Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 241 of 519 (472524)
06-23-2008 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Fosdick
06-22-2008 4:00 PM


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 Marriages
Now, 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Fosdick, posted 06-22-2008 4:00 PM Fosdick has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 242 of 519 (472525)
06-23-2008 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Fosdick
06-22-2008 7:55 PM


What's the difference between "civil union" and "marriage"? (etc.)
But I said I favored state-sanctioned civil unions for gays, but not state-sanctioned marriages for them.
I caught you saying (more or less) this way at the beginning of the topic. I thought I was in full agreement with you. Then you obscured your position with a bunch of (IMO) other blather.
The state should only concern itself with civil unions, and the rights, obligations, etc. of all those contracts should be identical regardless of any gender considerations.
It's probably been covered (many times?) upthread, but how do you define "civil union" vs. how do you define "marriage"? Are you just offended that the state uses the term "marriage", because you think that term should be reserved for religious ceremonies?
Moose
ADDED BY EDIT: It seems the above questions are pretty well covered by RRhain's review at message 244. Hoot Mon apparently thinks that the term "marriage" be reserved for a male/female union, as sanctioned by a church. In other words, only churches do "marriages" and churches only marry different gender couples. Alas, I think there already are churches doing same gender "marriages".
Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.

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 243 by BeagleBob, posted 06-23-2008 1:07 AM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 254 by Fosdick, posted 06-23-2008 11:10 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

BeagleBob
Member (Idle past 5676 days)
Posts: 81
Joined: 11-21-2007


Message 243 of 519 (472526)
06-23-2008 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Minnemooseus
06-23-2008 1:03 AM


Re: What's the difference between "civil union" and "marriage"? (etc.)
Let the state give civil unions to everyone that wants one: gay, straight, polyamorous, transsexual, etc. Let the churches decide what's marriage and what isn't. Everyone gets their civil rights and the government doesn't step on anyone's religious toes.
Simple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-23-2008 1:03 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Fosdick, posted 06-23-2008 10:47 AM BeagleBob has not replied

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


Message 244 of 519 (472527)
06-23-2008 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Fosdick
06-22-2008 4:16 PM


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:
Hoot Mon writes:
You have never explained why legalizing civil unions for gays is insufficient to meet their legal needs. Therefore, your demands for "gay marriage" are nothing but temper tantrums.
Message 72:
Hoot Mon writes:
And, as far as I'm concerned, they can have their civil unions under the law. But they shouldn't get "married" under the law; that is something heterosexuals do. If homosexuals want to invent their own name for their same-sex unions, I won't object. But "marriage" has already been taken by the heteros.
Message 73:
Hoot Mon writes:
Sorry, I can't see how "gay marriage" and regular marriage are the same thing, or why they should be treated as such under the law.
Message 83:
Hoot Mon writes:
Question: Would you go for a differentiation in the law between "heterosexual marriage" and "homosexual marriage"? Two kinds of marriages, both legal? It seems clear enough to me that they are the not same kinds of marriages.
Message 85:
Hoot Mon writes:
"Marriage" applies only to heterosexual civil unions. The gays want to plunder tradition in the minds of most decent people in this country, who happen to matter, by insisting that "marriage" should apply also to their same-sex civil unions. All I'm saying is let them have their civil unions, and let them call it something other than "marriage," because it isn't.
Message 95:
Hoot Mon writes:
Let's keep "marriage" in the law and agree that it applies only to heterosexual civil unions, as it should. Then let's cop a new word for gays”"garried," "fairied," queeried," I don't really care what it is, so long as it's not "marriage"”and put that in the law for same-sex civil unions. Would you prefer that?
Message 136:
Hoot Mon writes:
I'm out to see that they get their civil rights under the law, and without the law sanctioning their "marriage."
Message 140:
Hoot Mon writes:
I think two humans with the same kind of sexual equipment ought to be united under the law if they choose to. Give 'em civil unions and send them their happy way.
Message 164:
Hoot Mon writes:
But I still don't know why "marriage" should apply to same-sex civil unions.
Message 197:
Hoot Mon writes:
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. Go get your own term for your same-sex civil union, but stay out of the matrimonial business of heterosexuals.
Message 232 (and I note that this came AFTER you claimed you weren't saying this):
Hoot Mon writes:
But I said I favored state-sanctioned civil unions for gays, but not state-sanctioned marriages for them.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Fosdick, posted 06-22-2008 4:16 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Fosdick, posted 06-23-2008 10:52 AM Rrhain has not replied

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


Message 245 of 519 (472528)
06-23-2008 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Fosdick
06-22-2008 7:47 PM


Hoot Mon writes:
quote:
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.
So answer the question:
Given that more people were against interracial marriage at the time Loving v. Virginia was decided than are currently against same-sex marriage, are you saying that Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?

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 231 by Fosdick, posted 06-22-2008 7:47 PM Fosdick has not replied

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


Message 246 of 519 (472529)
06-23-2008 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Fosdick
06-22-2008 7:55 PM


Hoot Mon writes:
quote:
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?
Because it is unconstitutional. Because despite all the wonderful speeches people will make about how they will be "equal," the reality is that they won't be.
In all the states that provide "civil union," not one of them is equal to marriage.
Not one.
Even though the legislatures promised that they would be.
Have you forgotten the lessons from Plessy v. Ferguson? There is no such thing as "separate but equal." By making a distinction, you necessarily declare that there is a difference between the two and if there is a difference, then they can legally be treated differently.
The only way to achieve equality is to have a single contract for all.
Now are you seriously claiming that the best solution is for all 50 states and the feds to rewrite literally thousands of laws to replace the word "marriage" with the phrase "civil union"? How on earth would you guarantee that? What would you do if a state refused to do so? Would state A's "marriage" be legally the same as state B's "civil union"? We'd have to write a law to declare it to be so.
That's the most efficient solution you can think of?
No, the best solution is to leave the contract of marriage alone and simply recognize that it applies to all. What's so hard about applying a single contract to everyone? The groundwork has already been established. Everybody knows what it means. Nothing changes and we guarantee that everybody gets the same thing everywhere.
quote:
And I also explained why the state should get out of the marriage business altogether. What more do you want from me?
For you to actually believe it. You claim this to be your position, but you never mention it except when the subject of same-sex marriage comes up. I don't see you at the county clerk's office protesting the government involvement in marriage. For someone who thinks the government has no place in marriage, you keep referring to those civil contracts you had as "marriages."
I expect you to live up to your own hype.
quote:
What questions haven't I answered?
The same ones you haven't answered for weeks:
How does the neighbor's marriage affect you?
Was Loving v. Virginia wrongly decided?
Was Romer v. Evans wrongly decided?
Was Lawrence v. Texas wrongly decided?

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 232 by Fosdick, posted 06-22-2008 7:55 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Fosdick, posted 06-23-2008 11:17 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 247 of 519 (472531)
06-23-2008 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Fosdick
06-22-2008 8:12 PM


Hoot Mon writes:
quote:
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.
There's nothing to "correct."
Put your money where your mouth is: 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:
The jury is still out this matter of choice.
When can I expect you for your "treatment," Hoot Mon? I've got the car battery waiting.

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 233 by Fosdick, posted 06-22-2008 8:12 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Fosdick, posted 06-23-2008 11:25 AM Rrhain has replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4675 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 248 of 519 (472557)
06-23-2008 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Fosdick
06-22-2008 1:29 PM


Choice, choice, choice
Hoot Mon writes:
So it's choice after all. But I'm OK with that. However, it doesn't help your argument that nature made you gay and you didn't have anything to do with it.
And it has been shown to you that the application of Constitutional rights to a particular subset of the US population is not affected by whether the defining characteristic of that subset is a choice or not (ie...religious affiliation).
Since this debate is about the application of the rights of marriage to a particular subset of the US population, for the purposes of this debate, race and sexual orientation are equivalent.
Until you can show them to be unequal within the framework defined by the Constitution, you can just stop with the red herring of them being fundamentally different.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Fosdick, posted 06-23-2008 11:30 AM LinearAq has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 249 of 519 (472560)
06-23-2008 10:07 AM
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?
Catholic Scientist writes:
FO is only participating to talk shit and spout hate-speach against opinions that differ from his.
A Troll, in fewer words.
Wow...I've never been called a troll before...thanks. I feel so honored to be called a troll by someone like yourself.
And I also really love the part about "Hate Speech" Priceless, CS priceless. I try to point out the utter hypocrisy being put forth by you two (primarily) and it gets called "hate speech" You guys crack me up.
You guys totally dilute the meaning of words and phrases to the point of worthlessness with all your crying about hate speech and bigotry and being a troll My suggestion for the two of you would be a dictionary and some common sense.

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

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 250 of 519 (472565)
06-23-2008 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Fosdick
06-22-2008 1:10 PM


Re: One of us is blind, and it ain't me
Hoot Mon writes:
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.
See, here ya go again. Out one side of your mouth you keep giving us your line about how gays should be allowed civil unions (but not marriage). Of course, these civil unions are exactly the same as marriage in every way but the name, cuz you have nothing against homosexuals.
Then, out of the other side of your mouth keep showing us your hypocrisy by claiming that by allowing gays to get "married", social security will take a big hit.
You should try sticking to one homophobic fear at a time, Hoot Mon...it makes you look less like a two-faced homophobic bigot, and more just like a plain ol' homophobic bigot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Fosdick, posted 06-22-2008 1:10 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Fosdick, posted 06-23-2008 11:52 AM FliesOnly has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 251 of 519 (472566)
06-23-2008 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by BeagleBob
06-23-2008 1:07 AM


Re: What's the difference between "civil union" and "marriage"? (etc.)
BeagleBob says it all (again, with feeling!):
Let the state give civil unions to everyone that wants one: gay, straight, polyamorous, transsexual, etc. Let the churches decide what's marriage and what isn't. Everyone gets their civil rights and the government doesn't step on anyone's religious toes.
Simple.
Isn't reason a wonderful thing?
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by BeagleBob, posted 06-23-2008 1:07 AM BeagleBob has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 252 of 519 (472568)
06-23-2008 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Rrhain
06-23-2008 1:13 AM


Good work, Rrhain!
Rrhain, everything I ever said about "gay marriage" seems consistent to me. Thanks for taking the trouble to verify that.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Rrhain, posted 06-23-2008 1:13 AM Rrhain has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 253 of 519 (472569)
06-23-2008 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Fosdick
06-22-2008 7:55 PM


Re: You Have No Argument
Hoot Mon writes:
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?
But you don't want equality...you've effectively said as much with your bullshit Social Security nonsense. You are aware that we can go back and read your previous posts again...yes? They don't magically disappear one they're read...you do understand this...yes?
Hoot Mon writes:
What questions haven't I answered?
Are you kidding me? You haven't answered anything. You have merely spouted homophobic nonsense. You are entitled to your opinion, but we've been asking for factual support of your many homophobic claims...and you have thus far provided none.

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 266 by Fosdick, posted 06-23-2008 1:53 PM FliesOnly has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 254 of 519 (472574)
06-23-2008 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Minnemooseus
06-23-2008 1:03 AM


Re: What's the difference between "civil union" and "marriage"? (etc.)
Minnemooseus writes:
It seems the above questions are pretty well covered by RRhain's review at message 244. Hoot Mon apparently thinks that the term "marriage" be reserved for a male/female union, as sanctioned by a church. In other words, only churches do "marriages" and churches only marry different gender couples. Alas, I think there already are churches doing same gender "marriages".
You've tuned in a little late, Moosie. Let me clarify my position:
1. I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman ” take a another look at the sexual parts that constitute the act of marriage.
2. Get the government out of the marriage business. Let the churches, etc., do that, and let them do that to anybody or any thing they choose, because I don't care what religions do, only what the government does.
3. Let the gays get civilly united by the government, and let them go to a church, etc. if they want to get "married."
4. The simplest solution is to take the word "marriage" out of the law.
5. Long live George Carlin.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Minnemooseus, posted 06-23-2008 1:03 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by NosyNed, posted 06-23-2008 11:33 AM Fosdick has replied
 Message 267 by lyx2no, posted 06-23-2008 2:00 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 255 of 519 (472575)
06-23-2008 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Rrhain
06-23-2008 1:27 AM


Rrhain, you're not paying attention:
Rrhain writes:
Have you forgotten the lessons from Plessy v. Ferguson? There is no such thing as "separate but equal." By making a distinction, you necessarily declare that there is a difference between the two and if there is a difference, then they can legally be treated differently.
What is separate about the law if it gets out of the marriage business? There is nothing separate at all if both gays and striaghts are allowed to have the civil unions they desire. You make yourself look like a bigot for arguing otherwise.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Rrhain, posted 06-23-2008 1:27 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2008 3:17 AM 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