|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
AndyGodLove  Suspended Member (Idle past 5799 days) Posts: 18 From: Wentworth Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage | |||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Great J writes:
Then you must really be against the space program. It is a very dangerous thing to send a man into space. When disaster strikes, there is almost zero chance the people could be rescued. This is not to mention the countless people that died during the early stages of the space programs of both the Soviet and the States.
Human desires--such as exploration and exploitation--if not harmful are not against natural law. On the other hand, male to male or female to female relationships goes against their very anatomy.
Ok, let's suppose that these goes against their anatomy. Can you perhaps tell us how their physical activities could be harmful? That is, after all, the basis of your entire argument. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
CS writes:
Haha, what's the matter, don't like being second worst? I just wanted to let you know that you are making a horrible argument. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
From Message 371
Excuse me? I thought we are talking about human laws as it applies to human marriage and not marriage between apes?
More specifically, we're talking about human laws in the U.S., where they don't actually have to be subject to these "natural laws" that you are making up. From Message 372 But, would you agree that human anatomy is subject to natural law? What does that have to do with anything? What about the double standard you are using? You justify space travel but stand against homosexuality. Human anatomy being subject to natural law is more of an argument against space travel than it is against homosexuality.
I'm not making up the stuff. There is basis to this. Got a link?
Actually, the issue on gay marriages was among the topics we discussed in legal philosophy. We had a lively discussion on this issue--without calling each other idiots. I said that you should stop before you look like an idiot. I didn't call you one.
BTW, being civil towards one another was assumed to be part of natural law. Now I know you're just making stuff up. There's nothing in natural law about being civil. In fact, civilization seems to go against natural law. Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence. Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith. Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth. -System of a Down, "Science" He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Why is it that way? I dunno, that's how its always been. So what.If we only ever did as has always been done we would never do anything. 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. Again so what? If laws are unjust they should be changed. No?
There's a few ways to get it (same sex marriages) done. But why bother to make the distinction? Why not one law for all?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So what. If we only ever did as has always been done we would never do anything. So nothing. I'm not supporting the position that things should never change.
Again so what? If laws are unjust they should be changed. No? Yes, unjust laws should be changed.
But why bother to make the distinction? Why not one law for all? I'm not totally opposed to gays being allowed to have marriages. I'm against the notion that the current definition of mariage is unconstitutional, that gays are being denied the "right" to marry and that marriage has to/must allow gays. I think that marriage's definition would have to be changed in order to allow gay marriages and that that change could affect over 1000 laws. I think that changing something with that big of an effect could have an effect on myself (against the notion that gay marriage doesn't affect straight people at all). People want specifics, but I'm not a lawyer. I think our crumbling economy could be hurt be an influx of a bunch of new people into insurance plans. I think loop-holes could be exploited by corporate entities (like the CEO of one company marrying the CEO of another, which could be done in a straight marriage but most of the CEOs are males). Things like that. I don't like the idea of simply switching marriage without considering the ramifications.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Perhaps if you define 'natural law'
You are totally misunderstanding the point. The point was 'homosexual parings are found in nature, therefore, they are natural.'
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw responds to me:
quote: Hmmm...then what did Hurricane Katrina say about god? There was going to be a gay pride celebration then: Southern Decadence. Except...the place where Southern Decadence was going to be held was pretty much left untouched by the hurricane. And how to explain all the hurricanes that keep on striking right where Pat Robertson is and all the other Christians in the South. And you seem to be forgetting: The fires were happening where the gay people weren't getting married. The big locations where all the gays were: San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, it was a perfectly lovely day. The fires are all happening inland, where the conservatives and the Christians live. If you're going to try and read the mind of god out of the weather, it would seem that god loves gay people and hates Christians: Every time there is a gay-positive event, he seems to be destroying the conservatives and the Christians who would try to stop it and leaves the gay people alone.
quote: So why is it only the conservatives and the Christians are the ones facing god's wrath? Why are the gay people being left alone? Why are they having perfect weather?
quote: And that can be found in the Bible exactly where? Chapter and verse, please.
quote: That must be why god is smiting the conservatives and the Christians. They are undermining god's commandment to love your neighbor as you would love yourself.
quote: So why was it only the conservatives and the Christians who were struck down by god? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist responds to me
quote: Let's not play dumb. I keep on asking you this nicely. If a white person is not allowed to marry someone who isn't white, then that means the definition of "marriage" is the union of people of the same race.
quote: Then why can't gay people get married? You did read the in RE decision, yes? This assinine claim of yours that "sexual orientation has nothing to do with it" was tackled head on. It is, to put it mildly, disingenuous. The restriction on marriage is not on the basis of the sex of the participants. The reason it was overturned is not because it is a case of sex-based discrimination: A person, as a male, is being prevented from marrying someone that he could were he a female, for example. No, the reason it was overturned is because it was denying marriage on the basis of sexual orientation. Straight people do not marry straight people of the same sex. The idea that the laws against same-sex marriage aren't based upon sexual orientation is fundamentally flawed. You were given the references to look up the debate on the floors of Congress regarding it. Have you bothered to do your homework? Can you quote me what the elected officials were specifically saying?
quote: It doesn't matter if you're white or not, marriage is to the same race. If it's a piece of crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote: Since gay people cannot get married, your argument fails on inspection.
quote: So if gay people cannot be denied their fundamental rights and laws cannot be written to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, then how is preventing gay people from getting married not a direct violation of Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and Loving v. Virginia? Be specific. Even Scalia directly stated that Lawrence v. Texas necessarily requires same-sex marriage. Now, I will handily admit that Scalia isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but he's onto something here. What do you know that he doesn't?
quote: It's precisely the same. Loving v. Virginia did not find a right to "interracial marriage." You are seemingly upset that there might be a right to "same-sex marriage." But no court found that. Instead, what was found was what Loving v. Virgina declared as well as Perez two decades before that: There is only a right to "marriage." Because that right is a fundamental right, it cannot be restricted on the basis of race (Loving v. Virginia) and thus the definition of marriage that it must be between people of the same race (whites can only marry other whites; let's not play dumb) is simply wrong. Race has nothing to do with the definition of marriage. It applies to all. Because that right is a fundamental right, it cannot be restricted on the basis of sexual orientation (Lawrence v. Texas) and thus the definition of marriage that it must be between people of the opposite sex (only straights can marry; let's not play dumb) is simply wrong. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with the definition of marriage. It applies to all.
quote: In California, it always has. You did read the in RE decision, did you not? I have quoted it I don't know how many times here. The very first legislative session of the brand new state of California codified into law that interracial marriage was null and void and any such marriages performed elsewhere in the country would not be recognized.
quote: Incorrect. Loving v. Virginia did not find a right to "interracial marriage." How many times do I have to repeat this before you remember it? Instead, it found a right simply to "marriage." Since it is a fundamental right and since fundamental rights cannot be abridged on the basis of race, it is unconstitutional to proscribe marriage as only being between people of the same race. Do you seriously not understand? It has to do with the arrow of implication. You are starting with race and working your way back to marriage but that isn't what happened. Instead, the court started with MARRIAGE and found that race was not a restriction. Marriage is a fundamental right. It is something that everyone is entitled to. Putting restrictions based upon race on it is to abridge the right of marriage, not the right of "interracial marriage" as there is no such thing. The exact same thing was stated in the in RE decision. You did read it, did you not? The court started with MARRIAGE and found that sexual orientation was not a restriction. Marriage is a fundamental right. It is something that everyone is entitled to. Putting restrictions based upon sexual orientation is to abridge the right of marraige, not the right of "same-sex marriage" as there is no such thing.
quote: But this argument is trivially proven false by simple inspection: Gay people can't get married. Therefore, the definition of marriage is not applied equally to everyone specifically because it requires mixed-sex couples. That is patently unconstitutional as Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas decided.
quote: That's not what you said. You said you went with your gut. Are you trying to say your gut is the Constitution? What is it about the Fourteenth Amendment that you are having such a hard time understanding? What is it about "equal treatment under the law" that you cannot grasp? If restrictions based upon race are violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, then how can restrictions based upon sexual orientation not be? If it's a piece of crap argument when applied to race, how does it gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote: Indeed. It grants the right to have a marriage. How many times does this need to be told to you directly before you remember it? Loving v. Virginia did not find a right to "interracial marriage." It only found a right to "marriage." Because MARRIAGE (not "interracial marriage") is the fundamental right, it cannot be abridged on the basis of the race of the participants. But gay people aren't allowed to get married. Ergo, their rights are being violated. If it's a crap argument when applied to race, how does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote: Yes, they were. You did read the in RE decision, did you not? I've quoted it here over and over again. When are you going to do your homework?
quote: Because you haven't answered it. Instead, you keep falling back to saying that the laws with respect to race are somehow illegitimate whereas the laws with respect to sexual orientation are somehow just fine.
quote: But your claim is trivially proven false by simple inspection: Gay people can't get married. If it's a piece of crap when applied to race, how does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote: So if miscegenation laws are unconstitutional, how does DOMA gain legitimacy? If it's a piece of crap when applied to race, how does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote: But your claim is trivially proven false by simple inspection: Gay people can't get married. If it's a piece of crap when applied to race, how does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote: Right...it has nothing to do with your claim that there would be "ramifications" and "loop-holes" if we let gay people do what straight people already do. How is it that marriage does not cause you to go into apoplexy about "ramifications" and "loop-holes" when the people are of mixed sex? Just what is it you think gay people do that straight people don't? Since you only hesitate when the couple is of the same sex, that necessarily means that you are drawing a distinction between them, seeking to find a justification for denying to them what you would demand for yourself. That is the definition of bigotry. Nobody can make you look bad. You do that for yourself.
quote: So why the sudden panic attack? Why the hesitation and wringing of hands over "ramifications" and "loop-holes"? Just what is it you think gay people are going 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.
quote: You don't believe that. If you did, you would be fighting against marriage in the first place. Since you only seem to come up with this argument when the subject is equal treatment under the law for those who aren't straight, it is clear that your concern is about the gay people. But, let's go along with you playing dumb. Let's assume that you are worried that straight people will find "loop-holes." Just what are these "loop-holes" that you think will come with same-sex marriage? What is it you think gay people do that straight people don't already do? Every single possible reason for two people to get married has already been carried out by straight people. What could gay people possibly add to the mix? I don't ask it for my health. I really want an answer: What is it you think gay people do that straight people don't already do?
quote: Because you keep repeating the same refuted claims. Come up with a different argument and you'll get a different response.
quote: Right...it has nothing to do with your claim that there would be "ramifications" and "loop-holes" if we let gay people do what straight people already do. How is it that marriage does not cause you to go into apoplexy about "ramifications" and "loop-holes" when the people are of mixed sex? Just what is it you think gay people do that straight people don't? Since you only hesitate when the couple is of the same sex, that necessarily means that you are drawing a distinction between them, seeking to find a justification for denying to them what you would demand for yourself. That is the definition of bigotry. Nobody can make you look bad. You do that for yourself.
quote: So why the sudden panic attack? Why the hesitation and wringing of hands over "ramifications" and "loop-holes"? Just what is it you think gay people are going 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.
quote: You don't believe that. If you did, you would be fighting against marriage in the first place. Since you only seem to come up with this argument when the subject is equal treatment under the law for those who aren't straight, it is clear that your concern is about the gay people. But, let's go along with you playing dumb. Let's assume that you are worried that straight people will find "loop-holes." Just what are these "loop-holes" that you think will come with same-sex marriage? What is it you think gay people do that straight people don't already do? Every single possible reason for two people to get married has already been carried out by straight people. What could gay people possibly add to the mix? I don't ask it for my health. I really want an answer: What is it you think gay people do that straight people don't already do? See: If you don't come up with a new argument, you won't get a new response. Your point has been refuted. You have been asked some direct questions. It is now your responsibility to answer them should you wish the conversation to progress: What is it you think gay people do that straight people don't already do?
quote: The fact that you keep on ignoring direct questions put to you. The more you avoid them, the more you get asked them. If you want a different response, then come up with a different argument. Your points have been refuted. You need to come up with something else or you'll just get more of the same. You have been asked a direct question. You need to answer it or you'll just be asked it again.
quote: No, you do your own homework. You've been given the references. I can't make you read them. I can only point out how foolish you are making yourself look by arguing from a position of ignorance.
quote: And that's my fault...why? You can thread your own posts, you know. And at the bottom of every post, there are links to the specific posts that are a reply to them. Thus, it is trivial for you to read only those posts of mine that are in direct response to you. Since I directly responded to you and gave you the references, why haven't you done your own homework? Is it really so hard for you to search for the Congressional debate on DOMA and read the comments for yourself?
quote:quote:quote: Let's not play dumb. You don't remember your own argument? Hint: It had to do with deerbreh's comment that DOMA was submitted for religious reasons. "If it isn't that, what is it?" "You really can't think of any other reason?" Etc. No, while I did notice that my comment was a quote from Highlander, that was only coincidence.
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? You're arguing that the laws restricting marriage to only mixed-sex couples has nothing to do with sexual orientation and the fact that DOMA was submitted for religious purposes has nothing to do with it? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Great J writes:
quote: Indeed. That's why we have to treat gay people the same as straight people and let them get married. What possible reason could there be to deny the natural rights of gay people?
quote: And they also say that males are made for males--their genitals, their temperament, their aspirations, are complementary to each other. By your logic, gay people should be incapable of having sex, and yet they do. By your logic, gay people shouldn't be able to get along with each other, and yet they do. By your logic, gay people shouldn't want the same thing, and yet they do.
quote: What is it that gay people do that straight people don't? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Great J writes:
quote: And it also says that males were made for males and females were made for females. If not, there wouldn't be any gay people and clearly there are.
quote: And the exact same thing for gay people. Their genitals fit, otherwise gay people would be incapable of having sex and yet clearly, they do. Their aspirations are the same. Therefore, gays are in harmony with natural law. What possible justification is there to think otherwise? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Great J writes:
quote: Not in the United States, they don't. And they don't allow it in the European Union, either. If they did, sterile people would not be allowed to get married and yet, they are.
quote: And? Are you saying gay people don't love and care for children? Many of them have their own children. What happened to your argument? Since there isn't anything gay people do that straight people don't, why is it only 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Great J writes:
quote: So how does one start with this and conclude, "Thus, gay people aren't allowed to get married?" Gay people are part of nature and are derived from nature. Since there isn't anything gay people do that straight people don't, why is it only problematic when gay people do it?
quote: Logical error: Argument from authority. It doesn't matter who they are. It only matters if it works. "Natural law" jurisprudence has long since been discarded as unworkable. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Great J writes:
quote: Huh? Nobody said anything about apes. Where did that come from? Is there a particular reason that the thought of marrying someone of your own sex immediately made you fantasize about marrying a member of another species? Nobody brought it up. That was all you. So please tell us how you managed to wind up there. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Great J writes:
quote: So if it's OK for straight people to do it, why is it a problem for gay people to do it? Gay people don't do anything straight people don't, so why is it only problematic when gay people do it?
quote: And similarly, the male/male bodies and female/female bodies, their aspirations, are also complementary. That's why gay people are perfectly capable of having sex and falling in love. By your logic, it would be impossible for people of the same sex to have sex and fall in love but this is trivially proven false by simple inspection.
quote: Huh? Gay people have no difficulties having sex. In fact, there isn't anything that gay people do that straight people don't. So why it is only 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote: What part of the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply to gays? If it's a piece of crap argument when applied to race, how does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote: So let me see if I understand this correctly: You can't actually think of any possible reason to deny the fundamental right of marriage to all citizens. But even though you know that there isn't anything that gay people do that straight people don't already do, you're still hesitant? And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
quote: Huh? If we have two men and two women, and they pair off and get married, how on earth are insurance rates affected based upon the couples being boy/boy, girl/girl rather than boy/girl, boy/girl? It's still two marriages.
quote: Huh? You don't think straight people don't already do that? Since there isn't anything gays do that straights don't, why is it only problematic when gays do it? Hint: Straight people don't marry people of the same sex.
quote: And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot. Just what is it you think gay people do that straight people don't? 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024