Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 448 of 519 (474493)
07-08-2008 9:02 PM


I wish they would just let us vote on this issue, instead of using the courts to make policy. Or at least define marriage, unfourtunately that is not how socialism works.
It was pretty funny that you called somebody a bigot because their beliefs are different than yours, when that is what biggotry is.
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : typos

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by lyx2no, posted 07-08-2008 10:21 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 450 by subbie, posted 07-08-2008 11:31 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 451 by Rrhain, posted 07-09-2008 2:16 AM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 464 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-09-2008 6:14 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 452 of 519 (474540)
07-09-2008 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 449 by lyx2no
07-08-2008 10:21 PM


Re: Not Everything is Open to a Vote
speaking of representative avatars, look in the mirror.
BTW that is not me.
I didn't ask for a popular vote, i feel my congressman represents me just fine. thanks for the broad assumption though, quite a bit simple of you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by lyx2no, posted 07-08-2008 10:21 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by lyx2no, posted 07-09-2008 9:28 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 453 of 519 (474541)
07-09-2008 8:58 AM


quote:
I'm not particularly surprised that someone from Virginia would like to see popular vote trump the Constitution, given Virginia's history of discriminatory treatment of the right to marriage.
Im not from Virginia, but i do live here. and its not about popular vote, then the urban centers would run this country more than they already do.
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : bad html

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 454 of 519 (474542)
07-09-2008 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by Rrhain
07-09-2008 2:16 AM


quote:
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?
yep.
the Lovings could have moved to a different state.
states rights, bro.
quote:
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.
I was actually talking about defining the word marriage as it was originally meant to be defined. unfourtunately in all those marriage laws and rulings (even your so oftenly quoted Loving v. Virginia) it was assumed the marriage was between a man and a women. If Mildred Loving was a man, do you think the ruling would have went the same way? All im saying is let's just define the word in law, as most of us (70%+ according to you), know what it means. I could care less if two d00dz want to be together, but lets call it something else. can you marry your cat? does marriage have to be with a human? if there is no set legal definition then you could interpret it in what ever crazy manner you wanted.
you are all hung up on the wrong issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by Rrhain, posted 07-09-2008 2:16 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by kjsimons, posted 07-09-2008 9:17 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 461 of 519 (474610)
07-09-2008 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 456 by lyx2no
07-09-2008 9:28 AM


Re: Miss Points much?
quote:
Okay fine, not a popular vote. Would you want anyone other than yourself voting to decide the minutia of your everyday life? I mean other than your mom who sets out your Geranimals in the morning.
nope.
BTW its your mom who takes care of me every morning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by lyx2no, posted 07-09-2008 9:28 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by lyx2no, posted 07-09-2008 6:37 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 462 of 519 (474613)
07-09-2008 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 455 by kjsimons
07-09-2008 9:17 AM


quote:
You do know that they did move, actually they were given the option of jail or moving out of state. States, as the Supreme Court has ruled, do not have the right to deny basic human rights.
marrying black chicks is a basic human right!?!
roflmfao

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by kjsimons, posted 07-09-2008 9:17 AM kjsimons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by subbie, posted 07-09-2008 6:01 PM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 470 by kjsimons, posted 07-10-2008 8:49 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 471 of 519 (474693)
07-10-2008 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 463 by subbie
07-09-2008 6:01 PM


quote:
Why shouldn't it be? And why do you laugh, nothing intelligent to say?
i laughed because it ws funny. that's what i do when i read or hear something that is funny.
where you not trying to make a joke? where you being serious?
if you where serious then that was EXTRA funny, i thought it was a joke.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by subbie, posted 07-09-2008 6:01 PM subbie has not replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 472 of 519 (474694)
07-10-2008 9:03 AM


there must be a ton of liberals on this site, because all you do is insult people with name calling, personal attacks, and NSFW curse words, when they hold views different than you.

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 473 of 519 (474696)
07-10-2008 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 469 by FliesOnly
07-10-2008 8:05 AM


quote:
And once again...bigotry is NOT simply disagreeing with someones opinion or belief. I swear to fucking god...you people truly need to learn what the word means before for the...oh I don't know...three hundredth fucking time...you misuse it. I mean, seriously...are you just playing stupid to get a rise out of people or are you truly incapable of reading and understanding what we have been telling you for months now. Bigotry is NOT...read that again...is NOT simply disagreeing with someone. Fuck!!
you have a lovely vocabulary. do think cussing at me is somehow going to get your point accross. if i wanted street talk i'd be on the street.
from wikipedia
A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind.
i have found nothing but intolerance of my opinions since i got here, there are at least 3 bigots who have responded to my posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by FliesOnly, posted 07-10-2008 8:05 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by FliesOnly, posted 07-10-2008 9:28 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 475 of 519 (474704)
07-10-2008 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 468 by subbie
07-09-2008 10:18 PM


Re: Consti-2-shun
quote:
Well, if you'd actually read it and understood it, you'd know that there are some things that are not decided by democratic processes. And you'd know that the framers of the Constitution actually intended that that be the case; they purposefully chose to take some questions out of the hands of the people, and leave them up to the courts.
interesting. because i came from Missouri (before Virginia), and in Missouri the People did vote on this issue. Missourians have amended thier STATE Constitution, through voting, and now it is against the law for same sex people to get married, and the state of Missouri does not accept those marriages from other states.
that's why your posts are so funny. you think you know what you are talking about, and try to put others down because of it, but we know how our governments works and are just laughing at most of the things you say/type. if you want to marry some d00d then go ahead, in some other state. but it isn't going to happen in Missouri.
Marriage is not something that is set by the federal government, it IS up to the individual states. i have no problem with states making thier own rules based on thier populations needs and desires.
BTW this is four years old: http://marriage.about.com/...esexmarriage/qt/missourigay.htm
constitution? from the courts? what about the voters of Missouri amending thier constitution? pul-lease, dont try to tell me how my government works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by subbie, posted 07-09-2008 10:18 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by FliesOnly, posted 07-10-2008 9:59 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 480 by ramoss, posted 07-10-2008 11:03 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 476 of 519 (474705)
07-10-2008 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 474 by FliesOnly
07-10-2008 9:28 AM


quote:
Yeah...OK.
not a fan of peer review, i thought this was a science forum.
quote:
You see, Artemis Entreri...We am NOT intolerant of your position. If we were, then we would state that you're not (or that you should not be) allowed to post that opinion. Have any of us done that...anywhere...at all? I think not. So again, learn what the word means before using it.
so when people like catholic scientist are called bigots, its just immature name calling? because i dont recall reading anywhere that catholic scientist told others they should not be allowed to post thier opinion. if that is so i agree with you. otherwise ill have to go with my own definition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by FliesOnly, posted 07-10-2008 9:28 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by FliesOnly, posted 07-10-2008 9:53 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 481 of 519 (474723)
07-10-2008 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 477 by FliesOnly
07-10-2008 9:53 AM


quote:
Catholic Scientist and many others are called bigots because they do not want two people of the same sex to be allowed to marry each other. They deny homosexuals the same rights that they themselves are afforded. See...they're intolerant. It's OK to not agree with same sex marriage. It's when you want to deny marriage to homosexuals that you become a bigot.
i think Catholic Scientist just wants to define the word. as do i. that is not bigotry or denying rights. what about the intolerance of someone else's defintion of a word, because it is a defferent definition than yours?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by FliesOnly, posted 07-10-2008 9:53 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by rueh, posted 07-10-2008 11:59 AM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 485 by FliesOnly, posted 07-10-2008 12:02 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 484 of 519 (474727)
07-10-2008 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 480 by ramoss
07-10-2008 11:03 AM


Re: Consti-2-shun
quote:
Of course, the federal constitution take precedence over the individual state constitutions. For example, South Carolina removed the ban for interracial marriage from their constitution in 1998, 103 years after it was made unenforceable because of a supreme court ruling.
not in every case. In recent case of D.C. vs. Heller, had the SCOTUS ruled in favor of "collective" gun rights over "individual" gun rights, then the USA would have effectively violated its agreement with the state of Montana's statehood contract, and therefore made Montana its own seperate self-governing nation. the feds cannot do what ever they want.
people have the right of self determination in the form of local government, as it is clearly expressed in the declaration of independence. if the federal government violates this then it is violating its own rules, and stripping itself of any validity.
and it shouldn't in rules that are left up to the states, such as marriage.
quote:
Should the supreme court jump in, and take a stand, it could be the Defense of Marriage act and the various state constitutions can be made
obsolete in their stance.
only if they are ready to be the cause of the 2nd american civil war
quote:
The fact you were from Missouri does explain a lot.
yeah we are big fans of liberty and freedom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by ramoss, posted 07-10-2008 11:03 AM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 491 by subbie, posted 07-10-2008 5:02 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 488 of 519 (474734)
07-10-2008 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 483 by rueh
07-10-2008 11:59 AM


quote:
Ok how is this. If the concern revolves around having to redefine a word. In any area that list the defintion as husband and wife, include or any combination of the above TWO. There, the simpilist way to define marriage that can include same sex couples while leaving out all the strawmen like polygamy or pedophiles.
yeah let the people decide the definitions in thier own states. if more people in my state want to say marriage is between tow people reguardless of gender, then guess what? im for it.
pedophile is a realative term to some degree. age of consent laws very state by state (because the states make thier own rules reguarding marriage). Take the socalled polygamists at the YFZ ranch in Texas who were marrying girls at age 14. this could be pedophillia in another state, but in Texas the age of consent is 14 (with parental permission).
Polygamy is not really an issue, because those people who practice it only have one leagal wife, the other wives are spiritual marriages accepted by the community, and not recognized by the state, so really they are doing nothing wrong. unless of course you support adultery laws, but then i would find it odd you support adultery laws when you are not a fan of sodomy laws that supposedly discriminate between same sex partners. I think neither the sodomy laws nor the adultery laws are really enforced anymore, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by rueh, posted 07-10-2008 11:59 AM rueh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by rueh, posted 07-10-2008 12:32 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 490 of 519 (474742)
07-10-2008 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 489 by rueh
07-10-2008 12:32 PM


quote:
Just to clarify your fact it is 14 in Texas so long as the other party is 17. The actual age of consent is 17. Age of consent by State I just threw the last sentence in there because I have seen that argument brought up so many times already. Thought I might be able to preempt it.
my bad. you are right. i said the wrong thing. you are right as far as sexual consent goes, though its interesting that in texas it is only between a male and female (as per your link).
since we were talking about marriage, i got my marriage laws and consent laws mixed up.
From wikepedia:
quote:
Texas: 18, 16 with parental consent. 14 with judicial consent or if person under 18 had previously married and divorced.
I meant marriage then intercourse, sorry to make such a broad assumption. these young girls are getting married 1st.
also its deiffernt in the various counties within a state, and i made the assumption that it was the whole state. my bad again.
but still you can get married at 14, and then as a married person engage in intercourse legally, in TX at 14.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by rueh, posted 07-10-2008 12:32 PM rueh has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024