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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 166 of 519 (472122)
06-20-2008 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Fosdick
06-20-2008 2:21 PM


Re: Don't civil unions do enough for legal purposes?
Hoot Mon writes:
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?
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."
Hoot Mon writes:
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.
Yeah...cuz only us white trash "other fuckers" are allowed to exploit the system, man.
Why do you even bother claiming to not be a homophobic bigot? Seriously, Hoot Mon, you're pathetic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Fosdick, posted 06-20-2008 2:21 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Fosdick, posted 06-20-2008 2:49 PM FliesOnly has not replied

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


Message 167 of 519 (472130)
06-20-2008 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by FliesOnly
06-20-2008 2:37 PM


Re: Don't civil unions do enough for legal purposes?
FO writes:
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."
It's wrong to misquote people. Show me where I said that or resign from this discussion immediately.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by FliesOnly, posted 06-20-2008 2:37 PM FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-20-2008 2:57 PM Fosdick has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 519 (472131)
06-20-2008 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Fosdick
06-20-2008 2:49 PM


Re: Don't civil unions do enough for legal purposes?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Fosdick, posted 06-20-2008 2:49 PM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Taz, posted 06-20-2008 3:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 249 by FliesOnly, posted 06-23-2008 10:07 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 169 of 519 (472134)
06-20-2008 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by New Cat's Eye
06-20-2008 2:57 PM


Re: Don't civil unions do enough for legal purposes?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-20-2008 2:57 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Fosdick, posted 06-20-2008 5:24 PM Taz has not replied

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


Message 170 of 519 (472149)
06-20-2008 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Taz
06-20-2008 3:07 PM


Re: Don't civil unions do enough for legal purposes?
Taz writes:
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".
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.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Taz, posted 06-20-2008 3:07 PM Taz has not replied

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


Message 171 of 519 (472221)
06-21-2008 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by New Cat's Eye
06-16-2008 10:27 AM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
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.
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:
Isn't it illegal to evict or fire someone because of their sexual orientation?
No. It all depends on where you live. In most of the country, you can be evicted or fired for being gay.
quote:
Can you link to an article on someone having their children taken away because they were gay? 'Cause I don't believe you.
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:
Why doesn't the military want to know if soldiers or gay or not?
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:
Huh? Torturing gays is legal?
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:
And what does that have to do with marriage anyways?
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:
If fact, DOMA doesn't even mention sexual orientation.
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:
That's why gays are not being specifically denied rights. DOMA just affirms the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
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:
They were right that legislating that whites cannot marry blacks was unconstitutional.
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:
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.
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:
Gay people can marry people of the opposite sex
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:
Because marriage is not abriged on the basis of sexual orientation.
Since gay people can't get married, your claim is trivially proven false by inspection.
quote:
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.
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.

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 not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Taz, posted 06-21-2008 2:43 AM Rrhain has not replied

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


Message 172 of 519 (472226)
06-21-2008 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Rrhain
06-21-2008 1:55 AM


Rrhain writes:
If it was a pile of crap when applied to race, what makes it suddenly such a valid argument when applied to sexual orientation?
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Rrhain, posted 06-21-2008 1:55 AM Rrhain has not replied

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


Message 173 of 519 (472227)
06-21-2008 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Fosdick
06-16-2008 11:02 AM


Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote:
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.
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:
Then I think you have little pink puffs of chantilly lace stuck to eyeballs.
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
quote:
You need to show just how "clearly" the Constitution supports "gay marriage."
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:
I have it here before me, and it doesn't say a goddamn word about "gay marriage."
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:
How does the neighbor's marriage affect you?
Rrhain, I never said it did.
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:
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
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:
and that the notion of "same-sex marriage" is utterly ridiculous.
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:
I don't know how their neighbors' marriages should affect them.
But that's your argument for why the neighbors should be prevented from getting married. So how are they affected?
Be specific.
quote:
All I know is that many good people simply believe that the institution of marriage would suffer
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:
if the gays got their dainty little feet through the door.
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
quote:
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."
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:
You have never explained why legalizing civil unions for gays is insufficient to meet their legal needs.
(*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:
Therefore, your demands for "gay marriage" are nothing but temper tantrums. Go to your room.
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.

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 175 by Fosdick, posted 06-21-2008 11:46 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 176 by Coyote, posted 06-21-2008 12:51 PM Rrhain has not replied

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


Message 174 of 519 (472230)
06-21-2008 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by New Cat's Eye
06-16-2008 12:32 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
In the eyes of the law, marriage is a social contract that has nothing to do with love.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
What I'm arguing against is this notion that they are Unconstitutionally being denied rights and that we must allow gay marriage.
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:
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.
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 could also try to change the way that it is decided who the person who makes those decisions is.
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:
Or, they could just get the definition of marriage changed.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.

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 not replied

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


Message 175 of 519 (472243)
06-21-2008 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Rrhain
06-21-2008 3:10 AM


EvC ALERT!
Rrhain writes:
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.
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!
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"?
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?
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:
Have you forgotten Brown v. Board of Education already?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Rrhain, posted 06-21-2008 3:10 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Rrhain, posted 06-21-2008 7:20 PM Fosdick has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 176 of 519 (472253)
06-21-2008 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Rrhain
06-21-2008 3:10 AM


Race
Race is not a heritable characteristic. It's simply an arbitrary collection of external morphology.
Serious question: How does one determine "race"?
I studied human races in graduate school, and have some decent background in the field.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Rrhain, posted 06-21-2008 3:10 AM Rrhain has not replied

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


Message 177 of 519 (472281)
06-21-2008 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Fosdick
06-16-2008 12:57 PM


Hoot Mon responds to LinearAQ:
quote:
Why do you suppose "sexual orientation" was left out?
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:
But, once again, homosexuals are not discriminated against in the laws I must obey.
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:
They can marry any member of the opposite sex they choose, just as I can.
No, they can't. It's called "fraud."
quote:
And, as far as I'm concerned, they can have their civil unions under the law.
"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 heterosexuals do.
"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 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.
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Fosdick, posted 06-16-2008 12:57 PM Fosdick has not replied

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


Message 178 of 519 (472282)
06-21-2008 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Fosdick
06-16-2008 1:23 PM


Hoot Mon writes:
quote:
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.
Why not? Are there certain things in a marriage that only a person of a specific sex can do?
quote:
I can't be that stupid not to get it, can I?
Don't ask questions you don't really want to know the answer to.
quote:
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.
Huh? Gay people have sex quite successfully. There isn't anything gay people do that straight people don't.
quote:
But two members of the same sex are not so naturally compatible, not anatomically
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:
(unless the Hershey Highway is opened up for traffic).
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Fosdick, posted 06-16-2008 1:23 PM Fosdick has not replied

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


Message 179 of 519 (472287)
06-21-2008 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Hyroglyphx
06-16-2008 5:16 PM


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:
There are only so many things human beings can copulate with to begin with
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:
Its only when the subject comes up do I speak about it.
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:
I'm not trying to offend people.
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:
I hope that cleared the air as much as possible.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-16-2008 5:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 180 of 519 (472292)
06-21-2008 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Fosdick
06-16-2008 7:47 PM


Hoot Mon writes:
quote:
Then I will no longer have to be legally attached to "gay marriage,"
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:
Question: Would you go for a differentiation in the law between "heterosexual marriage" and "homosexual marriage"?
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:
It seems clear enough to me that they are the not same kinds of marriages.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Fosdick, posted 06-16-2008 7:47 PM Fosdick has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024