|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: On the Threshold of Bigotry | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: ...so long as it isn't "marriage." Which puts the lie to your claim that you don't care. Which puts the lie to your claim that you want the contracts to be equal. You don't actually believe what you claim, and you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
quote: And this is one of those other things you have yet to actually explain: How are you affected by the neighbor's marriage? Do you need to give them an easement? You now have to cross the street to walk the dog? You'll need to paint your house green? Be specific.
quote: If they don't have the same contract, including the name, then they are not equal. Or are you saying that Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided? Every single state that has tried to come up with a "separate but equal" contract of "civil union" or "domestic partnership" has failed to make it equivalent to marriage. Even when ordered by the court to make it equivalent, it has always been deficient. Legally, if two contracts do not share the same name, then they are necessarily not the same contract. That necessarily means you can treat them differently. That necessarily means they are not equal. The only way to guarantee equivalency is to have a single contract for all.
quote: Since it doesn't have the same name, it is necessarily different. And, indeed, in every single case where we have seen legislatures try to come up with the "separate but equal" contract, the "civil union" has been deficient. Legally, if two contracts do not share the same name, then they are necessarily not the same contract. That necessarily means you can treat them differently. That necessarily means they are not equal. The only way to guarantee equivalency is to have a single contract for all.
quote: But you seem to have a problem if they told you they got "acknowledged" at a Vegas casino right after they got their marriage certified by the government. Which puts the lie to your claim that you don't care. Which puts the lie to your claim that you want the contracts to be equal.
quote: So why not the other way? Why not have the same law, the one that currently exists, the one that is referenced in literally thousands of other laws both state and federal, apply to all? If you want to have a separate term for your "special friendship," then you get to come up with the new term. The rest of us will use the word we've been using for hundreds of years: Marriage.
quote: Since you don't really believe it, since you want to deny others that which you demand for yourself, yes. Help us out: What about marriage requires the participants to be of the opposite sex? Only women can transfer property to men? Only men can sponsor women for citizenship? What is it you think "marriage" really means that requires it to be only between mixed-sex couples? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Mod writes:
Agreed. The heteros will eventually have to move over and let the homos into their marriage game. That'll be good for the homos, but not necessarily so for the heteros. Why? Because some of them have crossed over the threshold of bigotry? Maybe. But what difference does it make what US law chooses to call it and why would people be obligated to pay any attention to that wording and not change it back when the laws are revised? Can you honestly imagine the people accepting this compromise? "The happily civilly united couple.", "We've been civilly united for 5 years.", "Happy Civil Union Ceremony anniversary sweetheart!". No, it'll never happen. But, Mod, I can't believe you are equating interracial marriage with gay marriage. It's a false analogy. Marriage is a civil union between the sexes of any race or races; it's where a man and woman get hitched, because nature provides them with the marriageable hitching equipment, no matter what race they come from. Why do the gays have to be just like the straights? They don't have the marriageable equipment. Why can't they just be like themselves? Are they feeling inadequate or something? Why can't they be civilly united without being married? Gosh, I feel silly for asking these questions. Are we still in third grade?
As it stands, I can only say that which I said before: it's an argument of semantics.
If that's all it is then why can't gays give it a rest? (Answer: Because they're after the titular prize.) ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
Well, for starters, they don't have marriageable equipment. Would you use a Phillips screwdriver on a slotted head? What is it you think "marriage" really means that requires it to be only between mixed-sex couples? ”HM Edited by Hoot Mon, : Just helping Rrhain out with his tools. If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
But, Mod, I can't believe you are equating interracial marriage with gay marriage. I'm not. I'm comparing the arguments and language used for denying interracial marriages to the language used for denying gays the right to marriage. They aren't the same, but there are some startling similarities. I am having difficulties in understanding the fundamental difference that marks one as being bigoted and one that isn't.
Marriage is a civil union between the sexes of any race or races; Nonsense. The classical understanding of marriage is that it is between people of the opposing sexes of the same race. Why else would God separate the races onto different continents? You argue, correctly that not having the right parts is a natural barrier - but so is not having the right ancestral homelands. If you think you can tell me why ancestral homelands are irrelevant I'd be keen to hear. Yes, it is possible to define marriage anyway you like, that does not advance the discussion, though.
it's where a man and woman get hitched, because nature provides them with the marriageable hitching equipment, no matter what race they come from. Nonsense again. Race clearly matters - otherwise races and languages would have been created mixed or not created at all.
Why do the gays have to be just like the straights? They aren't and they don't want to be. They'd like the same rights afforded to them though.
They don't have the marriageable equipment. Yes they do - they have financial responsibilities and they have the capacity to have the state provide them with rights.
Why can't they just be like themselves? What makes you think they aren't? Being human, being compassionate, and having the same love for their partners you do - they fight to help protect the interests of their partner and their partner's children. That's exactly like being themselves...human.
Are they feeling inadequate or something? They are feeling inadequately protected by law.
Gosh, I feel silly for asking these questions. That you feel silly is a sign...follow it.
If that's all it is then why can't gays give it a rest? (Answer: Because they're after the titular prize.) Your argument is one of semantics, not the gay's argument. Your argument is "let's change the name of the contract and then give it to gays". If they have the same rights afforded married couples then that's great. There are two types of possibilities that spring to mind: 1: You want gays to have the same ability to bind themselves into a contract which puts certain responsibilities on their shoulders and provides them with rights and securities they are currently not permitted to have. 2: You don't want gays to have the 'titular prize' recognized by law because, in your opinion, men should not share this titular prize with other men because the two do not possess mutually marriageable body parts and you are not prepared to tolerate the contrary opinion gaining recognition in the eyes of the law. You may be a blend of the two. Any part of two that is in you, which you seem to be demonstrating in your justifications of the whys and wherefores of your seemingly fair and balanced system, pushes a part of you across the threshold of bigotry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Marriage is a civil union between the sexes of any race or races; Nonsense. The classical understanding of marriage is that it is between people of the opposing sexes of the same race. Why else would God separate the races onto different continents? You argue, correctly that not having the right parts is a natural barrier - but so is not having the right ancestral homelands. If you think you can tell me why ancestral homelands are irrelevant I'd be keen to hear. Yes, it is possible to define marriage anyway you like, that does not advance the discussion, though.
In the United States, the laws that specifically mention marriage were written with the presumption that marriage is between one man and one woman. They were not, however, written with the presumption that marriage is between people of the same race.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
They were not, however, written with the presumption that marriage is between people of the same race
Are you forgetting Loving v. Virginia? The marriage laws in that case were written with the presumption that marriage is between people of the same race. Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
They were not, however, written with the presumption that marriage is between people of the same race Are you forgetting Loving v. Virginia? The marriage laws in that case were written with the presumption that marriage is between people of the same race. No they weren't. Loving v Virginia overturned the RIA. Before 1924, the laws that mentioned marriage did not have the presumption that marriage was between the same races. The RIA added that, wrongfully, later. However, when marriage laws were written, it was presumed that marriage was between the same sexes. DOMA correctly defines marriage in that regard, however the RIA was incorrect and was rightly overturned.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
In the United States, the laws that specifically mention marriage were written with the presumption that marriage is between one man and one woman. They were not, however, written with the presumption that marriage is between people of the same race. Which laws? Anti-miscegenation laws were written in America before the USA existed (17th Century), and continued afterwards - into living memory. Your statement that
Before 1924, the laws that mentioned marriage did not have the presumption that marriage was between the same races. is false. For example.
quote: source. Virginia (1691). And if this definition is ingrained in US Law why would anyone feel the need to pass amendments to state constitutions explicitly defining marriage as "between one man and one woman" (see Alaska, Nebraska, and...well a whole load of others). Or through statutory initiatives such as California's prop-22. And why the need for DOMA to explicitly set out the definition if it was already there? What you might be thinking of are the ever-powerful Catholic church and its definition of marriage as "The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life". In Maryland, when marriages were first used in the USA the law also stipulated that they had to be performed by Christian clergy so it would be surprising if the prevailing Christian viewpoint didn't become seen as 'the standard, traditional marriage' despite there being no such thing. Civil marriages were not legal until...living memory. The laws also specifically only dealt with whites. Blacks would need to wait a century or so before being granted the right to marry (and another century before they could marry white women). Polygamous marriage was permitted within the USA for a long time, from the beginning. Where are these laws to which you refer? Do you mean the laws that meant women lost all their rights to property? That they were not allowed to control their own wages? (That state of affairs didn't change until 1848 when New York became the first state to allow women to own property in a marriage). The laws that allowed for 12 year olds to get married? Are these the laws as written that you wish to appeal to? In short: could you provide specific examples of these laws that you say were written with the presumption of the type of marriage you refer to. Can you demonstrate this presumption was there? Can you give any reason why the presumption should matters when it comes to granting equality/human rights and how we should weigh this up with the knowledge that the laws of the time were already at odds with the concept of equality/human rights. Should it matter if the laws were written with presumptions of a certain type, when that very presumption is what is being challenged as unconstitutional? From my limited knowledge, the early laws of marriage were a mixed bag allowing for many marriages that are explicitly prohibited today and prohibiting marriages that are legal today. So I stick by the statement: there are many ways to define marriage but appealing to one definition or another doesn't really advance things. If they had presumed that marriage was between white people only (and I think the evidence supports that many people did), would appealing to that fact have any bearing on a debate over whether or not we should allow black people to marry? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given. Edited by Modulous, : sorry for the strange development of the post. It has been highly edited which means the tone is a bit off and I really don't have the patience to change it all now...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: Why? If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? Be specific.
quote: And what, specifically, does this mean? Spell it out. So you're saying Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided? Romer v. Evans was wrongly decided?
quote: Because the Fourteenth Amendment specifically states that all citizens are to be treated equally under the law. Are you saying gay people aren't citizens?
quote: And what, specifically, does this mean? Spell it out. So you're saying Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided? Romer v. Evans was wrongly decided?
quote: So gay people don't deserve the marriage contract? The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply to gay people? Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided? Romer v. Evans was wrongly decided?
quote: Because it isn't the same. Or are you saying Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided? Every attempt that has ever been made to have a "civil union" has resulted in a deficient contract, even when ordered by the courts to make them identical. And legally, by calling it by a different name, you necessarily declare it to be a different contract. Since it necessarily a different contract, it is necessarily treated differently which means it can never be equal. The only way to guarantee equal treatment under the law as required by the Fourteenth Amendmet is to have a single contract for everyone. Or are you saying the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply to gay people?
quote: Since you keep getting the same answers to the same questions, since you never answer the direct questions put to you, I guess we are.
quote: "If that's all it is, then why can't blacks give it a rest?" If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? You're the one having the conniption fit. Therefore, you are the one who must absent yourself from the rest of society to follow your own philosophy. The law is there to serve all citizens and if it is going to provide a contract to couples, it cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Or are you saying Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided? That Romer v. Evans was wrongly decided? 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: |
Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote:quote: And what, specifically, does this mean? Spell it out.
quote: Huh? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Modulous writes:
quote: Huh? "Natural barrier" to what? Spell it out, Modulous. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote: In the United States, the laws that specifically mention marriage were written with the presumption that marriage is between people of the same race. Laws against interracial marriage didn't come into existence until interracial couples started getting married, just like the laws against same-sex marriage didn't come into being until it became apparent that Hawaii was going to legalize same-sex marriage. If it was a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote: Incorrect. In the very first meeting of the California Legislature, they defined marriage to be restricted on the basis of race. You did read the in RE decision, didn't you? It covers that very claim of yours and shows it to be false. We went through this over and over and over again in the last thread. 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: |
Catholic Scientist responds to DrJones*:
quote:quote: Yes, they were. You did read the in RE decision, did you not? It covers this exact topic and directly contradicts you. Have you read Wadlington's historical discussion of the Loving v. Virginia decision? It's specifically mentioned in the decision.
quote: Huh? If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
You argue, correctly that not having the right parts is a natural barrier Huh? "Natural barrier" to what? Spell it out, Modulous. Just what is it you think gay people do that straight people don't? I'm a racist homophobe, why should I need to 'spell' anything out to? Oh wait, no I'm not. You just decided to ignore the bits which would have otherwise made it clear I was mocking Hoot Mon's "because nature provides them with the marriageable hitching equipment" argument with an equally ludicrous (but one that was actually used) argument against inter-racial marriage before concluding that arbitrary personal definitions of marriage are irrelevant to a discussion about human rights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
rrhain writes:
Just what do you think bestial men do to sheep that straight people don't do?
Huh? "Natural barrier" to what? Spell it out, Modulous. Just what is it you think gay people do that straight people don't?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024