Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 226 of 519 (472472)
06-22-2008 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Rrhain
06-22-2008 2:23 PM


Doggie Rape
Rrhain writes:
Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided? The SCOTUS was wrong to "defy the will of the majority"?
I don't believe the SCOTUS went against the national majority opinion on the matter. Can you prove it did?
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?
Not the dogs. I'd never rape a dog.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Rrhain, posted 06-22-2008 2:23 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by kjsimons, posted 06-22-2008 4:15 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 241 by Rrhain, posted 06-23-2008 12:53 AM Fosdick has not replied

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


Message 227 of 519 (472473)
06-22-2008 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by lyx2no
06-22-2008 2:26 PM


Re: Don't civil unions do enough for legal purposes?
lyx2no writes:
You have two legs. If you do not want to be cured of the that condition do you consider your having two legs by choice or was it an act of mother Nature?
That one blew by me like fairy dust.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by lyx2no, posted 06-22-2008 2:26 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by lyx2no, posted 06-22-2008 6:51 PM Fosdick has replied

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 228 of 519 (472475)
06-22-2008 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Fosdick
06-22-2008 4:00 PM


Re: Doggie Rape
I don't believe the SCOTUS went against the national majority opinion on the matter. Can you prove it did?
Why didn't you even try to look this up? Here is a link that shows what the public opinion was and how it changed over the years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Fosdick, posted 06-22-2008 4:00 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Fosdick, posted 06-22-2008 7:47 PM kjsimons has replied

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


Message 229 of 519 (472476)
06-22-2008 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Rrhain
06-22-2008 2:29 PM


Marriage by church, not by state
Rrhain writes:
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. I advocate getting the state out of the marriage business altogether. Let the churches, YMCAs, pet shelters, Wicca covens and hippie communes marry people if they want to. And let the the state remain in the business of granting civil unions, even same-sex civil unions to those who have suffered worse than the slaves under Simon Legree.
So ya wanna talk about equal treatment under the law?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Rrhain, posted 06-22-2008 2:29 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Rrhain, posted 06-23-2008 1:13 AM Fosdick has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 230 of 519 (472483)
06-22-2008 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Fosdick
06-22-2008 4:04 PM


You Have No Argument
That one blew by me like fairy dust.
And yet you were unable to answer it.
You seem to be unable to answer anything.
You seem to be unable to recognize that government has interests in marriage as contract law. The government has no interest or involvement in the consecration of marriage as demanded by the First Amendment. Do you intend that government no longer answer the call to arbitrate contract disputes? You have no argument there.
You seem to be unable to recognize that codifying John & Mary's opinion into laws that repress the self-determination of millions of Americans is no longer opinion. Chuck & Larry's opinion of how best to live their lives is an opinion protected by the Constitution, while John & Mary's opinion of how best to run Chuck & Larry's lives is of no consequence. You have no argument there.
You seem to be unable to recognize that Americans have a Constitutional right to self-determination regardless of the incentive for that determination. Choice is a legitimate motive for self-determination under the Constitution. You have no argument there.
You seem unable to recognize that your arguments for blocking baby buggers, corpse cuddlers, dog diddlers, social security swindlers, and other officious offenders would by necessity apply to all human social contact. You have no argument there.
You seem unable to recognize that you are a bigot who advocates actions that lead to the repression of millions of peaceful Americans merely to entertain a prejudice. You have no argument there.
You seem unable to recognize that you have no argument anywhere.

Kindly
There is a spider by the water pipe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Fosdick, posted 06-22-2008 4:04 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Fosdick, posted 06-22-2008 7:55 PM lyx2no has replied

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


Message 231 of 519 (472486)
06-22-2008 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by kjsimons
06-22-2008 4:15 PM


Re: Doggie Rape
kjsimons writes:
HM writes:
I don't believe the SCOTUS went against the national majority opinion on the matter. Can you prove it did?
Why didn't you even try to look this up? Here is a link that shows what the public opinion was and how it changed over the years.
You've nailed me on that one. I had forgotten the negative public attitude against interracial marriage in 1957, the year I graduated from high school. Thanks for the history lesson.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by kjsimons, posted 06-22-2008 4:15 PM kjsimons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Rrhain, posted 06-23-2008 1:16 AM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 292 by kjsimons, posted 06-23-2008 9:37 PM Fosdick has not replied

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


Message 232 of 519 (472487)
06-22-2008 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by lyx2no
06-22-2008 6:51 PM


Re: You Have No Argument
lyx2no writes:
You seem to be unable to recognize that codifying John & Mary's opinion into laws that repress the self-determination of millions of Americans is no longer opinion. Chuck & Larry's opinion of how best to live their lives is an opinion protected by the Constitution, while John & Mary's opinion of how best to run Chuck & Larry's lives is of no consequence. You have no argument there.
But I said I favored state-sanctioned civil unions for gays, but not state-sanctioned marriages for them. What's so bad about that if everything else is equal? And I also explained why the state should get out of the marriage business altogether. What more do you want from me? What questions haven't I answered?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by lyx2no, posted 06-22-2008 6:51 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by lyx2no, posted 06-22-2008 9:09 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 242 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-23-2008 1:03 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 246 by Rrhain, posted 06-23-2008 1:27 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 253 by FliesOnly, posted 06-23-2008 10:54 AM Fosdick has replied

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


Message 233 of 519 (472489)
06-22-2008 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by BeagleBob
06-22-2008 2:35 PM


Re: Don't civil unions do enough for legal purposes?
BB writes:
It's a horrible, horrible argument.
Well, it may be a horrible, horrible argument right now, or maybe not. However, I predict that it will become a matter of choice for them when the causes of gayness are understood and effective means for correction are improvised. If science can turn a man into woman, as a matter of choice, then science should be able to turn a homo into a hetero, if not now then soon. After that, homosexuality will be purely a matter of choice. However, the appropriate therapy has not yet been discovered, mainly because science doesn't know yet what causes homosexuality. The jury is still out this matter of choice.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by BeagleBob, posted 06-22-2008 2:35 PM BeagleBob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by BeagleBob, posted 06-22-2008 9:04 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 247 by Rrhain, posted 06-23-2008 1:30 AM Fosdick has replied

BeagleBob
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 81
Joined: 11-21-2007


Message 234 of 519 (472496)
06-22-2008 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Fosdick
06-22-2008 8:12 PM


Re: Don't civil unions do enough for legal purposes?
quote:
The jury is still out this matter of choice.
I think we've given you more than sufficient evidence as to how homosexuality is determined through genetic, developmental, and physiological factors. But in the end I think everyone is missing the big picture here.
Whether or not homosexuality is natural or not is wholly irrelevant to its ethical implications. Genes that lead to a greater tendency towards alcoholism are perfectly natural, but alcoholism isn't considered an ethically stable position just because it's "natural." On the other hand, synesthesia is a perfectly natural neural phenomenon, but we don't think it's ethically unstable because it's natural.
Natural phenomena are, at best, amoral. What matters regarding the ethical content of a proposition isn't the descriptive elements, but the prescriptive elements. If anyone wants to argue whether or not homosexuality should be accepted, it's best to divorce it from the scientific study of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Fosdick, posted 06-22-2008 8:12 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Fosdick, posted 06-23-2008 12:57 PM BeagleBob has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 235 of 519 (472497)
06-22-2008 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Fosdick
06-22-2008 7:55 PM


Re: You Have No Argument
The enumeration in post 230, of certain errors, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others committed by Hoot Mon.
You seem to be unable to recognize that separate is immediately unequal. Judicial review was established in Marbury v. Madison. And they didn't mention you having input. You have no argument there.
And I also explained why the state should get out of the marriage business altogether. What more do you want from me? What questions haven't I answered?
Your reasoning as to why the state should get out of the marriage business has been to be wanting. American's have a right to request the government arbitrate contract dissolution. Are you going to deny Americans that right?
I'm thinking Rrhain might have had a question or two you've ignored also.
Edited by lyx2no, : Submit Now rather then Preview

Kindly
There is a spider by the water pipe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Fosdick, posted 06-22-2008 7:55 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Fosdick, posted 06-23-2008 1:09 PM lyx2no has not replied

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


Message 236 of 519 (472518)
06-23-2008 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Fosdick
06-22-2008 11:59 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Fosdick, posted 06-22-2008 11:59 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Fosdick, posted 06-23-2008 1:19 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 237 of 519 (472519)
06-23-2008 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Fosdick
06-22-2008 12:54 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Fosdick, posted 06-22-2008 12:54 PM Fosdick has not replied

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


Message 238 of 519 (472520)
06-23-2008 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Fosdick
06-22-2008 1:10 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Fosdick, posted 06-22-2008 1:10 PM Fosdick has not replied

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


Message 239 of 519 (472521)
06-23-2008 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Fosdick
06-22-2008 1:20 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Fosdick, posted 06-22-2008 1:20 PM Fosdick has not replied

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


Message 240 of 519 (472522)
06-23-2008 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Fosdick
06-22-2008 1:29 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Fosdick, posted 06-22-2008 1:29 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