Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


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 61 of 519 (471335)
06-16-2008 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by New Cat's Eye
06-15-2008 2:25 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
It was a response to the claim that gays are being denied rights because of their sexual orientation, which they’re not.
Gays don't have the right to get married.
Gays don't have the right to be secure in their households and not be evicted for being gay.
Gays don't have the right to be secure in their jobs and not be fired for being gay.
Gays don't have the right to be secure in their parenthood and not have their children taken away because the parents are gay.
Gays don't have the right to serve in the military.
Gays don't have the right not to be tortured because they are gay.
Given all of this, by what justification do you claim that gays are not being denied rights?
quote:
Marriage has restrictions on it that apply to everyone.
Indeed. What does sexual orientation have to do with it? By this logic, Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided.
Is that what you're saying? The SCOTUS was wrong to strike down miscegenation laws? Especially when over 70% of the population at the time felt that interracial marriage was wrong? That's more than currently think same-sex marriage is wrong.
Was the SCOTUS wrong in Loving v. Virginia?
That's a direct question. I would appreciate an answer.
quote:
Nobody is denied this right.
Gay people are. Marriage is a fundamental right. The Loving v. Virginia decision did not find a right to "interracial marriage." Instead, it found a right to marriage, in and of itself. Because marriage is a fundamental right, it cannot be abridged on the basis of race. And as Lawrence v. Texas found, rights cannot be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation, either.
So if marriage is a fundamental right and rights cannot be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation, by what justification do you conclude that marriage can be denied to gay people?
Be specific.
And again, this is a direct question. I would appreciate an answer.

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 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2008 2:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2008 10:27 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 62 of 519 (471338)
06-16-2008 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2008 4:41 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
What does paedophilia have to do with homosexual marriage? Absolutely nothing.
Then why did you bring it up? If there is no connection between the two, then your comments revert to gibberish with no actual content. It would be akin to having a discussion about the charge on the electron and then having someone say that the conjugation of the preterite in Spanish has some bearing on the case.
It leaves people scratching their heads since a non sequitur has just been uttered.
But since you seem to have an extremely hard time discussing being gay without jumping to such non sequiturs, it then becomes clear that you do think there is a connection between the two.
Therefore, it makes your claim of, "I wasn't attempting to equivocate" disingenuous at best.
Prove us wrong.
Go through this entire discussion without bringing up anything except heterosexuality to contrast against homosexuality.

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 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 4:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 519 (471357)
06-16-2008 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rrhain
06-16-2008 3:55 AM


Gays don't have the right to get married.
Gays DO have the right to get marrieg, but they have to follow the same rules that everyone else must follow on what a marriage is.
Gays don't have the right to be secure in their households and not be evicted for being gay.
Gays don't have the right to be secure in their jobs and not be fired for being gay.
Isn't it illegal to evict or fire someone because of their sexual orientation? It seems that gays do have those rights.
Gays don't have the right to be secure in their parenthood and not have their children taken away because the parents are gay.
Can you link to an article on someone having their children taken away because they were gay? 'Cause I don't believe you.
Gays don't have the right to serve in the military.
Why doesn't the military want to know if soldiers or gay or not? Why do they want to not have open gays in the military? I honestly don't know.
Gays don't have the right not to be tortured because they are gay.
Huh? Torturing gays is legal?
Given all of this, by what justification do you claim that gays are not being denied rights?
Its not all given. And what does that have to do with marriage anyways?
You took my quote out of context. Which is funny, because the context was explaining how what I was responding too took their quote out of context as well.
Indeed. What does sexual orientation have to do with it?
Not much. If fact, DOMA doesn't even mention sexual orientation. That's why gays are not being specifically denied rights. DOMA just affirms the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
Is that what you're saying? The SCOTUS was wrong to strike down miscegenation laws? Especially when over 70% of the population at the time felt that interracial marriage was wrong? That's more than currently think same-sex marriage is wrong.
Was the SCOTUS wrong in Loving v. Virginia?
No. They were right that legislating that whites cannot marry blacks was unconstitutional.
Maintaining that the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is not unconstitutional. If it said that gay people cannot get married then sure.
So if marriage is a fundamental right and rights cannot be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation, by what justification do you conclude that marriage can be denied to gay people?
Because marriage is not abriged on the basis of sexual orientation. Gay people can marry people of the opposite sex, it doesn't matter what your sexual orientation is. Straight poeple can't marry people of the same sex either. That's just what marriage is. Nobody is being discriminated against if everyone is being treated the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rrhain, posted 06-16-2008 3:55 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by FliesOnly, posted 06-16-2008 11:44 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 171 by Rrhain, posted 06-21-2008 1:55 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 64 of 519 (471358)
06-16-2008 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Rrhain
06-16-2008 3:43 AM


Don't civil unions do enough for legal purposes?
Rrhain writes:
Your argument is literally the exact same argument used to deny interracial marriage with "black" removed and "gay" inserted.
I just don't get how you can continue making this comparison. It carries the bogus assumption that race and sex orientation have rightful places on the same causal landscape. To do so convincingly, you would need to prove that homosexuality is as heritable as racial characteristics are.
The Constitution is clearly in support of same-sex marriage.
Then I think you have little pink puffs of chantilly lace stuck to eyeballs. You need to show just how "clearly" the Constitution supports "gay marriage." I have it here before me, and it doesn't say a goddamn word about "gay marriage."
How does the neighbor's marriage affect you?
Rrhain, I never said it did. I said it affected Mr. and Mrs. America, because they have the audacity to believe that "marriage" should be only between a man and woman, and that the notion of "same-sex marriage" is utterly ridiculous. I don't know how their neighbors' marriages should affect them. All I know is that many good people simply believe that the institution of marriage would suffer if the gays got their dainty little feet through the door. Furthermore, I know that the gays won't be satisfied with only civil unions, even if they coved all their legal rights. They want the LAW to say they're "married." (Granny, hide the pooch!)
You have never explained why legalizing civil unions for gays is insufficient to meet their legal needs. Therefore, your demands for "gay marriage" are nothing but temper tantrums. Go to your room.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Rrhain, posted 06-16-2008 3:43 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by rueh, posted 06-16-2008 11:28 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 69 by LinearAq, posted 06-16-2008 12:19 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 173 by Rrhain, posted 06-21-2008 3:10 AM Fosdick has replied

rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 65 of 519 (471361)
06-16-2008 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Fosdick
06-16-2008 11:02 AM


Re: Don't civil unions do enough for legal purposes?
quote:
You have never explained why legalizing civil unions for gays is insufficient to meet their legal needs.
I believe that two areas where civil unions and marriage hold different rights would be social security and federal tax status. Unfortunately with California's decision, these areas are still not addressed since they are federal issues not controlled by States precedence. However the courts ruling agreed with the opinion of many Californian gay couples, that labeling homosexual marriage seperate than heterosexual marriages marked gays and lesbians as second class citizens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Fosdick, posted 06-16-2008 11:02 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Fosdick, posted 06-16-2008 1:23 PM rueh has replied

rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 66 of 519 (471362)
06-16-2008 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
06-13-2008 4:28 PM


Re: Reply to Rhain from other thread
quote:
Then what about polygamy or incest, since all parties are seeking to enter in to a contract of their own volition? What about prostitution? Both parties agree to exchange sex for money.
You say that it isn't legal, and therefore is moot. But you overlook the fact that homosexual marriage is illegal. That would be hypocritical, not to mention discriminatory, to allow one and deny the others.
I think the area that you are overlooking, NJ. Is that besides the fact you are comparing apples to oranges, homosexuality by itself without regards to marriage is not illegal. All the other examples you compare it to are illegal. There is a large difference between denying the right to marry based on something not illegal vs. something that, by itself is illegal ( polygamy, incest, pedophilia, etc.)This is not hypocrisy, it is the accepted veiws of our society. To compare, this would be like denying a job based on sexual orientation (illegal) vs. denying a job based on arrest record (not illegal).

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

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 67 of 519 (471363)
06-16-2008 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by New Cat's Eye
06-16-2008 10:27 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
Nobody is being discriminated against if everyone is being treated the same.
Of course, we both know that not everyone is being treated equally. Yet you still insist on playing this childish game.
You, CS, you personally can, if you're willing and so is your "partner", you can marry the person you love...the person with whom you want to spend the rest of your life. You can then, as a married couple receive the benefits of that marriage. Things like inheritance, things like tax breaks, things like medical coverage for your spouse, things like hospital visitation rights, things like the making of major medical decisions, things like keeping your home after the death of your spouse. Yet homosexuals are denied these very things. That's right, CS...homosexuals are obviously being denied these marital benefits.
But again, you already know all of this because I mentioned it to you in the previous thread. And you acted all: "Whu? I didn't know that that's what you were talking about...ass". Remember that exchange, CS? So why are you repeating the same ole bullshit again...and again...and again. It was a total crappole argument then, and it's a complete fabrication now. Please stop.
Do you understand what we're talking about here. The homosexual couple that you don't want to see married, cannot have the person they truly want to be making these sorts of decisions actually make these decisions. You're basically telling them that someone else, someone they don't love...someone that they really don't want making these decisions, have to make these decisions because you won't let them choose the person they want.
And this ignores all the additional stuff the Rrhain keeps mentioning (that you so flippantly just blow off).
Catholic Scientist writes:
Why doesn't the military want to know if soldiers or gay or not?
I don't understand what you're asking here. The military does want to know if a soldier is gay or not. They're just prevented from asking. However, if they somehow or another find out or suspect that you're gay...then you're kicked out.
Let me ask you a question or two (or three, or four). Why should the military care if a soldier is gay or not? What effect would it have on their ability to serve? Do you honestly believe that there are no homosexuals in the military? Do you honestly believe that for some reason or another, gays are incapable of performing their given duties at a level that meets the military standard? If so, what duty (or duties) would that (those) be...and why can a homosexual not preform this task in a manner that meets military standards?
Catholic Scientist writes:
That's why gays are not being specifically denied rights.
Re-read the first couple of paragraphs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2008 10:27 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Taz, posted 06-16-2008 11:52 AM FliesOnly has not replied
 Message 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2008 12:32 PM FliesOnly has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 68 of 519 (471365)
06-16-2008 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by FliesOnly
06-16-2008 11:44 AM


You know, sometimes I wish we have a fallacy of playing dumb. CS's and hoot's playing dumb style is annoying as hell.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by FliesOnly, posted 06-16-2008 11:44 AM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2008 12:35 PM Taz has replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 69 of 519 (471366)
06-16-2008 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Fosdick
06-16-2008 11:02 AM


Re: Don't civil unions do enough for legal purposes?
Hoot Mon writes:
I just don't get how you can continue making this comparison. It carries the bogus assumption that race and sex orientation have rightful places on the same causal landscape. To do so convincingly, you would need to prove that homosexuality is as heritable as racial characteristics are.
No one has to prove homosexuality is a heritable trait.
Religion is explicitly defined in the same statement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be on equal footing with race, color, sex and national origin. Since religion is obviously a choice and not a heritable trait then the need for a characteristic to be heritable in order for it to be a characteristic that cannot be discriminated against is moot.
That is unless you think that we should allow discrimination against people because of their choice in religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Fosdick, posted 06-16-2008 11:02 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Fosdick, posted 06-16-2008 12:57 PM LinearAq has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 519 (471367)
06-16-2008 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by FliesOnly
06-16-2008 11:44 AM


You, CS, you personally can, if you're willing and so is your "partner", you can marry the person you love...the person with whom you want to spend the rest of your life.
In the eyes of the law, marriage is a social contract that has nothing to do with love. I don't have a right to marry the one I love and neither do gays.
You can then, as a married couple receive the benefits of that marriage. Things like inheritance, things like tax breaks, things like medical coverage for your spouse, things like hospital visitation rights, things like the making of major medical decisions, things like keeping your home after the death of your spouse. Yet homosexuals are denied these very things. That's right, CS...homosexuals are obviously being denied these marital benefits.
They are being denied having those things with a person of the same sex because that is the way that marriage is defined and those things come from being married, but they are not being denied having those things on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Any problems with those things could be solved within those things themselves without having to change the definition of marriage, or the definition of marriage can be changed.
But again, you already know all of this because I mentioned it to you in the previous thread. And you acted all: "Whu? I didn't know that that's what you were talking about...ass". Remember that exchange, CS? So why are you repeating the same ole bullshit again...and again...and again. It was a total crappole argument then, and it's a complete fabrication now. Please stop.
You took me out of context in the other thread so I didn't know what you were talking about. Sometimes people talk about the right to marriage and sometimes people talk about the rights associated with marriage. When I say that gays are not being denied the right to marriage but that they must follow what mariage is and someone takes that out of context and starts talking about all the rights associated with being married, it gets confusing. My opponenets are comming at me from different angles on the same quote. It is hard to keep up.
Do you understand what we're talking about here. The homosexual couple that you don't want to see married,
Again, I don't really care if they get married or not. What I'm arguing against is this notion that they are Unconstitutionally being denied rights and that we must allow gay marriage. I don't see that as being the case. Also, I think there could be some negative ramifications (health insurance costs going up, for example) if we simply "hit a lightswitch" and allow gay marrage. I think we should think it through a little better.
So, I oppose the notion that gay marriage must be allowed.
The homosexual couple that you don't want to see married, cannot have the person they truly want to be making these sorts of decisions actually make these decisions. You're basically telling them that someone else, someone they don't love...someone that they really don't want making these decisions, have to make these decisions because you won't let them choose the person they want.
They could also try to change the way that it is decided who the person who makes those decisions is. Just sayin'. They could do that, or introduce civil unions, or prolly some other things that I've failed to think of.
Or, they could just get the definition of marriage changed. Whatever. But to take the angle that they are being discriminated against unconstitutionally and the current definition of marriage must include them is wrong, IMHO. And dishonest. And I'm going to argue against it on anonymous message boards. I know, I know... I'm a horrible person
Catholic Scientist writes:
Why doesn't the military want to know if soldiers or gay or not?
I don't understand what you're asking here. The military does want to know if a soldier is gay or not. They're just prevented from asking. However, if they somehow or another find out or suspect that you're gay...then you're kicked out.
I'm sorry, I know absolutely nothing about the military. I thought "Don't ask, don't tell" was the military's position. Like, they didn't want to know if you were gay or not.
Why should the military care if a soldier is gay or not? What effect would it have on their ability to serve? Do you honestly believe that there are no homosexuals in the military? Do you honestly believe that for some reason or another, gays are incapable of performing their given duties at a level that meets the military standard? If so, what duty (or duties) would that (those) be...and why can a homosexual not preform this task in a manner that meets military standards?
I thought that the military is weary of gays because they don't want people having sex in the barracks, but I don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by FliesOnly, posted 06-16-2008 11:44 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by FliesOnly, posted 06-16-2008 2:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 174 by Rrhain, posted 06-21-2008 3:41 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 519 (471370)
06-16-2008 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Taz
06-16-2008 11:52 AM


You know, sometimes I wish we have a fallacy of playing dumb. CS's and hoot's playing dumb style is annoying as hell.
Try taking your head out of your ass. I'm not playing dumb (nor am I dumb).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Taz, posted 06-16-2008 11:52 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Taz, posted 06-16-2008 2:59 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 72 of 519 (471378)
06-16-2008 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by LinearAq
06-16-2008 12:19 PM


Re: Don't civil unions do enough for legal purposes?
LinearAq writes:
Religion is explicitly defined in the same statement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be on equal footing with race, color, sex and national origin.
Why do you suppose "sexual orientation" was left out?
Since religion is obviously a choice and not a heritable trait then the need for a characteristic to be heritable in order for it to be a characteristic that cannot be discriminated against is moot.
That is unless you think that we should allow discrimination against people because of their choice in religion.
But, once again, homosexuals are not discriminated against in the laws I must obey. They can marry any member of the opposite sex they choose, just as I can. And, as far as I'm concerned, they can have their civil unions under the law. But they shouldn't get "married" under the law; that is something heterosexuals do. If homosexuals want to invent their own name for their same-sex unions, I won't object. But "marriage" has already been taken by the heteros.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by LinearAq, posted 06-16-2008 12:19 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by lyx2no, posted 06-16-2008 3:13 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 100 by LinearAq, posted 06-17-2008 12:26 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 177 by Rrhain, posted 06-21-2008 3:25 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 73 of 519 (471380)
06-16-2008 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by rueh
06-16-2008 11:28 AM


Re: Don't civil unions do enough for legal purposes?
Sorry, I can't see how "gay marriage" and regular marriage are the same thing, or why they should be treated as such under the law.
Please help me out here. A marriage between a man and a woman is not the same thing as a "marriage" between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. I can't be that stupid not to get it, can I? What am I missing? Get out your high-school biology textbook and you can see in the pictures that the male's marrying part fits very nicely into the female's marrying part. Nature made it convenient for us that way. But two members of the same sex are not so naturally compatible, not anatomically (unless the Hershey Highway is opened up for traffic).
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by rueh, posted 06-16-2008 11:28 AM rueh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by rueh, posted 06-16-2008 3:15 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 178 by Rrhain, posted 06-21-2008 3:35 PM Fosdick has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 74 of 519 (471389)
06-16-2008 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by New Cat's Eye
06-16-2008 12:32 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
In the eyes of the law, marriage is a social contract that has nothing to do with love. I don't have a right to marry the one I love and neither do gays.
It's not about the love, per say. But again, you know this already and are, by your own choice, continuing to play stupid. Seriously, this too was covered in the previous thread.
You, CS, you personally, you can choose to marry someone (regardless of love) with whom you are happy (I assume, but certainly not a requirement) to spend the remainder of your life. This person, the one that you personally have chosen (and assuming that this person agreed with the choice and themselves chose to act in a reciprocal manner) is then afforded certain rights that those that are not married do not get. You chose this person because amongst other things, you perhaps wanted them to make the types of decisions I mentioned in the previous post. Important decisions. Live choices that may very well have huge impacts.
Yet, you're telling a homosexual that they are not free to choose as you are free to choose. They do not get to pick the person that they really want to make these decisions. Why? Why do you want to deny homosexuals the right to choose whomever they want (as long as the other individual wants and/or can legally enter into such a contract) to make these import life decisions?
Catholic Scientist writes:
They are being denied having those things with a person of the same sex because that is the way that marriage is defined and those things come from being married, but they are not being denied having those things on the basis of their sexual orientation.
I will admit that I completely and utterly fail to follow this line of argument. How can you seriously use these two sentences together? Marriage was purposefully defined by homophobic bigots when it became obvious that homosexuals were NOT legally allowed to be denied marriage. Once homophobic bigots found out that marriage was NOT defined legally as being between one man and one women, homophobic bigots passed laws and re-wrote definitions to be worded as such. So don't sit there and tell me that they are being not denied the right to marry based on their sexual orientation.
I mean, hey, if they're not being denied the right to marry because of their sexual orientation, then remove the new definitions that define marriage as being between one man and one women and let's see what happens.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Any problems with those things could be solved within those things themselves without having to change the definition of marriage, or the definition of marriage can be changed.
So we agree then, that we should just go back to the way things were before a bunch of homophobic bigots decided to define marriage as being between one man and one women.
Catholic Scientist writes:
You took me out of context in the other thread so I didn't know what you were talking about. Sometimes people talk about the right to marriage and sometimes people talk about the rights associated with marriage. When I say that gays are not being denied the right to marriage but that they must follow what marriage is and someone takes that out of context and starts talking about all the rights associated with being married, it gets confusing. My opponents are coming at me from different angles on the same quote. It is hard to keep up.
But it's a moot fucking point because you know that homosexuals ARE being denied certain rights that married couples get. That's the problem, CS, not some bullshit about how you didn't know what I was talking about. You KNOW that your argument about how they are not being denied the right to marry is bogus. Even if you are stating that "they can marry someone of the opposite sex", or that "you can't marry someone of the same sex either". You KNOW that many of us here will point out the flaws in that argument. It's a total bullshit argument...so please stop using it.
Catholic Scientist writes:
What I'm arguing against is this notion that they are Unconstitutionally being denied rights and that we must allow gay marriage. I don't see that as being the case.
Other than repeating this Ad nauseam, you have yet to explain WHY the 9th and 14th Amendments do not apply to homosexuals. Rrhain (and to a lesser extent myself and some others) have explained to you why we (as well as SCOTUS, CSC and other Courts) feel that they do apply. Please explain why you feel they do not.
Catholic Scientist writes:
They could also try to change the way that it is decided who the person who makes those decisions is. Just sayin'. They could do that, or introduce civil unions, or prolly some other things that I've failed to think of.
So you're shootin for the whole "Separate but equal" thing. Hmmmm, not too original and already addressed as being Unconstitutional. So better yet, why not just call it marriage since, after all, that's what it fucking is?
Catholic Scientist writes:
I thought that the military is weary of gays because they don't want people having sex in the barracks, but I don't know.
Yeah...cuz them crazy homos just try to fuck every guy they see. And yet you claim not to be a homophobic bigot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2008 12:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by bluescat48, posted 06-16-2008 3:01 PM FliesOnly has not replied
 Message 78 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2008 3:15 PM FliesOnly has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 75 of 519 (471394)
06-16-2008 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by New Cat's Eye
06-16-2008 12:35 PM


CS writes:
I'm not playing dumb
I wonder how many people actually believe you on this one.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2008 12:35 PM New Cat's Eye 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