|
Author
|
Topic: Gay Marriage
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
In this case, it would have been easier simply because he had double the amount of people to ask.
Half a large number is still a large number.
quote:
I don't believe that. I mean, there we were with all the girls saying no and all the guys saying yeah...
That's precisely the point: There wasn't any risk. The women were saying no because they actually had to worry about the realities of getting married above and beyond the single act of sponsoring one's spouse for citizenship. The men, who knew that there was never any way it could actually happen, were only looking at that one thing.
quote:
Sure, it was a hypothetical situation, which is easier to say yes to.
So you admit that your "concern" is nothing but a strawman that you don't even believe yourself. Why on earth did you bring it up?
quote:
But this particular case doesn't really matter that much. It was just an example of one possibility. There's over 1000 laws that menetion marriage, so...
So....what? You don't even believe your own example so this is evidence that there is something to worry about? It's your claim, it's your burden of proof. What exactly are these "loop-holes" and "ramifications" and "concerns"? You seem to be saying that gay people are more likely to be criminals and scoundrels than straight people.
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: 05-03-2003
|
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
Ahhh, the old "everything is going to be okay... don't worry about it" defense.
Incorrect. It's the old, "It's your claim, therefore it's your burden of proof" response. You're the one saying that there are going to be "loop-holes" and "ramifications" and "concerns," therefore it is your responsibility to show what they are. So far, the only one you have managed to come up with is one that you don't even believe in.
quote:
I can't believe that changing the definition of a word in over 1000 laws isn't going to have substantial consequences. It simply follows.
Why? Nothing changed when we allowed people of different races to get married. Why would something change if we allowed gay couples to get married? Exactly what of the various rights and responsibilities that come with marriage are dependent upon the other person being of the other sex? Your claim. Your burden of proof.
quote:
IANAL so I'm not easily capable of the enumeration you request.
But you're the one making the claim. If you are not in a position to defend it, then what makes you think you are in a position to assert it?
quote:
It would take a lot of time and effort.
And what makes you think it hasn't been done already? Both the GAO at the federal level and the State Assembly here in California have looked over the issue and they couldn't find anything. In fact, they found it to be a net gain. When are you going to do your homework?
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: 05-03-2003
|
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
I think that healthcare costs would go up from the influx of new covered spouses if gay marriage were legalized across the counry one day. But its not like I can prove that or anything.
Hmm...you are going to insist that there's a problem but you aren't going to actually provide any evidence for such. Even though people have looked at precisely what you're "concerned" about, you're not going to take the time to do your homework and find out. Then why are you even participating? At any rate, how would the healthcare system be burdened if John and Jim get married instead of Joan and Jim? By your logic we should prevent people from getting a job since you can get health insurance when you get a job and that's a burden. By the way: If we expanded marriage, the healthcare system would experience an easing as it would reduce the amount of uninsured people who can only get their healthcare through emergency services. That's more of an argument for the need of universal healthcare that is independent of things like marital or employment status, but it shows the lie of your "concern."
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: 05-03-2003
|
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
But the rise in cost would also be contributed by straight people who marry others of the same sex for the insurance benefits.
So if straight people already do it, why are you trying to stop gay people from doing it? And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot. You want to withhold from others that which you demand for yourself. You seem to be saying that gay people are more likely to be criminals and scoundrels than straight people.
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: 05-03-2003
|
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
The California Supreme Court found that their consitution and definition of marriage means that everyone has the right to enter marriage with a consenting adult of their choice. That means that people have the right to have polygamous marriages and marriages of incest as well as gay marriages, according to their constitution.
Thus showing that you didn't actually read the decision. The Perez decision made the exact same finding. The in RE case made direct reference to the Perez case, you recall. You did actually read the in RE decision, yes? If the finding in Perez didn't lead to polygamy and/or incest, why would the exact same finding in in RE do it? If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
So, California must legalize both polygamy and incest marrages or they are violating the rights of the people who want to enter those mariages. If you don't support the legalization of polygamy and incest marriages in California then you are a fucking phobic bigot for denying these people their rights.
If Perez, which found the exact same thing, wasn't a justification, why would in RE be? If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? Why is it that you suddenly start having fantasies of having sex with your sons every time you think about having sex with someone of your own sex? The reason why you keep getting tagged as a "fucking phobic bigot" is because you want to deny others that which you demand for yourself.
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: 05-03-2003
|
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
I guess if you want to make a semantic argument....
So when we say "white," we really mean "black"? That's your argument?
quote:
But "the person" doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be only one person.
(*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? So when the law, which is notorious for being exceedingly exact in the use of language 1, used the word "person," they didn't really mean a singular person. They really meant multiple people. The idea of saying, "person or persons," was just too much effort, so they decided to use only the singular and assumed that everybody would understand that "person" could actually be interpreted to mean "people." 1There's a reason that the phrase is "Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate." Each of those terms means different things.
quote:
So it seems that California's constitution does grant people the right to polygamy.
Except it doesn't say that at all. You did actually read the decision, did you not? It directly contradicts you:
California Supreme Court writes: [I][B]We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships.[/I][/b] Past judicial decisions explain why our nation’s culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry. (See, e.g., Reynolds v. United States (1878) 98 U.S. 145, 165-166; Davis v. Beason (1890) 133 U.S. 333, 341; People v. Scott (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 189, 192-194; State v. Freeman (Ohio Ct.App. 2003) 801 N.E.2d 906, 909; Smith v. State (Tenn.Crim.App. 1999) 6 S.W.3d 512, 518-520.) Although the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay individuals and gay couples clearly is no longer constitutionally permissible, the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. (Accord, e.g., Potter v. Murray City (C.D. Utah 1984) 585 F.Supp. 1126, 1137-1140, affd. (10th Cir. 1985) 760 F.2d 1065, 1068-1071, cert. den. (1985) 474 U.S. 849; People v. Scott, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th 189, 193-194.) Thus, our conclusion that it is improper to interpret the state constitutional right to marry as inapplicable to gay individuals or couples does not affect the constitutional validity of the existing legal prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives. [emphasis added] You did actually read the decision, did you not? Again, if Perez, which said the exact same thing, didn't lead to polygamy, why would in RE? If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
So is everyone going to start fighting for the polygamists now?
What does polygamy have to do with anything? Is there a reason you immediately have fantasies of having sex with your children when you think of having sex with someone of the same sex? Why does same-sex marriage lead you to this while mixed-sex marriage does not? Be specific.
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: 05-03-2003
|
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
If they had said "a person" instead of "the person", then you'd definately be wrong because you could marry a person, and then go marry another person.
Huh? Do you seriously not understand the difference between the definite and the indefinite article in English? "The" is the definite article. When it is used, it is indicating singularity and uniqueness. "A" is the indefinite arcitle. When it is used, it is indicating generality. If I were to say, "You're the person I want," that would indicate that there is no other. If I were to say, "You're a person I want," that would indicate that there may be others.
quote:
When it says the person, it seems to imply only one, but that isn't the case by neccesity.
(*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Just how else is the word "the" supposed to be interpreted? Hey, when I said, "the word," I could have meant a whole bunch of words, right? When I said, "the word 'the,'" I could really have meant, "any phrase you could care to name," right? Let's not play dumb.
quote:
Also, this quote is not determining the law. They could have simply mis-spoke.
Incorrect. You did read the decision, did you not? They directly address this concern of yours and specifically and clearly state that this decision has no bearing on polygamy and incest. You did read the decision, did you not?
quote:
The context of the decision was in regards to single partner marriages so polygamy could have simply been overlooked. It could easily be fixed by changing it to "the person(s)".
Except that they didn't, they specifically denied polygamy, and there was no misspeaking. When they said "the person," they really meant it. You did read the decision, did you not?
quote:
So even if the semantic argument of the definition of marriage doesn't grant polygamists the right to marry, their right to privacy and personal autonomy does.
Except the decision specifically contradicts this claim. You did read the decision, did you not?
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: 05-03-2003
|
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
None of the laws have the definition of marriage within them. The definition of marriage had been implicit until DOMA.
That isn't an answer. In the 1000+ rights and responsibilities that come along with marriage, which of them are specifically tied to the fact that you are married to someone of the opposite sex? Which would change if your spouse were someone of the same sex? Be specific. For example, the "rollover of gain on sale of principal residence" requires that the married couple be of mixed sex why?
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: 05-03-2003
|
Artemis Entreri writes:
quote:
I wish they would just let us vote on this issue, instead of using the courts to make policy.
Of course. Human rights should always be put to a vote. The majority never, ever tramples on the civil rights of the minority because they always understand that the freedom they demand for themselves must be extended to everyone or it means nothing, right? By your logic, the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia striking down miscegenation laws was completely inappropriate. After all, more than 70% of the country at the time felt that interracial marriage should be outlawed. That's more than currently think same-sex marriage should be outlawed. How dare the courts tell us what to do, right? They have no business actually interpreting the Constitution to ensure that the rights of American citizens are not abridged, right? Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided, right?
quote:
Or at least define marriage, unfourtunately that is not how socialism works.
"Socialism"? What on earth are you talking about. "Socialism" is an economic policy.
quote:
It was pretty funny that you called somebody a bigot because their beliefs are different than yours, when that is what biggotry is.
Incorrect. You're not about to try the discredited notion that refused to accept bigotry is bigotry, are you? No, bigotry is when you refuse to allows other to have that which you demand for yourself. If you don't agree with same-sex marriage, that's perfectly fine. Don't marry somebody of the same sex. Nobody is forcing you to. The equality of the law with regard to marriage does not make anybody do anything they don't want to do nor does it deprive anybody of anything other people have. Trying to have special rights for straight people, on the other hand, is bigotry. You are perfectly free to think that marrying someone of the same sex is horrible and icky. The Catholic church thinks that divorce is horrible and icky and nobody forces them to marry divorcees. Plenty of people think marrying someone of another race is horrible and icky and nobody forces them to do so. But just because you think it is horrible and icky doesn't mean you get to stop someone else from enjoying the same rights you insist upon having for yourself. "With liberty and justice for all," ends the Pledge of Allegiance. What part of "for all" is so hard to understand?
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.
|
™ Version 4.2
