Gay Marriage

Hey Rrhain,I don't have time to read all this right now. I just wanted to point out two things and make a request. Not true. Whites not being able to marry non-whites doesn't mean that browns can't marry yellows. Because it not the same argument. The RIA didn't define marriage as between the same race.Now, what message did you link to the RE decision? I have not read it.

If the potential economic effects of gay marriage being legal were assessed and deemed inconsequential would you still oppose gay marriage?If not tradition, if not economic...... then what is your actual objection?

No. Its because I'm a fucking homophobic bigot, duh But seriously, tradition and economics are factors. But I tend to be more conservative, in general. It seems all these things nudge our country more and more to the left, and I don't like it. It doesn't really have anything to do with the fact that they are homosexual.

To be honest yours seems a relatively practical point of view regards the topic in question. I have not called you, or anyone else, a homophobic bigot.So, seriously, what is your objection? It seems you think that homosexual marriage is some sort of precursor to an immoral left wing society......Is that the issue as far as you are concerned?Talking of left wing idealism... Normally I would be at the Glastonbury festival this weekend. Alas not this year. However I reccommend it to all good free thinking liberterian conservatives

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

Whites not being able to marry non-whites doesn't mean that browns can't marry yellows.

---

Irrelevant. Are the rights of white people of no concern? How is it that white people only being allowed to marry other white people not an example of marriage being restricted on the basis of race?Let's not play dumb. How many times must I ask that of you? Are you seriously claiming that the laws that prevented white people from marrying people who weren't white weren't based upon racism? That the white race must be "kept pure"? Why on earth do you think the "one drop" laws were invented?Have you read the in RE decision? It goes into this matter. I've quoted it here. Have you read the Loving v. Virginia decision? It goes into this matter. The reason why whites were treated differently was because of the racist nature of the law. So if it's a piece of crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?When are you going to do your homework? I should point out that your demands for me to link and quote are pretty much irrelevant because you've directly stated that you aren't going to read them, even were I to do so. So what would be the point of me posting them for you if you're not going to read them? I've already given you the information you need to look it up. Loving v. Virginia is not that long of a decision. While in RE goes on a bit, I'm sure you can search it for the relevant passages (try the word "Virginia" to see what it has to say regarding the relevancy of the Loving v. Virginia case to the in RE cases.)But at any rate, your argument fails even if we generalize: Marriage is restricted only to people of the appropriate race. For whites, that list of "appropriate" is pretty narrow: Only your own. And because that abridges the fundamental right of marriage for white people (for it is marriage that is the fundamental right, not "interracial marriage"), then it is unconstitutional. It does not matter that white people can and do get married anyway, the fact that they are being restricted from marriage based upon the race of the other person is unconstitutional.By your logic, marriage should be restricted only to people of the appropriate sexual orientation (and let's not play dumb here and say that a gay man and a lesbian can easily get married because people don't marry people they aren't sexually attracted to...this was brought up in the in RE decision...you did read it, did you not? When are you going to do your homework?) For gays, that list is exceedingly narrow, including nobody: You are only allowed to marry somebody you are not attracted to (again, let's not play dumb here.) But that is of no concern, because gay people can marry somebody.So if it's a piece of crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation.

quote:

---

The RIA didn't define marriage as between the same race.

---

Yes, it did. White people can only marry other white people. How is that not defining marriage as between the same race?You did read the in RE and Loving v. Virginia cases, did you not? They went into that exact argument and found it to be disingenuous.There's no point in me posting it here for you to read because you admit that you don't actually read the posts that are directed toward you. Thus, you will have to do it for yourself and I will continually ask you if you have read them until YOU can quote the relevant portions here.I am not here to do your homework for you. I have already quoted the relevant passages and given you all the reference material you need to go look it up for yourself. I can't make you read my post and since you admit you won't, why on earth should I do the extra work?

quote:

---

Now, what message did you link to the RE decision? I have not read it.

---

And that problem is mine because of what, precisely? Since this entire thread rests upon the decision that was reached in the in RE case, don't you think you should, simply as a matter of preparation, read it? Though I was doing a pretty good job of eventually typing it all in here in the last thread, it is too long to post. You simply have to go and read it. I've linked to it already and since you admit you're not going to read my posts, there is little incentive for me to link to it again. You are capable of using a search engine. Try looking up the California Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage. It'll be the very first thing, most likely.When you've read it, come back here and quote the relevant portions that justify your claim that the laws against miscegenation were not restrictions based upon race since people who weren't white could marry anybody else who wasn't white (which would require you to immediately ignore the contradiction merely in stating the point.)Then, quote the relevant portions that justify your claim that the laws against same-sex marriage are not actually restrictions based upon the sexual orientation of the participants.You have some homework to do. When are you going to 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.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

Its because I'm a fucking homophobic bigot, duh

---

That goes without saying. It seems you have what I call the "Doesn't Kick Puppies" attitude. The idea is that because a person doesn't kick puppies, then he can't actually be a bad person as if the only criterion for being a bad person is if you kick puppies.The fact that you don't spend your nights prowling the streets looking to beat up gay people is not proof that you're not a "fucking homophobic bigot." It doesn't really matter how much you support gay people in other areas, if there is an area where you have problems letting them have the same thing that you demand for yourself, then you're a "fucking homophobic bigot." That doesn't mean you kick puppies.

quote:

---

But seriously, tradition and economics are factors.

---

If gay people get married, it would be an economic boon. Both the GAO at the federal level and the state of California for its own internal reasons studied it and found that same-sex marriage would actually bring money into the budget. For California alone, if the same-sex couples in the state got married at the same rate that the couples in Vermont took up civil union¹, there would be about $250M more in the budget.

quote:

---

It seems all these things nudge our country more and more to the left, and I don't like it.

---

And that's a problem for other people why, precisely? The Constitution is a liberal document. If you don't like same-sex marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex. Nobody is forcing you to, are they? Surely you're not saying you have a right to live in a society that only has people who do what you like to do, are you?Please explain how the neighbor's marriage affects you. If it doesn't, why are you unwilling to let them do what you demand for yourself?And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a "fucking homophobic bigot."

quote:

---

It doesn't really have anything to do with the fact that they are homosexual.

---

Strange, isn't it, that you seem to "not like it" when it comes to gay people getting to do what you demand for yourself.And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a "fucking homophobic bigot."¹Despite the ruling from the Vermont Supreme Court that the contract between same-sex couples must afford the exact same rights and responsibilities as the contract between mixed-sex couples, the contract of "civil union" in Vermont has restrictions on it that the contract of "marriage" does not have, thus showing yet again that there ain't no such thing as "separate but equal." The only way to guarantee equality is to have a single contract for everyone.

---

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.

Since you seem to have ignored it the last time, let's try again, shall we?What is it you think gay people do that straight people don't already 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.

quote:

---

But seriously, tradition and economics are factors. But I tend to be more conservative, in general. It seems all these things nudge our country more and more to the left, and I don't like it. It doesn't really have anything to do with the fact that they are homosexual.

---

Does the fact that "you don't like it" trump the basic civil rights of gays and lesbians? I don't think so and that is why we need the constitution to prevent the "tyranny of the majority" - taking away rights of minorities just because people "don't like" something. You are the poster child for why the DOMA is unconstitutional.

Not really that it leads to immorality, but that I have a general distrust of liberalizing our society and its laws. I prefer order. Wow, that looks freakin' sweet. I would totally go if I could.

I read most of the California decision on same-sex marriage. Its relevant to the claim that the arguments against inter-racial marriage are the exact same as the arguments against same sex marriages, which they're not as I've explained.The law didn't specify that marriage had to be between the same race. It said that whites couldn't marry non-whites, which is a restriction based on race, ergo it's unconstitutional.Defining marriage as between the different sex does not discriminate on the bases of sexual orientation (although the California Supreme Court does think that it does) so it is not unconstitutional in the same way that the racial restriction are.Now, I have read the California decision on same sex marriage.They concluded that according to their constitution gays have a right to same sex marriages.

quote:

---

As these and many other California decisions make clear, the right to marry represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice, and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual.

---

That's all fine and dandy. They can do that if they want too. It does, however, open up the law to polygamy and incestual marriages as being a constitutional right as well. But whatever.I still maintain that DOMA is not unconstitutional. If a state, or the federal gov., wants marriage to mean, for them, something different than "the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice", then they are free to do so. In this case, marriage could mean the union of one man and one woman.That Califoria chose to define it a ifferent way does not mean that everyone has to define it that way. Each state can make their own decision.Also, the argument that "marriage" as defined in 1000+ federal laws is defined as between one man and one woman, and for the reason of maintaining that definition to keep the laws themselves from being effectively altered, that marriage be kept as between one man and one woman is still sound. California deciding to not do that doesn't mean that nobody can.

No. Where have I said that it does? You don't even know what you're talking about. I wasn't even using that as an argument for why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.You are the poster boy for why liberals are asshats for pushing people into positions they haven't taken just so they can spout their hate speach against them for not sharing their opinions. Taking away? Nobody has taken anything away, what are you talking about? Gay people didn't have a right to marry to begin with.

quote:

---

I wasn't even using that as an argument for why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.

---

How are we to know when it is part of your argument or just a side comment, then? Maybe you better label what is part of your argument and what is not. Better yet, why state it at all if it is not part of your argument?

quote:

---

Taking away? Nobody has taken anything away, what are you talking about? Gay people didn't have a right to marry to begin with.

---

In your opinion they don't have the right. I think you just made my point. Basic civil and human rights should not be at the whim of individual opinion, whether that opinion is in the majority or not. At one time blacks were enslaved and could not vote. That doesn't mean they didn't have the right to be free and to vote. It just meant they could not exercise those rights because yes, the majority had taken those rights away. Not allowing someone to exercise basic human rights, even if it has been going on for a very long time, is not a valid reason for continuing that practice. The rights still exist.

quote:

---

Not really that it leads to immorality, but that I have a general distrust of liberalizing our society and its laws. I prefer order.

---

Yes, the old "order" argument rears its ugly head. Same reason was used against granting blacks their civil rights. And I say it again, what you or the majority "prefers" is not the basis for deciding what rights should be allowed.

Context.... uh, hello? It was an answer to a direct question. Maybe if you read the thread instead of taking one line out of one post (out of context) and using it as if it was the premise an argument then I wouldn't need to label why I type. You're conflating natural rights and legal rights.Black people did not have legal rights before they were granted to them by the Constitution.You're going to have to make a philosophical argument to claim natural rights, which I don't really have an interest in discussing.

Really? Then how do people get legal rights?