|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
AndyGodLove  Suspended Member (Idle past 5796 days) Posts: 18 From: Wentworth Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage | |||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4172 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes: So like I said...despite all your bullshit about not carry if homosexuals are granted civil unions...you actually do care and quite obviously fear such a thing happening. And for really valid reasons too. According to you; "them crazy homos are going to exploit the system....that's the only reason they want to married in the first place...and God gave only us heteros that right. Stupid homos, thinkin they can exploit the system and use up my SS benefits."
But if the gays ever got access to each other's SS benefits by being officially "married," according to some state, then why wouldn't you want to "marry" your best buddy, who happens to be dying, just to get his SS benefits? Hoot Mon writes: Yeah...cuz only us white trash "other fuckers" are allowed to exploit the system, man. I believe this is done occasionally by elderly heterosexuals to transfer their SS benefits, but I'm not really sure. However, I've thought about it myself. Why do you even bother claiming to not be a homophobic bigot? Seriously, Hoot Mon, you're pathetic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
FO writes:
It's wrong to misquote people. Show me where I said that or resign from this discussion immediately. According to you; "them crazy homos are going to exploit the system....that's the only reason they want to married in the first place...and God gave only us heteros that right. Stupid homos, thinkin they can exploit the system and use up my SS benefits." ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It's wrong to misquote people. Show me where I said that or resign from this discussion immediately. FO is only participating to talk shit and spout hate-speach against opinions that differ from his. A Troll, in fewer words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
You remind me of the neo-nazi I talked to a couple years ago who complained that they were being persecuted by society for having "a different opinion".
I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Taz writes:
What I'd like to see is full-on battle between the neo-Nazis and the gays using barbed Hershey Highway pikes. I'd pay to watch it on Pay-Per-View TV. And I'm betting the gays would win, owing to the fact that they have more experience poking around with their Hershey Highway pikes. You remind me of the neo-nazi I talked to a couple years ago who complained that they were being persecuted by society for having "a different opinion". ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote: If that were true, then gays could get married. Since they can't, they clearly do not have the right to get married. "The rules" are that marriage is a fundamental right which cannot be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation. Therefore, since gays are specifically barred from the contract of marriage, your claim fails by inspection. Loving v. Virginia did not find a right to "interracial marriage." Instead, it recognized that people have a right to marriage and thus, that right cannot be abridged on the basis of race. By your logic, Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided because blacks could get married: They just "had to follow the same rules that everyone else must follow on what a marriage is," which was that it was only between people of the same race. If it was a pile of crap when applied to race, what makes it suddenly such a valid argument when applied to sexual orientation? Be specific.
quote: No. It all depends on where you live. In most of the country, you can be evicted or fired for being gay.
quote: I already did. In a thread you participated in. I am not here to do your homework for you. You have access to a search engine. Use it. I've provided the specifics in previous threads, including case numbers in some instances. Go look them up.
quote: Non sequitur. You are claiming that gays are not disciminated against and yet gay people are not allowed to serve in the military while convicted criminals are.
quote: Yes. It's called "reparative therapy" and gay children are forced to undergo it every day in this country. They hook your genitals up to electrodes.
quote: Logical error: Shifting the goal posts. Your claim was that gays are not discriminated against. You were given examples of how gays are discriminated against, one of which was that gay people cannot get married.
quote: Just how stupid do you think we are? Are you seriously claiming that because something does mention the words "sexual orientation," "gay," or "straight," then it necessarily isn't referring to sexual orientation, gays, or straights? Do yourself a favor. Go back to that search engine of yours and look up the debate that took place over DOMA as it was passing through Congress. Consider the words of Funderburk, Coburn, Hyde, and Lewis. Hint: Nobody thinks that the restriction of marriages to one man and one woman has anything to do with the sex of the participants. If you had read the in RE case out of the California Supreme Court, you would know that. Since you're making this ludicrous argument, there aren't many options for why: 1) You haven't read the decision which means you are speaking from ignorance and really ought to withdraw until you have read it. We'll still be here when you've finally finished doing your own homework. 2) You have read the decision but think we're all stupid and haven't, thus you can get away with a line of reasoning the courts have explicitly rejected.
quote: You realize that those two sentences contradict each other, right? DOMA specifically denies the rights of gays. Marriage is a fundamental right: Loving v. Virginia and many other cases. Rights cannot be denied on the basis of sexual orientation: Lawrence v. Texas. Ergo, marriage cannot be denied to people on the basis of sexual orientation. Remember, Loving v. Virginia did not define a right to "interracial marriage." Instead, it found a right to marriage and because that right is fundamental, it cannot be abridged due to the race of the participants. So if your argument of "they have to follow the same rules that everyone else must follow on what a marriage is" is a pile of crap when it comes to race, how does it suddenly acquire legitimacy when it comes to sexual orientation? The "rules" of marriage were that you had to marry someone of your own race. Blacks could handily marry other blacks. So there wasn't any discrimination, right? It's time for you to be specific: If this argument doesn't fly when the question is the race of the participants, why does it suddenly become legitimate when the question is the sexual orientation of the participants? Remember: The laws about restricting marriage to people of the opposite sex are not about the sex of the participants. Nobody thinks that. The lawmakers who wrote the law didn't think that (as can be found by their own words...look them up) nor have the courts interpreted them to mean that. Instead, the laws are about stopping gay people from getting married.
quote: Then where on earth does the legitimacy of DOMA come from? Loving v. Virginia did not find a right to "interracial marriage." Instead, it found that marriage is a fundamental right and as such, it cannot be abridged on the basis of race. Since DOMA is not about the sex of the participants but about the sexual orientation of the participants (again: Do you really think we're that stupid?) and since rights cannot be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation, why does your argument suddenly become legitimate when dealing with sexual orientation while it's a piece of crap when dealing with race?
quote: You do realize that those two sentences contradict each other, yes? You're not about to feign innocence and claim that because the words "sexual orientation" don't appear in the text, that means it doesn't have anything to do with it, are you? Do you really think we're that stupid?
quote: You do realize that such marriages can be annulled due to fraud, yes? And annullment means the marriage never existed. Therefore no, gay people can't get married.
quote: Since gay people can't get married, your claim is trivially proven false by inspection.
quote: White people can't marry someone of a different race, either. That's just what marriage is. Nobody is being discriminated against if everyone is being treated the same. If it was a piece of crap in 1969, what gives it legitimacy now? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
This is why I think CS, hoot mon, and other bigots here are playing dumb when it comes to this argument. I think they are smart enough to see that their line of reasoning is the same line of reasoning used against the Lovings back in the 60's. But for some darn reason, they think that the rest of us are stupid enough to not see through their thinly veiled bullshit argument. If it was a pile of crap when applied to race, what makes it suddenly such a valid argument when applied to sexual orientation? Either they are stupid enough to not see that the line of reasoning is a pile of crap or that they are purposely lying, which violates one of their 10 commandments. Anyway, I guess I've been too frustrated to really engage in a deep conversation about this topic. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote: Why? You're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, which is clearly not a heritable trait. At any rate, you can change your religion. You can't change your sexual orientation. Prove us wrong. Change yours. Go out right now and find someone of the same sex, get massively turned on, and do what you can to eventually wind up in bed with him. When you finally succeed (we can wait through the dating period for you to earn his trust), come back and give us the details of how you got off and how you'll want to do it again and again and again. At any rate, how does one determine "race"? It isn't like there is a gene that makes you white and if you have it, you're white and if you don't, you're not. Are we about to go to the "one drop" method of determination? Why does having a "black" grandfather make you "black" but having a "white" grandmother doesn't make you "white"? Race is not a heritable characteristic. It's simply an arbitrary collection of external morphology. Serious question: How does one determine "race"?
quote: And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
quote: Already done. You have read the court decisions I presented you, yes? You seem to be about to argue that the Constitution is a laundry list: If you don't find the exact phrase of the concept you are looking for, then the Constitution doesn't apply to it, right? So by this logic, you think Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided, right? The Constitution doesn't mention marriage and yet somehow the SCOTUS seemed to think the Constitution had something to say about it. Tell us: Which specific clauses in the Constitution were mentioned in the decision? Why do you think they don't apply?
quote: You are! You are about to claim the Constitution is a laundry list! Even though it directly says that it isn't! How precious. How absolutely precious. The Constitution says nothing about driver's licenses, and yet the State seems to think it has the right to require you to have one. I suppose that makes the driver's license unconstitutional, right? When was the last time you read the Federalist Papers? Read Federalist 84 and let us know what you think:
"Federalist 84" writes: For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? Ooh, there's this:
"Federalist 84" writes: On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing. This is pretty much your, "If it doesn't say it, therefore it doesn't exist," argument. You will see that it was clearly rejected because we have a Bill of Rights.
quote:quote: Incorrect. You said over and over again that if we allow gay people to get legally married, then you will be affected as a person living in such a country since you are affected by the law. Do you really need me to do a crawl of your posts and repeat your own words back to you? So out with it: How are you affected?
quote: Why? Why do we care what someone else thinks? Since when does your squick factor get to affect someone else's rights? When Loving v. Virginia was decided, more than 70% of the population felt that interracial marriage should not be allowed. And yet, the SCOTUS unanimously decided that it should. So how did this affect "Mr. and Mrs. America"? If their squick factor cannot be allowed to abridge other people's rights when it comes to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when it comes to sexual orientation? Espcially in the light of Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas that specifically said such reasoning is not legitimate? If you don't like marriage between people of the same sex, then don't marry someone of the same sex. How does the marriage of the neighbors affect you?
quote: Why? Be specific. Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided in finding that marriage was a fundamental right? Remember, it did not find a right to "interracial marriage." It simply recognized that marriage was a fundamental right and as such, it could not be abridged based upon race. Are you saying this was the wrong thing to do? After all, the Constitution doesn't mention "marriage" anywhere in its text. Are you saying Romer v. Evans was wrongly decided in finding that participation in the political process was a fundamental right? Remember, it did not find a right to "gay political rights." It simply recognized that participation in the political process was a fundamental right and as such, it could not be abridged based upon sexual orientation. Are you saying this was the wrong thing to do? After all, the Constitution doesn't mention "political process" anywhere in its text. Are you saying "Lawrence v. Texas" was wrongly decided in finding that sexual privacy was a fundamental right? Remember, it did not find a right to "gay sex." It simply recognized that the sexual privacy was a fundamental right and as such, it could not be abridged based upon sexual orientation. Are you saying this was the wrong thing to do? After all, the Constitution doesn't mention "sexual privacy" anywhere in its text. Be specific. Were Loving v. Virginia, Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas wrongly decided?
quote: But that's your argument for why the neighbors should be prevented from getting married. So how are they affected? Be specific.
quote: Why do we care? Since when are rights denied simply because somebody else's feelings will be hurt? There are plenty of people who simply believe that the institution of marriage would suffer if we allow people of different races to marry (it's why the laws on the books against it were still present just a few years ago despite the Loving v. Virginia ruling.) And yet, we still decreed marriage to be a fundamental right that cannot be abridged based on race despite all the hurt feelings such a decision would cause (and still cause). If it's a piece of crap when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote: And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
quote: Indeed. That's the only way to guarantee equality. Have you forgotten Brown v. Board of Education already? There is no such thing as "separate but equal." The contract of "civil union" can never be the same as the contract of "marriage" and, in fact, in every jurisdiction in which there is a "civil union," it is not equivalent to the contract of "marriage." The mere act of calling it something lese necessarily declares that it is something else. That's why the phrase is, "Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate." Those are different things. The only way to guarantee equality is to have a single contract. The current contract is called "marriage." Surely your argument is semantic, is it? We should have to rewrite literally thousands of laws to come up with a new term that applies to everyone rather than leave everything as it is and simply recognize that the current contract applies to everyone?
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? I have done nothing but. How many times have I said, directly to you, that "separate but equal" does not exist? How many times have I brought up, directly to you, the lesson of Brown v. Board of Education? How many times have I brought up the in RE case, directly to you, referring to its recognition that the California "civil union" is not equivalent to "marriage"? Same about the Vermont "civil union"? Do you really need me to repeat our entire conversation together?
quote: What are we? Twelve? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote: Thus showing that you still haven't read any of the court decisions you've been shown. Marriage creates a "next of kin" relationship that overrides all others. It is not undertaken on a whim (unless you're straight and named "Spears"). But at any rate, let's follow this disingenuous claim: In the eyes of the law, marriage is a social contract that has everything to do with sex. Marriage is a contract that legitimizes a sexual relationship. That's why a marriage can be annulled if you don't consummate it. Note, an annulment means the marriage never existed in the first place. Thus, things like prenuptial agreement clauses that would trigger in the case of divorce do not trigger. There was no marriage. That's why when the INS investigates what is commonly called a "marriage of convenience" between an American citizen and a foreign national, they investigate if the couple has had sex. If you haven't, that's a sign that the marriage isn't legitimate. That's why if your spouse gets injured by a third party and loses sexual function, you can sue that third party for "loss of marital relations." That's why "lack of marital relations" is a legitimate cause for divorce. Heck, that's why we even have a phrase, "marital relations," in the first place. Marriage is about a lot of things, but one of the things it is about is sex. That's why the rite of marriage is sealed with a sexual act (the kiss) and then the couple is sent off to have sex (the honeymoon).
quote: Whites are being denied having those things with a person of a different race 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 race. If it's a piece of crap when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? By your logic, Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided. Is that your argument? That's a direct question. I would like an answer: Do you think Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?
quote: Huh? Marriage comes with rights. Many of those rights can only come via the contract of marriage. So if gay people can't get married, they are denied the ability to exercise those rights. I am asking you nicely: Please don't play dumb. And please don't pretend that we're stupid.
quote: Marriage is a fundamental right. Or are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? Gays cannot get married. Therefore, they are unconstitutionally being denied rights and we must allow same-sex marriage. Why is your argument a piece of crap when applied to race but somehow legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
quote: Huh? By your logic, people can "get married" anyway. So what's to stop them from getting married to people of the opposite sex? By your logic, we need to stop gay people from getting married to anybody. At any rate, your claim has already been shown to be false. If we let gay people get married, it's a financial win.
quote: They are: It's called "marriage." Marriage creates a next-of-kin relationship that supercedes all others. And even if you grant power of attorney to someone else in an attempt to create a next-of-kin relationship, it can be overruled by your family it usurped on the grounds that you were somehow "coerced" despite being in a relationship with the other person for decades.
quote: Incorrect. The definition of marriage doesn't change. It is simply recognized to apply to all without regard to sexual orientation. Remember, Loving v. Virginia didn't find a right to "interracial marriage." The definition of marriage didn't change at all. It was simply recognized to apply to all without regard to race. If your argument is a piece of crap when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
quote: You have been repeatedly asked very nicely not to play dumb. At any rate, why is it you didn't bother to look it up before commenting on it? Why are you refusing to do your homework?
quote: Gay people don't have sex with straight people and vice versa. What sex do you think is going to happen? Why is it so many straight people think that they are so attractive that gay people will be incapable of keeping their hands to themselves? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5527 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
EvC ALERT: Watch out for queer evangelism and cover your butt holes! The Riders Of The Pink Penis want to buzz up your Hershey Highway!
Go out right now and find someone of the same sex, get massively turned on, and do what you can to eventually wind up in bed with him. When you finally succeed (we can wait through the dating period for you to earn his trust), come back and give us the details of how you got off and how you'll want to do it again and again and again. At any rate, how does one determine "race"? It isn't like there is a gene that makes you white and if you have it, you're white and if you don't, you're not. Are we about to go to the "one drop" method of determination? Why does having a "black" grandfather make you "black" but having a "white" grandmother doesn't make you "white"?
Way OT. But I might ask: Why do white people rarely get sickle-cell anemia? Very rarely. Racial traits are conferred genetically. I don't know what confers homosexual traits. Do you know?
Race is not a heritable characteristic. It's simply an arbitrary collection of external morphology. Serious question: How does one determine "race"? The Constitution says nothing about driver's licenses, and yet the State seems to think it has the right to require you to have one. I suppose that makes the driver's license unconstitutional, right?
I think Ben Franklin drove a Ford, and he was opposed to driver's licenses because they would have to be issued by King George III.
When Loving v. Virginia was decided, more than 70% of the population felt that interracial marriage should not be allowed. And yet, the SCOTUS unanimously decided that it should.
Rrhain, would you be kind enough to explain how interracial marriage has anything whatsoever to do with "gay marriage"? Your fallacious comparison shows that you are oblivious to the fact that we know what causes race and we know it is not a reversible sort of thing, but we don't know what causes homosexuality, even though we know it is reversible. And you keep making references to racial issue addressed by the courts:
quote:as if they had something to do with homosexual issues. You fail to see how such a comparison is bogus. Black people would kindly ask you not to make such an insulting comparison again. What are we? Twelve?
Well, we ain't rocket scientists, that's for sure! ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Race is not a heritable characteristic. It's simply an arbitrary collection of external morphology.
I studied human races in graduate school, and have some decent background in the field. Serious question: How does one determine "race"? The subject is off-topic here but if you are really interested, start another thread and I'll contribute. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to LinearAQ:
quote: Who cares? Lots of things were left out at the time that we now consider to be quite obviously there that would have shocked the authors. There's no mention of the handicapped in the Constitution. Are you saying that the ADA is inherently unconstitutional?
quote: 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: No, they can't. It's called "fraud."
quote: "Civil unions," being an example of "separate but equal," are unconstitutional. Or do you think Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided?
quote: "But they shouldn't get 'married' under the law; that is something non-race-mixers do." If it's a piece of crap when it is applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote: "If race-mixers want to invent their own name for their miscegenous unions, I won't object. But 'marraige' has already been taken by the racial purists." If it's a piece of crap when it is applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: Why not? Are there certain things in a marriage that only a person of a specific sex can do?
quote: Don't ask questions you don't really want to know the answer to.
quote: Huh? Gay people have sex quite successfully. There isn't anything gay people do that straight people don't.
quote: How can this be if gay people can have sex? There isn't anything gay people do that straight people don't. You do know that the most common form of sex on the planet is oral sex, yes? Exactly what would be the difficulty in performing oral sex upon someone of your own sex?
quote: And you wonder why you keep getting tagged a bigot. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nice try, Nemesis Juggernaut, but you're doing it again, comparing being gay to everything under the sun except being straight.
Why is it that thoughts of having sex with someone of your own sex immediately engender fantasies in your head of raping your infant son and his dog while high on drugs and wearing a dress? I see you've found a new non sequitur to add to the list. It is not up to gays to prove to you why they are human beings. It is up to you to prove why they are not.
quote: So why does the thought of being gay make you think of raping your infant son and his dog while high on drugs and wearing a dress while the thought of being straight doesn't? Be specific.
quote: Nobody ever brings up rape, pedophilia, incest, bestiality, drugs, or transvesticism when discussing gay people except you. You are the only one who ever brings the subject up. Why is that? Why is it that you have these fantasies of raping your infant son and his dog while high on drugs and wearing a dress when you think of having sex with someone of the same sex but you never seem to have such fantasies when you think of having sex with someone of the opposite sex? Be specific.
quote: Then why do you keep bringing up rape, pedophilia, incest, bestiality, drugs, and transvesticism? Nobody else does. They have no relevance to the topic at hand. Nobody else has fantasies of raping their infant children and their dogs while high on drugs and wearing drag when discussing gay people. Only you do. Why is that?
quote: If it wasn't crystal clear before that you think we're stupid.... 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: Huh? How on earth are you "legally attached" to the neighbor's marriage? Wait...are you trying to say that you want to marry someone of your own sex but can't handle the idea of it being a full and legitimate "marriage"? You want the reduced rights that only come with "civil union"?
quote: No: It's unconstitutional. There ain't no such thing as "separate but equal." We don't have "race-pure marriage" and "race-mixed marriage." We only have "marriage" because that is the only way to ensure equality: One contract for everyone. As soon as you make a distinction, you necessarily introduce a claim that there is a difference between them. After all, if they were the same, you'd call them the same thing. Since you're not, then there is something different between them and thus, we can legally treat them differently.
quote: Why not? Be specific. Only certain things in a marriage can be done by a woman and only others can be done by a man? For example, what is it about being male that allows a person to make medical decisions for a woman that being female means it is impossible, or at least not as effective? You keep saying that there's a difference and yet you never give anything concrete as an example. It's your burden of proof. It's time for you to put up or shut up. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024