain unconvinced that your POV has any merit. That is my opinion. And that is all anyone can have on this issue.
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
If, after what I have written on this thread, you want to tag me as a bigot, go ahead. Your opinions seem just as bigoted to me. You are the intolerant one her, not me.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Rrhain, posted 06-07-2008 4:55 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by Rrhain, posted 06-07-2008 2:09 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 354 of 448 (469762)
06-07-2008 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by Meddle
06-07-2008 8:20 AM


Where atheists and gays are alike
Meddle writes:
For example, we don't discriminate against Jews, does that mean we get to discriminate against Christians because they did not experience the horrors of the holocaust?
That one left me blinking.
As for the whole 'civil union' thing, how exactly would that work? If everyone, heterosexuals and homosexuals, simply got a civil union would they all just refer to themselves as married, because that is basically what it is regardless of what the state puts on a piece off paper; or would they have to go through some sort of marriage service?
I don't care what anyone refers to himself or herself as, so long as I don't have to be a part of it. But if the state should should decide to make such references a matter of law, then I care, because it affects me directly.
Could this be construed as discriminatory against atheists? Would people dismiss a couple as not being married because they did not recognise the church they used for the ceremony?
Atheists are discriminated against. An atheist has about the same chance of being elected POTUS as a homosexual does.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Meddle, posted 06-07-2008 8:20 AM Meddle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by Rrhain, posted 06-07-2008 2:27 PM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 355 of 448 (469764)
06-07-2008 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by Rrhain
06-07-2008 5:50 AM


Re: Church documents v. Government documents
Rrhain writes:
But what has been asked of you is how you would be affected by the neighbors getting married.
What are you so afraid of?
Kooties.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Rrhain, posted 06-07-2008 5:50 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by Rrhain, posted 06-07-2008 2:30 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 360 of 448 (469791)
06-07-2008 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by Rrhain
06-07-2008 2:27 PM


Now we're back to "garriage"
Rrhain writes:
If you don't want to be a part of it, then you are the one that needs to come up with a new name.
From Message 291:
Hoot Mon writes:
Hey, why can't we invent a new word for civil unions between same sexes? We need a dignified word that honors their special arrangement. I submit the word "garriage" to serve as an efficient replacement for "gay marriage."
"I heard Herb and John got garried the other day. It was a delightful garriage ceremony. And did you know that Ralph and Sarah got married last Saturday? Well, their cerimony was as lovely as Herb and John's. Gosh, aren't marriage and garriage wonderful things!"
So then you'll go for "garriage"? Isn't that what you asked for?
Rrhain writes:
Hoot Mon writes:
But if the state should should decide to make such references a matter of law, then I care, because it affects me directly.
How?
Be specific.
Are you saying that special laws for gays don't affect me? Come on, Rrhain, we've already covered this. Are you reading this thread carefully?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Rrhain, posted 06-07-2008 2:27 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by AdminNosy, posted 06-07-2008 4:19 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 367 by Rrhain, posted 06-08-2008 12:40 AM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 364 of 448 (469817)
06-07-2008 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by AdminNosy
06-07-2008 4:21 PM


Re: Please wrap and ask for a new thread to continue
As a wrap-up statement I’ll repeat the points I’ve been arguing on this thread:
” Gays should be granted civil unions but not marriages under the law.
” Marriage has always meant a civil union between a man and a woman.
” There is no compelling reason to change the meaning of “marriage.”
” If the word “marriage” for heterosexual unions must remain in the law then the word “garriage” should be added for homosexual unions.
” Otherwise, take the word "marriage" out of the law and let the churches decide who gets "married."
” And no one should be called a bigot for opposing “same-sex marriage,” so long as homosexuals are allowed to get civilly united under the law.
It’s been a queer thread.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by AdminNosy, posted 06-07-2008 4:21 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Taz, posted 06-07-2008 9:16 PM Fosdick has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 368 of 448 (469890)
06-08-2008 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by Rrhain
06-08-2008 12:40 AM


"Fairied" then?
Rrhain writes:
As soon as you start saying you were "garried" three times, then we'll know you're sincere.
But I'm not g-g-g-gay. Would you go for "fairied"?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Rrhain, posted 06-08-2008 12:40 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Rrhain, posted 06-09-2008 12:13 AM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 369 of 448 (469891)
06-08-2008 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Taz
06-07-2008 9:16 PM


Re: Please wrap and ask for a new thread to continue
Taz writes:
If my memory serves me right, you're the one that barged into my thread and used up the post number limit.
Sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Taz, posted 06-07-2008 9:16 PM Taz has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 370 of 448 (469892)
06-08-2008 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by AdminNosy
06-07-2008 4:21 PM


Re: Please wrap and ask for a new thread to continue
AdminNosy writes:
A good place for HM to list the infringements on his liberties too.
"Gay marriage" is like a handicap parking stall, except handicapped people don't choose to be handicapped. By legalizing "gay marriage" I would feel disenfranchised from my constitutional rights because I believe "marriage" should be between a man and woman. That's all I've got, Nosy”just my opinion and feelings on the matter. Who has anything more than that to bring to the table? It's all about opinions and feelings.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by AdminNosy, posted 06-07-2008 4:21 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Taz, posted 06-08-2008 8:26 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 377 by Rrhain, posted 06-09-2008 12:22 AM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 379 of 448 (470091)
06-09-2008 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by Rrhain
06-09-2008 12:25 AM


Afraid of democratic principles?
Rrhain writes:
Nem Jug writes:
I think it should then either go down to a vote by the citizens in each state.
Right...because denial of constitutional rights should be decided by popular vote. I mean, it isn't like the majority ever discriminates against the minority.
Rrhain, sorry to have to break it to you: In a democracy the majority always discriminates against the minority. Is that why you are so afraid to put it to a vote?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Rrhain, posted 06-09-2008 12:25 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by FliesOnly, posted 06-09-2008 11:32 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 402 by Rrhain, posted 06-10-2008 7:11 AM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 380 of 448 (470092)
06-09-2008 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 372 by lyx2no
06-08-2008 3:03 PM


Alphabet bigotry
lyx2no writes:
No one is required to call it marriage except government workers who are employees of the Gay person as much as they are employees of the straight persons.
I sense a bigoted move on your part by your use of an upper case "G" for Gays and a lower case "s" for straights. Maybe all the straights should storm their governments and demand equal captalization under the law.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by lyx2no, posted 06-08-2008 3:03 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by lyx2no, posted 06-09-2008 5:27 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 382 of 448 (470099)
06-09-2008 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 372 by lyx2no
06-08-2008 3:03 PM


A new thread?
lyx2no writes:
Oh wow! I'm more worried about being screwed by a bigot than I am by a homosexual. How's that for irony.
This remark makes me wonder if another thread should be opened to discuss: "Why is it bigotry to oppose "gay marriage"?
Nosy, would that be a futile exercise?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by lyx2no, posted 06-08-2008 3:03 PM lyx2no has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 383 of 448 (470101)
06-09-2008 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by FliesOnly
06-09-2008 11:32 AM


Re: Afraid of democratic principles?
FO writes:
Hoot Mon writes:
In a democracy the majority always discriminates against the minority.
Which is why in this Country we have the Constitution.
FO, I'm willing to bet my sailboat against your bicycle that the framers of this country's Constitution had not even the slightest concern over protecting sexual-orientation rights when they framed it. To them "marriage" was always a heterosexual union. And to them gravity always pulled apples down instead of up when they fell out of tree. If you can proved that the framers of the Constitution had "gay marriage" in mind I'll sail my boat all the way around to Michigan and park it in the marina of your choice.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by FliesOnly, posted 06-09-2008 11:32 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by FliesOnly, posted 06-09-2008 2:18 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 404 by Rrhain, posted 06-10-2008 7:16 AM Fosdick has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024