Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 31 of 519 (471069)
06-14-2008 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Fosdick
06-11-2008 11:56 AM


Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote:
Am I the kind of bigot you despise just because I oppose "gay marriage"?
I despise all bigotry. You will note that I have not called for any sanctions against you.
The bigot says, "I can, but you can't."
The moral person says, "I can, and so can you."
If you don't like same-sex marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex. Nobody is forcing you to do so, are they?
How is your life affected by the neighbor's marriage? You still haven't given any concrete example.
Be specific.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Fosdick, posted 06-11-2008 11:56 AM Fosdick has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 32 of 519 (471070)
06-14-2008 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by New Cat's Eye
06-13-2008 9:50 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
Just to clarify that I'm specifically talking about the current legal definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman rather than a more general definition that could also include gay marriage.
Didn't you read the CSC decision? The definition of MarriageTM always included same-sex marriage due to the compulsion of the Constitution to apply the law equally to all citizens. It was simply denied for all this time.
Nobody ever had a right to own slaves or deny women equal participation in society or any of a host of things that we take for granted that previous generations would be amazed to see. It was simply that the previous generations were never stopped.
That's the point behind rights: They are only useful when they are accepted despite ourselves. If we only have the rights that are popular, then there would never be a question about those rights. Everyone would simply assume them.
That was part of the debate over the existence of the Bill of Rights in the first place: People thought such things were self-evident. As we have seen, they aren't. If you don't make it explicitly clear that we have the right to speak, to assemble, to have equal protection of the laws, people assume that you don't...even if we go out of our way to point out that our lack of explicitly stating such doesn't disparage the existence of said rights.
The Ninth Amendment means something:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Marriage is a fundamental right.
The Fourteenth Amendment means something:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You cannot deny rights to citizens based upon their sexual orientation.
You cannot create separate contracts and ever expect them to be equal.
Article IV, Section 2 means something:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
You cannot deny the rights of citizens.
So since the Constitution clearly indicates that marriage is a right of the person, that it cannot be denied to gay people, and that only a single contract for MarriageTM will ever be in concordance with the Constitution, why do you keep insisting on two unequal contracts?
As soon as you grant the right of MarriageTM, then you necessarily grant it to gay people, too.
The only question is whether or not you are going to live up to your Constitutional obligations by recognizing it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2008 9:50 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 33 of 519 (471071)
06-14-2008 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by New Cat's Eye
06-13-2008 10:07 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
Yes, in order for gay marriage to be legit, the definition of MarriageTM would have to be changed.
When are you going to get around to reading the decision? This is expressly denied.
The definition of MarriageTM doesn't change at all because it already includes same-sex couples. The CSC decision does not grant a right to "same-sex marriage" just as the Perez decision and the Loving v. Virginia decision didn't grant a right to "interracial marriage."
It simply recognized that MarriageTM necessarily includes couples of both the same and mixed races, the same and mixed sexes.
To use a bit of a crude aphorism, marriage is about chemistry (the bond between the couple) and engineering (the building of a family), not physics (what pieces fit where).
quote:
Marriage, as a concept, has not necessarily been considered to be between the same race, as it has been for seperate sexes.
Incorrect. You didn't read the CSC decision at all, did you? That was precisely what it was defined as. Until the Perez decision, interracial marriage was NEVER allowed in California:
California Supreme Court, in RE, footnote 32 writes:
The marriage statute enacted in California’s first legislative session contained an explicit provision declaring that “[a]ll marriages of white persons with negroes or mulattoes are declared to be illegal and void.” (Stats. 1850, ch. 140, 3, p. 424.)
The very first legislative session of the state of California declared interracial marriage to be null and void.
quote:
To add the part about it not being between whites and blacks (which was ruled unconstitutional) is different than maintaining the definition as being between one man and one woman.
Incorrect. It is exactly the same. You are using the exact same arguments put forward to deny equality to gays that were used to deny equality to blacks, literally with the word "black" taken out and "gay" put in.
Since disparate treatment under the law is not allowed (Fourteenth Amendment) and was explicitly recognized as applicable to gays (Lawrence v. Texas), why do you keep insisting that there is something different about being gay that renders the exact same argument used to deny equality to blacks somehow valid?
quote:
I think we should consider the ramifications first.
And what, precisely are those ramifications?
How does the neighbor's marriage affect you?
Be specific.
quote:
I don't really have to have a reason other than my hesitation so long as the it's constitutional.
But the Constitution clearly contradicts you, so out with it:
How much of the Constitution are you going to ignore to calm your squick factor?
There is no right to "same-sex marriage" just as there is no right to "interracial marriage." There is only a right to "marriage." Because that right applies to all citizens equally, it cannot be denied simply because someone doesn't like the race or sex of the participants.
"Civil union" is not "marriage." All citizens have the right to "marriage."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2008 10:07 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 34 of 519 (471072)
06-14-2008 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by New Cat's Eye
06-13-2008 3:23 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
I will stand by SCOTUS's decision though.
Why don't I believe that? Marriage is a contract of the state, not the feds. DOMA inherently violates the Tenth Amendment.
So since the CSC clearly indicates that marriage is a fundamental right which cannot be denied to gay people, why are you still fighting?
quote:
Having restriction on the marriage contract doesn't deny rights to anyone if the restriction is the same for everyone.
So why can't gay people get married?
quote:
Gays can still get married, they just can't marry each other.
You do realize that the first clause contradicts the second, yes?
If they can't marry each other, then they can't get married.
quote:
But that is because of what a marriage is.
Incorrect. It would really help if you would stop for a moment and actually read the decision. In RE did not find that there is a right to "same-sex marriage." Instead, it recognized that the previous decision in Perez, whereupon it was found that marriage is a fundamental right, applies to gay people, too. Perez did not find a right to "interracial marriage" but rather a right to "marriage." It was simply that the law refused to recognize this right by denying it to people on the basis of race.
Same argument: In RE doesn't not find a right to "same-sex marraige" but rather a right to "marriage." It was simply that the law refused to recognize this right by denying it to people on the basis of sexual orientation.
"Black people can get married...just not to white people." That is just as disingenuous an argument as what you said: "Gay people can get married...just not to someone of the same sex."
The CSC decision dealt directly with that claim and showed how disingenuous, fatuous, and unconstitutional it is.
You have read the CSC decision, yes?
quote:
The definition of Marriage was implicitly between one man and one woman.
The definition of marriage was explicitly between people of the same race.
Are you saying the CSC was wrong to overturn that in Perez?
They didn't find a right to "interracial marriage." Instead, they simply recognized the right to "marriage." The definition of marriage did not change.
quote:
The lack of an explicit definition allowed for gays to start talking about getting married too.
Which necessarily means the definition fit just fine. Everybody knows that the term "marriage" means and nobody is confused when it is used with same-sex couples.
quote:
Seeing that that didn't fit with the implicit definition, an explicit one was provided (DOMA).
And that's precisely the point: The definition of "marriage" inherently included same-sex couples. It was because it did that the laws were changed to explicitly exclude them.
In RE didn't find a right to "same-sex marriage" just as Perez and Loving v. Virginia didn't find a right to "interracial marriage."
There is simply a right to "marriage."
Why do you wish to deny this right to certain citizens?
How much of the Constitution are you willing to ignore to calm your squick factor?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2008 3:23 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 35 of 519 (471073)
06-14-2008 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Hyroglyphx
06-13-2008 3:26 PM


Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote:
Are some people more or less "sexually oriented" towards pre-pubescent teenagers?
Oh, Christ...here we go again.
Tell us, NJ: Why is it that whenever you think of having sex with someone of your own sex, you immediately start having fantasies of having sex with children?
What is it about being gay that leads you to these fantasies that being straight does not?
Unless and until you can explain why homosexuality has a connection to raping your infant sons for money (I got them all, didn't I? Child molestation, polygamy, incest, prostitution, right?) while heterosexuality does not, then you don't have an argument.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-13-2008 3:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 36 of 519 (471074)
06-14-2008 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
06-13-2008 4:28 PM


Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote:
Then what about polygamy or incest
Oh, Christ...here we go again.
Tell us, NJ: Why is it that whenever you think of having sex with someone of your own sex, you immediately start having fantasies of having sex with children?
What is it about being gay that leads you to these fantasies that being straight does not?
Unless and until you can explain why homosexuality has a connection to raping your infant sons for money (I got them all, didn't I? Child molestation, polygamy, incest, prostitution, right?) while heterosexuality does not, then you don't have an argument.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-13-2008 4:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 37 of 519 (471075)
06-14-2008 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Hyroglyphx
06-13-2008 5:21 PM


Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote:
Here, read it again and answer appropriately:
NJ writes:
Here's the thing though with sexual orientation. Are some people more or less "sexually oriented" towards pre-pubescent teenagers? Do some people have some sort of natural affinity for the pre-pubescent?

...
quote:
That's like saying paedophilia is only illegal because of paedophiliac bigots.
...
quote:
Why should Oscar Wilde's lover, a boy
...
quote:
so would dual marriages for polygamists, marrying sisters for the incestuous, marrying dogs for the bestialists, adultery for the adulterers, or anything else under the sun.
Oh, Christ...here we go again.
Tell us, NJ: Why is it that whenever you think of having sex with someone of your own sex, you immediately start having fantasies of having sex with children?
What is it about being gay that leads you to these fantasies that being straight does not?
Unless and until you can explain why homosexuality has a connection to raping your infant sons for money (I got them all, didn't I? Child molestation, polygamy, incest, prostitution, right? No...wait...I forgot the animals.) while heterosexuality does not, then you don't have an argument.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-13-2008 5:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 38 of 519 (471079)
06-14-2008 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Hyroglyphx
06-13-2008 5:21 PM


Re: Reply to Rhain from other thread
That's like saying paedophilia is only illegal because of paedophiliac bigots. It doesn't answer the question.
What the @#$# does paedophilia have to do with homosexual marriage. A large number of paedophiles aren't even homosexual. Paedos come in all shapes sises colors, religious affiliations and sexual prefs. You're ideology is factless.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-13-2008 5:21 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 4:41 PM bluescat48 has replied

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


Message 39 of 519 (471091)
06-14-2008 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Rrhain
06-14-2008 6:45 AM


Will you go along with SCOTUS?
Rrhain writes:
The Constitution says they do. If you truly believe that our laws must follow the The Constitution says they do. If you truly believe that our laws must follow the Constitution over your opinion, why are you having such a hard time with this?
1. Marriage is a fundamental right (Loving v. Virginia and many others)
2. Fundamental rights cannot be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation (Lawrence v. Texas)
3. "Separate but equal" is unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education)
Please explain how the denial of the right of MarriageTM to gays can possibly withstand these Constitutional decisions?
Rrhain, a hypothetical question for you: If SCOTUS decides that "gay marriage" is not supported by US Constitution will you then shut up? Or will you say that SCOTUS is just wrong and go on with your litany of claims that gays are being discriminated against?
I would go along with whatever SCOTUS decides on the matter. However, my guess is that SCOTUS will not touch it, which will say a lot about what the U.S. Constitution addresses. And my other guess is that if SCOTUS decides against your position you will claim that the U.S. Constitution is unconstitutional.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Rrhain, posted 06-14-2008 6:45 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Rrhain, posted 06-16-2008 3:43 AM Fosdick has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 519 (471187)
06-15-2008 12:08 PM


Censorship
I've again been censored by the people in the smoke-filled rooms. So I'm going to put my muzzle back on. "Bad Nemmy, bad!"

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by iano, posted 06-15-2008 3:48 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 519 (471192)
06-15-2008 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by FliesOnly
06-13-2008 5:04 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
Gays can still get married, they just can't marry each other.
You know this is a meaningless but nonetheless completely insulting response. I've pointed out to you in the prior thread this very fact. Yet you keep saying it. Why? Why do you keep spouting this meaningless argument Catholic Scientist? You know, because I explained it to you, that with marriage comes some pretty fucking nice benefits. Telling a homosexual to basically just shut up and marry someone of the opposite sex denies them these rights. So quit acting like a third grader on the play ground and grow up.
It was a response to the claim that gays are being denied rights because of their sexual orientation, which they’re not. Marriage has restrictions on it that apply to everyone. Some people are not going to get to marry whomever they want to marry because of the restrictions. You can only marry adult people and they have to be of the opposite sex. Nobody is denied this right.
As a matter of fact, I seem to recall in the previous thread that you called me an "ass" because you claimed to not know what I was talking about when I was speaking about the "rights" of gay marriage. You made it sound as if you had no idea I was talking about all the benefits that are afforded married couples. So I explained them...I explained what I was talking about and asked that you therefore stop using this completely insulting and childless argument about how gays can get married. And here you are fucking doing it again. So basically, you were lying in that other post? Nice, Catholic Scientist....nice.
That’s because you’re taking my responses and applying them to things that they aren’t in response too.
Hey, you never addressed the issue I raised in the previous thread about marriage also being defined as "holy". Are you still sticking with your early definition of marriage that included the words "holy matrimony" in addition to the words "between one man and one women"? I mean, hey, if that's the definition you want to use (and let's be clear that I have serious doubts about its "standing" as being a legally applicable definition of marriage) then you do have to address the concept of "holy matrimony" as well. How are you going to rectify the problems this creates for the thousands and thousands and thousands of American citizens that had (or will have) a completely secular marriage?
The word holy doesn’t bother me. I couldn’t care less. It is of no consequence. A completely secular marriage could still be a holy thing, even if the participants don’t think so.
But that’s not the issue here. You asked me to provide a place where marriage was thought to be between one man and one woman before DOMA, and I did. If you can’t handle it and have to bring up the holy part too, then that’s your problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by FliesOnly, posted 06-13-2008 5:04 PM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Rrhain, posted 06-16-2008 3:55 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 519 (471197)
06-15-2008 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Rrhain
06-14-2008 6:40 AM


Yes, you have claimed that it is "between one man and one woman," but the Constitution clearly indicates otherwise. If marriage is a "basic, inalienable civil right guaranteed to an individual," why are you advocating that certain citizens be denied that right?
Everyone is allowed to get married as long as they follow the rules. Marriage is not denied to anyone.
So since the contract you want to provide is sub-standard and since the only constitutional solution is to have a single contract, why do you keep insisting upon having two?
I’m not insisting on having two.
Since marriage is a fundamental right and since you say, and I quote: "They don't, however, have a right to same sex MarriagesTM," how exactly is it that you can justify claiming that you, yourself, have not actively denied a right to gays?
If a right isn’t there, then I’m not denying it. I would have to be there in the first place for me to deny it to them. They do have a right to get married, but like everyone else, they have to follow the rules on what marriage is.
Incorrect. Didn't you read the opinion? The "proper definition" of MarriageTM at the time was that the people couldn't be of mixed race. The finding of Loving v. Virginia was not that people had a "right to interracial marriage." It was that people had a right to MarriageTM and thus race couldn't be used to deny it.
Nice twist. Loving v Virginia overturned the law that forbid whites from marrying blacks, which was unconstitutional. Having marriage defined as between one man and one woman is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Rrhain, posted 06-14-2008 6:40 AM Rrhain has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 519 (471198)
06-15-2008 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by FliesOnly
06-13-2008 4:34 PM


It wasn't and issue until homophobic republicans (primarily) made sure to define marriage solely to prevent homosexuals from marrying.
Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by FliesOnly, posted 06-13-2008 4:34 PM FliesOnly has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 44 of 519 (471220)
06-15-2008 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2008 12:08 PM


Re: Censorship
Juggles writes:
I've again been censored by the people in the smoke-filled rooms.
Like so many decals placed along the side of your fuselage. The line of argument you've used, although drop-dead logical and rational, cannot be expected to tolerated as a thorn in the side forever.
"Bad Nemmy, bad!"
Relatively speaking

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 12:08 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 4:14 PM iano has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 519 (471224)
06-15-2008 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by iano
06-15-2008 3:48 PM


Re: Censorship
Like so many decals placed along the side of your fuselage. The line of argument you've used, although drop-dead logical and rational, cannot be expected to tolerated as a thorn in the side forever.
I really am astonished that people still think that I am equivocating when I am SO obviously NOT. The singular thing that I am doing is trying to get people to see that their relative views on morality contradict itself when it comes to accepting homosexuality, but not accepting anything else. They have NO logical basis for defending one, but denying the other. Isn't that the very indictment for heterosexuals that believe marriage should be between one man and one woman? Uh, yeah, I'm pretty sure it is.
I'm not allowed to show them the absurd hypocrisy, without being slandered as something that I know I am not?
To be perfectly honest I am open to the notion of gay marriage and of homosexuality in general. I am not going to say that it is some abomination of the devil, or anything like that. I'm not here to hurt people's feelings, but I'm also not here to be so politically correct that I can't question the veracity of something.
What I am going to do, and have been doing for a long while now, is question its validity and to examine the societal problems that may be associated with rejecting or promoting it. Because quite frankly, I don't know what is true and what is false! I would think this is healthy and inquisitive behavior for someone searching for answers.
To no avail. I speak respectfully, they speak with scathing hatred. I use no epithets, they can't get enough of them. I don't use ad hominem, they plow me in the ground. I don't speak disparagingly about their beliefs, all they do is use hate-filled words and terminologies.
But I'm the bigot?!?!?!
I'm the one who gets suspended?!?!?
Nice.
This is turning out to be a fine display of censorship and hypocrisy.

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by iano, posted 06-15-2008 3:48 PM iano 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