Gay Marriage

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

They already have the same rights I have.

---

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.And it's telling regarding the custody of children, given that you think gays are somehow a harm to children.

quote:

---

The law doesn't say that a gay men can't marry any woman of his choice, just like any straight man.

---

The law doesn't say that a black person can't marry any person of the same race of his choice, just like any white person.If it's a piece of crap when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

quote:

---

The law says that any man can marry any woman of his choice. The law does not discriminate against the gay man in that regard.

---

The law says that any person can marry anybody of the same race of his choice. The law does not discriminate against the black race in that regard.If it's a piece of crap when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

quote:

---

But, of course, the gay man says he ought to be able to "marry" any man of his choice. I disagree.

---

And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.You want to deny others what you want for yourself. That's the definition of bigotry.

quote:

---

That assertion drops in the bin with all the other strange "marriages" people want to have with multiple wives, beasts, siblings, and ghosts.

---

Huh? What does sexual orientation have to do with this? Why is it when you think of having sex with someone of your own sex, you immediately have fantasies of raping your sisters, their dogs, and their ghosts? How does being straight stop these things especially since most people who do that are straight? Is same-sex marriage so powerful that it can bend space and time and make people from 200 years ago do things they wouldn't normally do?

---

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:

---

They already have the same rights I have.

---

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.And it's telling regarding the custody of children, given that you think gays are somehow a harm to children.

quote:

---

The law doesn't say that a gay men can't marry any woman of his choice, just like any straight man.

---

The law doesn't say that a black person can't marry any person of the same race of his choice, just like any white person.If it's a piece of crap when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

quote:

---

The law says that any man can marry any woman of his choice. The law does not discriminate against the gay man in that regard.

---

The law says that any person can marry anybody of the same race of his choice. The law does not discriminate against the black race in that regard.If it's a piece of crap when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

quote:

---

But, of course, the gay man says he ought to be able to "marry" any man of his choice. I disagree.

---

And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.You want to deny others what you want for yourself. That's the definition of bigotry.

quote:

---

That assertion drops in the bin with all the other strange "marriages" people want to have with multiple wives, beasts, siblings, and ghosts.

---

Huh? What does sexual orientation have to do with this? Why is it when you think of having sex with someone of your own sex, you immediately have fantasies of raping your sisters, their dogs, and their ghosts? How does being straight stop these things especially since most people who do that are straight? Is same-sex marriage so powerful that it can bend space and time and make people from 200 years ago do things they wouldn't normally do?

---

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.

Catholic Scientist:

quote:

---

However, "marriage" is defined as the union of one man and one woman.

---

However, "marriage" is defined as the union of people of the same race.If it's a piece of crap when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate 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.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

It is violation of the 14th Amendment to have restrictions based on race.

---

So how is it not a violation of the 14th Amendment to have restrictions based upon sexual orientation?That's what Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans found. Are you saying those cases were decided incorrectly?How many times do I have to directly ask you that question before you answer?

quote:

---

I quoted the actual legislators on why they passed DOMA in the other thread on gay marriage and it wasn't for religious reasons.

---

It was specifically to keep gays from marrying. I've directed you to the comments made on the floor of Congress during the debate.You did look them up, right?And your argument is the exact same one that was used to deny interracial marriage. But Loving v. Virginia declared that to be bogus.So if it's a piece of crap when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation? Are you saying the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply to gay people?Are you saying Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas were wrongly decided?How many times do I have to directly ask you that before you answer?

---

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.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

I just go with my gut.

---

So when your gut tells you to deny for others that which you demand for yourself, you decide to go with it? Other people's rights should depend upon your squick factor?

quote:

---

Or I could choose the side of the people who aren't insulting me personally

---

And exactly how is the denial of rights not to be taken personally?

---

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.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

I'm concerned with the 1000+ laws in the United States that refer to Marriage explicitly. When they were written, they were understood to be heterosexual unions.

---

I'm concerned with the 1000+ laws in the United States that refer to Marriage explicitly. When they were written, they were understood to be same-race unions.If it's a piece of crap when applied to race, how does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?

quote:

---

I'm not totally opposed to redefining Marriage.

---

What, specifically, would be "redefined"? Loving v. Virginia did not find a right to "interracial marriage." Instead, it found a fundamental right to "marriage." Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?How many times do I have to directly ask you that before you answer?As a fundamental right, it cannot be abridged on the basis of race.Are you saying fundamental rights can be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation? Then how do you explain Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas? Are you saying those cases were wrongly decided?How many times do I have to directly ask you that before you answer?

quote:

---

I think we should fully consider the ramifications before the change and minimize the loop-holes.

---

Huh? What "ramifications"? Exactly what would change in the contract of marriage by not restricting it on the basis of the sex of the participants? Exactly what "loop-holes" are you referring to that don't already exist?Exactly what is it you expect gay people to do that straight people don't already do?You seem to be saying that gay people are more likely to be criminals and scoundrels than straight people.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as 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.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

So, I'm a bigot because I don't agree with you and your fucking stuff.

---

Incorrect. You're a bigot because you want to deny to others that which you demand for yourself.You're free to disagree all you want. If you don't agree with same-sex marriage, then don't have one. Nobody is forcing you (though my car battery is waiting in case you decide you need to be "relieved" of your burden.)

quote:

---

But who's opinion counts for more?

---

The one who doesn't want to deny to others that which they demand for themselves. Refusal to accept bigotry is not bigotry. Refusal to accept intolerance is not intolerance.

quote:

---

And how do you measure the difference?

---

Do you want to stop others from having what you demand for yourself?Then you're a bigot.If you think others should be able to have what you demand for yourself, then you're not a bigot.It really is that simple.

---

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:

---

But none of that will change my opinion that "marriage" is a civil union between a man and a woman, and only that.

---

Then don't marry someone of the same sex. Nobody is forcing you (though again, my car battery is all ready to "relieve" you of that burden.)Your opinion is yours. That isn't what makes you a bigot.It's your demand that others are not to have what you insist for yourself that does it.

quote:

---

It's very biological.

---

Gay people have sex without any difficulty. Or are you saying that gay people aren't biological?And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

quote:

---

It's very psychological.

---

Straight people are no more neurotic than gay people. Or are you saying that gay people are crazy?And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

quote:

---

It's very natural.

---

Gay people have sex naturally. Or are you saying that gay people are artificial?And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

quote:

---

It's very productive.

---

That must be why we have laws that demand a fertility test before marriage and allow it to be annulled in the case of non-issue.What? We don't. Hunh. Your argument made it seem like marriage requires reproduction.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

quote:

---

And it's pure hell.

---

There isn't anything gay people do that straight people don't do. Or are you saying that gay people are adulterated?And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

quote:

---

"Marriage," as I have evolved to understand the term, is a two-sex ordeal.

---

Then don't marry someone of the same sex. Nobody is forcing you (though again, my car battery is all ready to "relieve" you of that burden.)Your opinion is yours. That isn't what makes you a bigot.It's your demand that others are not to have what you insist for yourself that does 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.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

I'm weary of simply redefining a word that's in so many laws like the flip of a light-switch.

---

This would be where you would explain what it is you expect gay people to do that straight people don't already do.You are making it sound as if gay people are more likely to be criminals or scoundrels than straight people.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as 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.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

No, the effect was not that marriage was defined as being between the same race.

---

Yes, it was. That's why whites couldn't marry blacks.But Loving v. Virginia didn't find a right to "interracial marriage." Instead, it found a right simply to "marriage." Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?How many times do I have to directly ask you that before you answer?Since fundamental rights cannot be abridged on the basis of race, the laws that prevented marriage on the basis of the race of the participants is not allowed.So if it's a piece of crap when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?Are you saying Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas were wrongly decided?How many times do I have to directly ask you that before you answer?

quote:

---

I can be but not neccessarily.

---

It necessarily is when they say so directly on the floor of Congress. You did actually look up the comments of the people I directed you to, yes?

quote:

---

You really can't think of any other reason?

---

There can be only one?

quote:

---

Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law. Is he a part of the Religious Right or just one of their allies?

---

Well, he is a Baptist....Yes, Democrats voted for DOMA, but do you really need to be reminded that only one Republican voted against it...and that that single Repbulican happened to be gay?

---

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.

Great J writes:

quote:

---

Phsiologically, the sex organs of male and female were made for each other.

---

So, too, the sex organs of people of the same sex were made for each other. If not, gay people wouldn't be able to have sex. Since gay people have sex without any difficulty, since there isn't anything gay people do that straight people don't do, your argument fails by simple inspection.

quote:

---

Too, these are designed for procreation.

---

That must be the reason why marriage requires a fertility test and can be annulled in the case of non-issue.Wait...you mean there isn't such a test? You can't have your marriage annulled just because you didn't have children? Hunh. Then what happened to your argument?

---

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.

Great J writes:

quote:

---

Man pokes his stick to a hole that should produce babies. No two sticks can produce babies, neither can two holes produce babies. Simple.

---

So the only purpose of sexual activity is procreation? Really?There isn't anything gay people do that straight people don't. So if it isn't "unnatural" when straight people do it, why does it suddenly become so when gay people do it?

quote:

---

I think that a male penis entering a female vagina and producing babies is not a scientific theory but a fact. Or, did I miss your point?

---

So the only valid reason for two people to ever have sex is to reproduce?Then we're all in a lot of trouble because the most common form of sex on the entire planet is oral sex, which doesn't produce babies.

---

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.

rueh writes:

quote:

---

Ok so everybody knows there is a difference in how hetero's and homo's have sex.

---

No, I don't. There isn't anything gay people do that straight people don't.[Yes, I did see the rest of your post. I'm making the point that even the question of the sexual activity of the participants is a non-starter. If it's OK when straight people do it, why does it suddenly become problematic when gay people do 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.

Great J writes:

quote:

---

No but it is (or should be) the main reason for marriage, I think.

---

That must be why we require a fertility test before marriage and annul marriages after five years if no children are produced.Wait...you mean we don't? Hunh. Then what happened to your argument?

quote:

---

Just take a look at the physiological make up of the sex organs.

---

Yes...and? Gay people have no problem having sex. The parts fit together perfectly. What's your point?

quote:

---

Penis to penis / vagina to vagina is just not natural.

---

Then how on earth do people of the same sex ever manage to have sex? They don't seem to have any trouble at all.There isn't anything that gay people do that straight people don't. If it isn't a problem when straight people do it, why does it suddenly become a problem when gay people do 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.

Great J writes:

quote:

---

The point is: human laws are invalid if they go against natural law.

---

And since gay people are perfectly natural, what's your point?

quote:

---

If you are concerned about property rights of gays, then amending marriage laws is not the answer.

---

But those rights only come with marriage. If the only way to get the rights is via marriage, what is your justification for denying rights to gay people?

quote:

---

Try, strengthening partnership laws, for example.

---

"Separate but equal"? Didn't we learn our lesson about that? There ain't no such thing.

---

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.