Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


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 346 of 519 (472969)
06-26-2008 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by NOT JULIUS
06-24-2008 5:02 PM


Great J writes:
quote:
Men enter into marriage for the main reason--and there are other reasons--of reproducing.
That must be why we require a fertility test before allowing people to get married and immediately annul it if there haven't been any children after five years.
Wait...you mean we don't? Hunh. Then what happened to your argument?
quote:
The need to have, care, and love children that came from their own bodies.
That must be why we never allow people to adopt children.
Wait...you mean we do? Hunh. Then what happened to your argument?
And that must be why gay people never, ever have children of their own.
Wait...you mean they do? 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by NOT JULIUS, posted 06-24-2008 5:02 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by NOT JULIUS, posted 06-26-2008 3:17 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 347 of 519 (472970)
06-26-2008 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Buzsaw
06-26-2008 12:29 AM


Buzsaw writes:
quote:
And look what happened to California the weekend of the notorious gay marriage honeymoons.
It was a beautiful weekend here. Went to the Midway, had a lovely dinner on the bay, watched the sunset.
Wait...was I supposed to be immolated by the wrath of god because two people I don't know got married?

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 321 by Buzsaw, posted 06-26-2008 12:29 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by Buzsaw, posted 06-26-2008 9:21 AM Rrhain has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 348 of 519 (472977)
06-26-2008 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 347 by Rrhain
06-26-2008 5:43 AM


Rrhain writes:
It was a beautiful weekend here. Went to the Midway, had a lovely dinner on the bay, watched the sunset.
Wait...was I supposed to be immolated by the wrath of god because two people I don't know got married?
Over 1000 lightning strikes over the state in one day with no rain on America's first official gay honeymoon weekend, nearly twice the strikes in Ca all of 2007 should tell America something about the existence of Jehovah god and what his word says about gay lifestyle. The fires aren't out yet.
Sodom, Gomorrah and California = fire, fire and fire. Someone needs to wake up and cry, "FIRE!"
Gov Swartse flew over north state and said they were in smoke the whole trip. I hope he's happy.
God has blessed America above all nations. As with Israel, when the
God blessed nation thumbs it's nose at God the blessings go and the catastrophes emerge. Whenever our govt undermines God's messianic nation, Israel and when we do other stupid and rebellious things like govt sanctioned slaughter of babies, promoting deviant lifestyle, etc catastrophe has striken our land.
While you and your friends were enjoying dinner at the Midway, thousands in America were grieving over the loss of home, property, prosperity, jobs and life.
WAKE UP, AMERICA!

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2008 5:43 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by PMOC, posted 06-26-2008 9:30 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 350 by lyx2no, posted 06-26-2008 9:35 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 351 by kjsimons, posted 06-26-2008 9:52 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 352 by Taz, posted 06-26-2008 9:59 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 356 by DrJones*, posted 06-26-2008 1:29 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 358 by Jaderis, posted 06-26-2008 2:37 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 382 by Rrhain, posted 06-28-2008 7:30 AM Buzsaw has not replied

PMOC
Member (Idle past 5753 days)
Posts: 41
From: USA
Joined: 06-01-2007


Message 349 of 519 (472978)
06-26-2008 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by Buzsaw
06-26-2008 9:21 AM


Jerry Falwell lives!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Buzsaw, posted 06-26-2008 9:21 AM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 350 of 519 (472980)
06-26-2008 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by Buzsaw
06-26-2008 9:21 AM


California is on Fire, Oh My!
I spent my high school years in SoCo. It was always on fire. I went from there to Arizona where a thousand lightening strikes is called an afternoon in July. If this is the best God can do let him bring it. Kind of like your arguments against Gay marriage.

Kindly
There is a spider by the water pipe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Buzsaw, posted 06-26-2008 9:21 AM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 351 of 519 (472986)
06-26-2008 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by Buzsaw
06-26-2008 9:21 AM


Over 1000 lightning strikes over the state in one day with no rain on America's first official gay honeymoon weekend
And he didn't hit even one gay couple! I've got to wonder about your god if he's batting 0.0 after over a thousand at bats!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Buzsaw, posted 06-26-2008 9:21 AM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 352 of 519 (472989)
06-26-2008 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by Buzsaw
06-26-2008 9:21 AM


Muahahahaha, Buz. I hope your congregation got a good laugh out of your joke there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Buzsaw, posted 06-26-2008 9:21 AM Buzsaw has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 353 of 519 (472994)
06-26-2008 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 340 by Rrhain
06-26-2008 5:20 AM


From Message 333
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.
But it wasn't. The RIA said that whites can't marry non-whites. Not that marriage is 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?
It isn't applied to sexual orientation. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter if you're gay or straight, marriage is to the opposite sex.
From Message 334
So how is it not a violation of the 14th Amendment to have restrictions based upon sexual orientation?
There aren't restrictions based on 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?
No, those cases were not decided incorrectly.
And your argument is the exact same one that was used to deny interracial marriage. But Loving v. Virginia declared that to be bogus.
Its not the exact same. Marriage hasn't always been defined as between the same race as it has been between different sexes. Loving v. Virginia declared the RIA to be unconstitutional, which it was, because it was restriction based on race. There is not a restriction for marriage based on sexual orientation. The same definition of marriage is applied equally to everyone and that is that it is between opposite sexes. There isn't anything unconstitutional about that.
From Message 335
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?
Of course not. We have a Constitution.
And exactly how is the denial of rights not to be taken personally?
If a right isn't there in the first place, then I'm not denying it. The Constitution doesn't grant people the right to have a marriage with someone of the same sex.
From Message 336
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.
No, they weren't.
If it's a piece of crap when applied to race, how does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
Why type the same response into multiple messages?
Again, there is nothing WRT marriage that is applied to sexual orientation.
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?
Nope. The RIA was unconstitutional.
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?
Nope. Marriage is not abridge on the basis of sexual orientation.
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.
No. I know why I'm being tagged a bigot. Its because my opponents are hateful idoits who would rather try to make me look bad than understand my actual position. I'm not saying that gay people are more likely to be criminals and scoundrels than straight people. In fact, I'm really only worried about the straight people finding and exploiting loop-holes.
From Message 339
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.
What's the point in writing the same post into multiple messages? You're annoying and wasting band-width.
No. I know why I'm being tagged a bigot. Its because my opponents are hateful idoits who would rather try to make me look bad than understand my actual position. I'm not saying that gay people are more likely to be criminals and scoundrels than straight people. In fact, I'm really only worried about the straight people finding and exploiting loop-holes.
From Message 340
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?
Again!? Christ man, what is your problem?
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?
Nope. Re-link them.
You just posted, like, 25 messages in 2 hours. FYI, I probably read less than half of your posts.
quote:
You really can't think of any other reason?
There can be only one?
Huh?
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?
Whether or not it was for religious reasons isn't really that important to my position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2008 5:20 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Straggler, posted 06-26-2008 12:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 357 by ramoss, posted 06-26-2008 2:20 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 383 by Rrhain, posted 06-28-2008 8:19 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 354 of 519 (473001)
06-26-2008 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by New Cat's Eye
06-26-2008 11:21 AM


Why?
Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter if you're gay or straight, marriage is to the opposite sex.
Why?
Marriage is a human construct. Surely it is up to people to decide what the term marriage means and how it applies. If there is a justified argument for saying that any consenting couple can get married regardless of sex, race, fertility, height, weight, religion, favorite food etc. etc. etc.
Then why not let any consenting couple get married?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-26-2008 11:21 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-26-2008 12:52 PM Straggler has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 355 of 519 (473002)
06-26-2008 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by Straggler
06-26-2008 12:31 PM


Re: Why?
Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter if you're gay or straight, marriage is to the opposite sex.
Why?
Why is it that way? I dunno, that's how its always been.
Marriage is a human construct. Surely it is up to people to decide what the term marriage means and how it applies. If there is a justified argument for saying that any consenting couple can get married regardless of sex, race, fertility, height, weight, religion, favorite food etc. etc. etc.
Sure.
Then why not let any consenting couple get married?
Because all the laws that explicitly refer to marriage we're written in a way that presumed that the marriages would be between opposite sexes.
Its not that big of a deal really though.
There's a few ways to get it (same sex marriages) done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Straggler, posted 06-26-2008 12:31 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by Straggler, posted 06-27-2008 10:57 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 356 of 519 (473004)
06-26-2008 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by Buzsaw
06-26-2008 9:21 AM


The fires aren't out yet.
There are fires in California? How shocking, truly thats something that has never ever ever happened before.
should tell America something about the existence of Jehovah god and what his word says about gay lifestyle
That if he does exist he's shooting blanks.
God has blessed America above all nations.
Seriously Buz up here in the best country on Earth we've had gay marriage for a couple of years now and god hasn't cursed us with anything, maybe he's pissed at you for other reasons.

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Buzsaw, posted 06-26-2008 9:21 AM Buzsaw has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 357 of 519 (473011)
06-26-2008 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by New Cat's Eye
06-26-2008 11:21 AM


So,
I think that either gays can marry gays, and get the legal protections provided any other couple, or that the government get out of the marriage business all togather, and only provide 'civil' contracts.
My advice, if you don't like the idea of gay marriage, don't marry one.
It's been 4 years since gay marriage was allowed in Massachusetts. So for, the world hasn't ended, and nothing unusual happened there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-26-2008 11:21 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 358 of 519 (473013)
06-26-2008 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by Buzsaw
06-26-2008 9:21 AM


Over 1000 lightning strikes over the state in one day with no rain on America's first official gay honeymoon weekend,
Really? America's first official gay honeymoon weekend?
I think the citizens of Massachusetts might be surprised to know that they are not a part of America.
nearly twice the strikes in Ca all of 2007 should tell America something about the existence of Jehovah god
That he has abysmally poor aim?
Really Buz, why didn't your god hit San Francisco or even Sacramento (where the CA Supreme Court building is)? Why is it that the fires are in areas which are plagued by wildfires EVERY YEAR?
The fires aren't out yet.
And they'll not be out for the rest of the fire season in CA. And then they'll be back next year, just like they have been there every year.
God has blessed America above all nations. As with Israel, when the
God blessed nation thumbs it's nose at God the blessings go and the catastrophes emerge. Whenever our govt undermines God's messianic nation, Israel and when we do other stupid and rebellious things like govt sanctioned slaughter of babies, promoting deviant lifestyle, etc catastrophe has striken our land.
Natural disasters have been occurring everywhere for all time.
CA has had wildfires and earthquakes, the midwest floodplains have had floods, the coasts have been hit by hurricanes. There are volcanic eruptions, tornadoes, tsunamis, droughts, etc. All have been happening well before the issue of gay marriage and abortion were decided by our government.
Funny thing is, Massachusetts (you know, that other gay marriage state) has had a peaceful few years. I know of no natural catastrophes there since they instituted gay marriage, do you? But then again, they aren't prone to them in the first place...except the occasional nor'easter or the very rare hurricane (usually the remnants of much more powerful storms in the south, tho). It seems, Buz, that your god acts just like nature.
If your god really wanted to impress he could either have bombarded CA with a catastrophic ice storm in the middle of the summer (or something, anything out of the ordinary)...or he could have just had better aim and struck down all of the "deviants" where they stood. Even I, godless, heathen, pervert that I am, would have stood up and taken notice at something like that!
But, he didn't, so it just looks like it is nature going about it's usual business, except now there are more people in the way.
Hmmm...maybe your god doesn't want us to build houses in areas prone to wildfires or floods or major hurricanes?
Nah...it's gotta be the fags getting hitched.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Buzsaw, posted 06-26-2008 9:21 AM Buzsaw has not replied

NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 359 of 519 (473016)
06-26-2008 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Straggler
06-24-2008 5:55 PM


Re: What about gay marriage
Hi S,
quote:
Is rape natural? Is rape good? Is everything natural good? Is everything 'unnatural' bad?
Please note I am not saying that homosexuality is either good or bad or natural or not. I am simply saying that your argument based on natural is irrelevant.
I think you miss the point. Man made laws should not go against natural laws. It is NOT about natural things in general vs. unnatural things. Its about laws. Natural law says that no man should do violence (e.g rape) to his fellow or he/she'll suffer consequence. So, the law penalizing rape is perfectly in harmony with natural law. Natural laws says that males are made for females--their genitals, their temperament, their aspirations (e.g their need to procreate with the opposite sex whom they love) are complementary to each other. So, human laws limiting marriage to a man and woman is in harmony with natural law. Coversely, same sex marriage is against natural law.
Edited by Great J, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Straggler, posted 06-24-2008 5:55 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Rrhain, posted 06-28-2008 8:25 AM NOT JULIUS has not replied

Humble
Junior Member (Idle past 5753 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 06-26-2008


Message 360 of 519 (473017)
06-26-2008 2:47 PM


I live my life based on my own laws.(Not recommended to do to mindless irrational people, or devoutly religious ones.)
Basically, if I wouldn't want it to happen to me, I don't want it to happen to them. I wouldn't want gay people, if they were the majority, to ban heterosexual marriage, so I won't want to ban homosexual marriage.
Problem solved.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024