Gay Marriage

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

Watch out for queer evangelism and cover your butt holes! The Riders Of The Pink Penis want to buzz up your Hershey Highway!

---

And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

quote:

---

Why do white people rarely get sickle-cell anemia?

---

What does that have to do with race? You're confusing genetics with race. Race is nothing more than a social construction to describe local populations.

quote:

---

Racial traits are conferred genetically.

---

Huh? What makes a genetic trait "racial"? Race is a social construct. If a "black" person and an "Asian" person have a child, what "race" is the child? Why choose one over the other?A genetic trait doesn't know what "race" the person carrying it is.

quote:

---

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.

---

Ahem. Driver's licenses are contracted by the state, not the feds.So you admit your argument about the Constitution not saying anything about gay people and thus there is no Constitutional prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was a complete crock?

quote:

---

Rrhain, would you be kind enough to explain how interracial marriage has anything whatsoever to do with "gay marriage"?

---

Already done. Loving v. Virginia did not find a right to "interracial marriage." It only found a right to "marriage." Marriage is a fundamental right. The Fourteenth Amendment indicates that fundamental rights cannot be abridged without due process. All citizens are to be treated equally under the law and thus, marriage cannot be abridged on account of race.Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas found that sexual orientation also cannot be used as a basis upon which fundamental rights can be abridged.Therefore, if marriage is a fundamental right (as found in Loving v. Virginia) and fundamental rights cannot be abridged on the basis of race, then why does it suddenly get to be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation?If it's a crock when applied to race, how does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

quote:

---

we don't know what causes homosexuality, even though we know it is reversible.

---

On the contrary. We know that sexual orientation cannot be changed.Prove us wrong. 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.

quote:

---

And you keep making references to racial issue addressed by the courts as if they had something to do with homosexual issues.

---

How are they different? If it's a crock when it is applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?"Race" is not a genetic characteristic. It's an arbitrary social construct.

quote:

---

Black people would kindly ask you not to make such an insulting comparison again.

---

Right...because there aren't any black, gay people.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

quote:

---

Well, we ain't rocket scientists, that's for sure!

---

Actually, I am.

---

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.

Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:

---

Rrhain, do we need a different word then?

---

No. We just need to recognize that when we talk about "race," we aren't talking about anything beyond the social construct. Having blue eyes doesn't make one "white" any more than having brown eyes makes one "Hispanic."But, all of that is off topic.

quote:

---

But I can suggest that you refrain from comparing the historical struggle of blacks to gain their cilvil rights with the non-historical struggle of gays to get "married." That's like comparing a canon ball to a dandelion puff.

---

And you wonder why you keep getting tagged a bigot.Gays don't have the right to get married, but your race is not an impediment, though it used to be and had to be fought for.
Gays don't have the right to be secure in their households and not be evicted for being gay, but your race cannot be used to evict you or prevent you from renting, though it used to be and hand to be fought for.
Gays don't have the right to be secure in their jobs and not be fired for being gay, but your race cannot be used to deny you employment or fire you, though it used to be and had to be fought for.
Gays don't have the right to be secure in their parenthood and not have their children taken away because the parents are gay, but race cannot be used to determine custody, though it used to be and had to be fought for.
Gays don't have the right to serve in the military, but your race cannot be used to discharge you. In fact, the President ordered that the military be integrated despite the objections of the Chiefs of Staff.
Gays don't have the right not to be tortured because they are gay, but torturing someone because of race is called "lynching" and is illegal.So you tell me...just what is it about the struggle for rights that gays don't understand?

quote:

---

btw: Rrhain, do you expect me to answer all those post of yours? How do you get any rocket science done when you're goin' nuts with the fingertips?

---

Yes, I do, at least the ones that were directed at you. If your argument is that strong, if you have done your homework, if you have the evidence required to justify your assertions, then it should be no trouble at all for you to respond to each point I've made.

---

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.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Gays don't have the right not to be tortured because they are gay, but torturing someone because of race is called "lynching" and is illegal.

---

​

Yeesh!

---

Do you have an argument or not?You can take your gay child and have him sent off to have electrodes attached to his genitals, shown porn, and given electric shocks in an attempt to "cure" him. If we were to do it to anybody else, we would call it "torture" but since we're doing it to gays, it's called "reparative therapy."Kids have DIED while under this treatment.Other "treatments" over the years have included hysterectomy, castration, and lobotomy.Do you have an argument, Hoot Mon?

---

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.

Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:

---

But you won't look at the evidence.

---

But you haven't presented any. Despite repeated requests to provide specifics, you haven't given a single example of how anybody would be affected by same-sex marriage. You've tossed out a scare-tactic regarding Social Security, but you haven't provided any actual evidence. The Feds at the GAO and the State of California have both looked into the economic impact of same-sex marriage and both have found that it would actually be a financial benefit.So what else do you have?

quote:

---

You can't see the evidence. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE EVIDENCE!

---

Um, you do realize that Nicholson got nailed in that role when he said that, yes? You sure you want to invoke him?

quote:

---

You want not only to steal the apples but also to upset the cart.

---

What, precisely has been stolen?Be specific. See, this is where you would provide details about how the neighbor's marriage affects you.And if it doesn't, this would be where you would provide your justification for why gay people are to be prevented from exercising the fundamental right of marriage.Remember: Marriage is a fundamental right (Loving v. Virginia). Fundamental rights cannot be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation (Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas). So unless you're going to say that those cases were wrongly decided, we're at a bit of a loss as to how marriage gets to be denied on the basis of sexual orientation when it cannot be on the basis of race.

quote:

---

And yet you want the traditional majority to say it's OK for you to "marry" your sweetheart, Ralph.

---

And when was it declared that I was gay? I know I haven't mentioned it. Are you asking me on a date?And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

quote:

---

And you need to understand, for the sake of your own gay movement, that "marriage" is reserved for a civil union between a man and woman.

---

And yet, every single court that has looked at the issue for nigh on the past 20 years has disagreed, all the way back to Baehr v. Miike in Hawaii. This is Flies Only point to Catholic Scientist: The Hawaiian law clearly had no mention of the sex of the participants in a marriage and since the Hawaiian Constitution protects equality under the law specifically on the basis of sex, there was no legal justification to deny marriage to people of the same sex.The people, then, got together and amended the Constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman before the HSC released their ruling.It's what was tried here in California: Those who want discrimination in marriage tried to petition the CSC to stay their decision until after the election so that they could have a chance to amend the Constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.The Fourteenth Amendment is crystal clear: Equal treatment under the law. With marriage as a fundamental right...no, not "interracial marriage," not "same-sex marriage," but simply "marriage"...and with fundamental rights unable to be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation, but what justification do you conclude that gays are not allowed to marry?

quote:

---

get your own term for your same-sex civil union, but stay out of the matrimonial business of heterosexuals.

---

Just how does the neighbor's marriage affect you?Be specific.

quote:

---

Why is that too much to ask, if you get to have your civil unions and all the legal protection?

---

And you wonder why you keep getting tagged a bigot? Unable to justify your own argument, you think you can rile me by accusing me of being gay, as if I should be ashamed of being thought gay.And how many times do you need to be reminded that "separate but equal" is unconstitutional? The only way to guarantee equality is to have a single contract for all. Since "marriage" is the current contract, the simplest thing to do is to leave that contract alone and recognize that it applies to all.

---

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.

Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:

---

One thing I'm pretty sure of is that if you sent a black man off to have electrodes attached to his genitals, shown porn, and given electric shocks in an attempt to "cure" him, he isn't going to turn white.

---

So I was right. You don't have an argument.Tell ya what: Why don't you come here, we'll tie some electrodes to your genitals, show you porn, and see how long it takes to make you gay.You willing to put your money where your mouth is?

---

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.

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

As well, in lesbian relationships, there seems to be some very defined roles in the form of submissive or dominant roles. (Not always, I'm sure, but enough to notice.)

---

Hah! No, gay people are not engaged in psychological transference of a need to be punished or a need to dominate others. Please explain why homosexuality would lead to this but heterosexuality would not. Why is it when you think of sex with someone of the same sex, you immediately have fantasies of being tied up and raped?

quote:

---

How are these roles assigned?

---

The same way they are in heterosexual relationships. For those that do get into BD relationships, you figure out if you like being the top or the bottom or, perhaps, find you like doing both.Are you trying to tell us something, NJ? Are you looking for a Daddy to put you in your place?

quote:

---

I guess one thing that never made sense to me about homosexuality is that I noticed that in many, many cases, a male will be attracted to an effeminate male, and a female will be attracted to a female with more masculine attributes.

---

Right...because you have gaydar and can tell what people do in the sack just by looking at them.Here's a hint: Those who make a display are trying to get you to notice. They are secure in themselves and don't care what you think. Because you are so obsessed about what goes on in other people's pants, you pick up on those who are trying to point it out to you and thus, you see.However, you wind up completely overlooking all the other people because they really don't care about you.

quote:

---

I began to wonder if she wasn't actually a lesbian, but was actually just hurt by members of the opposite sex, and so she contrived this alter-ego, if you will, to compensate for the pain she felt.

---

Right...because lesbians don't actually LIKE being lesbian. They just need to find a good man.Tell us, NJ: Exactly what caused your heterosexuality? For all we can tell, heterosexuality is a condition in which people have a driving emotional and sexual interest in members of the opposite sex. Because of the anatomical, physiological, social, and cultural limitations involved, there are formidable obstacles to be overcome. However, many heterosexuals look upon this as a challenge and approach it with ingenuity and energy. Indeed, it can be said that most heterosexuals are obsessed with the gratification of their curious desires.Do you think you have a hormonal imbalance? One theory advanced is that heterosexuals have an imbalance in their sex hormones, instead of the normal mixture of the two, they have an excess of one or a dearth of the other, resulting in an inability to enjoy full and satisfying relationships with their own sex.Economic conditioning? Our society grants financial and other incentives for exclusively (i.e. neurotic) heterosexual coupling such as tax concessions. To be gay is expensive and many people simply cannot afford it.Parental problems? In most cases of compulsive heterosexual behaviour, the parents will be found to have suffered from similar difficulties.Childhood trauma? A bad experience with a member of the same sex while young may cause rejection of all members of the same sex through fear. The desire continues in the subconscious and emerges as a heterosexual neurosis.Social conditioning? Many unthinking heterosexuals succumb to the daily bombardment of conditioning from the mass media and live out their lives trapped in oppressive sterotypes. Society should feel compassion for such people, not hostility, for their rejection of all those parts of the self that do conform to the "married couple" ideal is a measure of their loss of contact with their own unique sexuality.Cultural deprivation? Most heterosexuals will be found to have come from a background in which an appreciation of the beauty of their own bodies has been ruthlessly suppressed. Hetersexual men in particular think themselves "ugly," beauty being ascribed only to women. Many psychic disorders stem from this self-rejection.Pathological conditioning? Many heterosexuals claim that they were just "born that way." Unfortunately, this doesn't hold water. All human beings are the result of the interaction between their substance and their environment and heterosexuals, like everybody else, must share in the responsibility for their condition.Fear of death? A terror of mortality lies beneath much heterosexual coupling. Driven to perpetuate themselves at any cost, most heterosexuals are indifferent to the prospect of the worldwide famine that will result if the present population explosion continues unchecked.So what caused your heterosexuality, NJ?

quote:

---

What I am asking is, have you ever met a lesbian where you in fact questioned their actual sexuality?

---

No, because it isn't my place to do so. I can only live my life. Why on earth would I be obsessed about what other people do?

quote:

---

Does that make any sense?

---

Coming from you? Yes.They don't want to sleep with you, NJ. And you can't turn them.

---

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.

Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Despite repeated requests to provide specifics, you haven't given a single example of how anybody would be affected by same-sex marriage.

---

​

If I asked John and Mary out in St. Louis why "same-sex marriage" would negatively affect their lives and they told me: "Because there is no such thing as 'same-sex marriage,' just as there is no such thing as 'toothless dentistry'," then why should I tell them they are wrong?

---

Because clearly they are by simple inspection. A bunch of people of the same sex just got married.At any rate, that isn't an answer. You were asked how you would be affected by the neighbor's marriage. That you don't think it exists is irrelevant because certainly the government thinks it exists and they're the only ones who matter since they are the ones who confer the rights and responsibilities.

quote:

---

And if I asked Chuck and Larry out in Seattle why "same-sex marriage" would positively affect their lives and they told me: "Because black people get to be married, too, and they also have a history abuse," the why should I tell them they are wrong?

---

Nobody would say that. If you asked two people how marriage would positively affect their lives, they would tell you about things like knowing they will be there to take care of each other for the rest of their lives, that they would be secure in their families, etc.

quote:

---

We are a country of opinions”personal opinions, political opinions, court opinions ” so why is a 5% popular opinion more important that than a 95% popular opinion?

---

Because we have a Constitution that says that it doesn't matter what your opinion is. It only matters what the law says. We are a nation of laws, not men.When Loving v. Virginia was decided, more people were against interracial marriage than are currently against same-sex marriage.Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? The SCOTUS was wrong to "defy the will of the majority"?

quote:

---

"Gay marriage" opens a lot of doors: polygamy, pedophilia, incest, bestiality, post-mortem matrimony.

---

How does same-sex marriage lead to this while mixed-sex marriage does not? Is there a particular reason why when you think of having sex with someone of the same sex, you immediately start having fantasies of raping your dead, infant sons and their dogs?

---

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.

Hoot Mon responds to Jaderis:

quote:

---

The First Amendment separates church from state. Marriage is not the rightful business of the state. That's why I have proposed limiting the state's officiating powers to civil unions. After that is accomplished then marriages of any kind become totally a non-state sanctified issue. I can live with. Why can't you?

---

Because you don't really believe that. Instead, you want two contracts: One for mixed-sex couples called "marriage" and one for same-sex couples called "civil union."You claim that you want to get the government "out of the marriage business" but that clearly isn't true. That's why you never bring this up except when the subject is same-sex marriage.You have yet to explain why it would be better to have fifty states and the federal government rewrite literally thousands of laws to remove the word "marriage" and replace it with the words "civil union" rather than simply recognize that marriage applies to all.That's why you keep referring to your three "marriages" rather than to your three "civil unions." If you truly had the courage of your convictions, you would apply them to yourself. Charity begins at home, you know.

---

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.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

It's the same cause that gave him testicles. Case closed.

---

Incorrect. Gay men have testicles and yet are not straight. Therefore, your explanation fails by simple inspection. Having testicles does not cause heterosexuality.

---

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.

Hoot Mon responds to Taz:

quote:

---

I also understand that a root canal is an unpleasant experience. But if it brings relief then it's worth it.

---

Then it's time to put your money where your mouth is. Come down here, we'll rig you up to the 12V battery, and we'll "relieve" you of your heterosexuality.Do you have the courage of your convictions?

---

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.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

All I know is that a whole lot John & Janes oppose gay marria

---

At the time that Loving v. Virginia was decided, more Johns and Janes opposed interracial marriage than currently oppose same-sex marriage.Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?

quote:

---

Case #1: John, who is 80 and dying, wants to give his friend Jane, who is healthy but poor, his SS benefits when he passes away. So they get married just in time to make that happen.

​

Case #2: Chuck, who is 80 and dying, wants to give to his friend Larry, who is healthy but poor, his SS benefits when he passes away. So they get "married" just in time to make that happen, owning to some special law that says "same-sex marriage" should be honored by the SS system.

​

Conclusion: The SS system will be worse off when Chuck and Larry dip their stinkin' fingers into it.

---

Huh? That makes no sense. Exactly how many gay people do you think there are? If it isn't a problem when straights do it, how is it a problem when gays do it?Are you saying SSI, the most successful anti-poverty system this country has ever seen, should abandon survivor's benefits? You would rather see people starve on the street?Tell us where in the GAO report on same-sex marriage they neglected to look at Social Security. Tell us where in the GAO report it found that same-sex marriage would be a financial drain.Because the conclusion was that same-sex marriage would be a financial boon.If you're truly worried about Social Security, then you would be for same-sex marriage. Gays take less out of it.

---

Rrhain

---

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

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

It has already been proven that you can pound gayness out of a gay man

---

Incorrect. The exact opposite has been shown: You cannot change someone's sexual orientation.Don't believe me? Then put your money where your mouth is. Come down here and we'll "pound the straightness out of you."Do you have the courage of your convictions?

quote:

---

However, you can't possible mean that the torture blacks have endured is somehow equivalent to the torture gays have endured by not being allowed to get "married."

---

Huh? When did we jump to marriage? We were talking about torture and yes, I do equate the torture that gay people receive with the blessings of the state to the torture that black people once received with the blessings of the state.Lynching blacks is illegal.So why is it perfectly fine to do it to gays?

---

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.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

However, you have just sealed the case for gayness-by-choice.

---

Time to put your money where your mouth is.Come down here and we'll "pound the straightness out of you" and "relieve" you of this burden you carry.You do have the courage of your convictions, yes? No? You mean you chose to be straight?So how did you make this choice? Exactly how many men did you have sex with before you decided that you didn't like it? Isn't it possible that you just never found a good gay lover?

---

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.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

I don't believe the SCOTUS went against the national majority opinion on the matter. Can you prove it did?

---

Yes. At the time Loving v. Virginia was decided, more than 70% of the US population felt that interracial marriage should be banned. In 1958, a Gallup poll found that 94% of Americans were against interracial marriage. By 1968, the time of Loving v. Virginia, it was down to 73%. Currently, it's at 77%.Most Americans Approve of Interracial MarriagesNow, I found the reference for this in less than two seconds. Why did I have to do your homework for you?At any rate, the question is asked to you again:Was Loving v. Virginia wrongly decided?

quote:

---

Not the dogs. I'd never rape a dog.

---

You're the one who brought it up.Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given.

---

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.

Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Because you don't really believe that. Instead, you want two contracts: One for mixed-sex couples called "marriage" and one for same-sex couples called "civil union."

---

​

No I don't.

---

You've been making this argument for weeks now. Do you really need me to do a link dump of all the posts you have made saying exactly that? In this thread alone: Message 64: Message 72: Message 73: Message 83: Message 85: Message 95: Message 136: Message 140: Message 164: Message 197: Message 232 (and I note that this came AFTER you claimed you weren't saying this): Just how stupid do you think we are, Hoot Mon? That's the thing about the internet: The things you post tend to stick around. We can trace back what you've posted here and see if you're...well...not exactly being truthful when you claim, "I never said that!"

quote:

---

So ya wanna talk about equal treatment under the law?

---

Nice try, but that's my argument to you.For at least the third time: Are you seriously claiming that the best solution is for the government of all 50 states as well as the feds to rewrite literally thousands of laws to replace the word "marriage" with the phrase "civil union"? That's the most efficient and effective method for achieving equality than to simply recognize that the current contract of "marriage" doesn't actually change but simply applies to all people?If you truly believed that, then you would use that terminology for yourself. You wouldn't mention the fact that you've been "married" three times because you don't believe in the state-sanctioned contract of "marriage," right?Since you don't use the term for yourself, you clearly don't believe that which you claim.Just how stupid do you think we are?

---

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.