Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On the Threshold of Bigotry
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 256 of 333 (477315)
08-01-2008 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Fosdick
07-29-2008 11:38 AM


Hoot Mon writes:
quote:
But I think it would be more fair this way than to have the government dabbling in the business of marriage when its true mission should be only to issue legalized civil unions.
So because the current contract is called "marriage" and is referenced in literally thousands of laws, the best solution is to have every single law strike the word "marriage" and replace it with "civil union" rather than simply keep everything as it is and recognize that "marriage" applies regardless of the sex of the participants?
Because you're having a panic attack over a word, we should have to fight the same battle in every state and territory as well as at the federal level rather than simply having a single change that covers everything at once?
quote:
The First Amendment is friendly to this idea.
You can call your "special friendship" whatever you want to call it. The rest of us will use the word that already exists:
Marriage.
You're the one with the problem. You're the one who gets to absent himself from the rest of the world.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Fosdick, posted 07-29-2008 11:38 AM Fosdick has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 258 of 333 (477463)
08-03-2008 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Fosdick
08-01-2008 10:40 AM


Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote:
No, the ad was saying: "I so dominate you I can make you make you want to buy my sneakers."
So you have no compunction about having another man's crotch in your face, right? It doesn't mean a thing, eh? Come here, then, Hoot Mon. I'd like to test that theory. I know some people who wouldn't mind seeing just how far you're willing to go.
No, I'm not going to have sex with you, so don't ask.
quote:
I don't recall anyone saying anything about sucking dick.
Right, because a man shoving his crotch into another man's face has absolutely no sexual connotations.
The invitation is open, Hoot Mon. Come here and let's test your claim that when you find your face buried in another man's crotch, you don't have any thought of sex.
No, I'm not going to have sex with you, so don't ask.
quote:
What is about marriage that makes gays feel they should qualify for it?
"What is it about marriage that makes people of different races feel they should qualify for it?"
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
And here's you likely response: 'What is about marriage that makes blacks feel they should qualify for it?'
Close. And since you know what the response is, why don't you do us a favor and finally answer the question:
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
Rrhain, you need correction at several levels of bigotry.
When you come here and test your claim by having your face is buried in another man's crotch, you can then tell me about bigotry.
No, I'm not going to have sex with you, so don't ask.
quote:
quote:
Because you're looking for a justification to deny to others that which you demand for yourself. That's textbook bigotry.
WRONG! I demand EXACTLY for everyone what I demand for myself.
You want to keep marriage from gay people. And yet you have been married multiple times.
You seek to deny to others that which you demand for yourself. That's textbook bigotry.
quote:
It is you who demands for your special-interest group a contortion of the marriage institution.
"It is interracial couples who demand for their special-interest group a contortion of the marriage institution."
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
That was the argument used to deny marriage to interracial couples: To allow it would be to twist the definition of marriage into something unrecognizable. So you're saying that Loving v. Virginia was wrong to strike down miscegenation laws, right? If not, then you're going to have to explain why your argument is bogus when it comes to race but legitimate when it comes to sexual orientation.
Be specific.
quote:
I have no such demands.
"Contortion of the marriage institution." You don't want gay people to be able to get married even though you have been married multiple times.
You seek to deny to others that when you demand for yourself. That's textbook bigotry.
If you truly have no such demands, then you'll need to explain why you wish to keep marriage from gay people. You know that "civil union" won't cut it both as a constitutional matter ("separate but equal") and as a practical matter (no "civil union" has ever managed to be the equivalent of marriage). If you truly don't wish to keep gay people from having all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, then you're going to have to explain why you have said that marriage doesn't apply.
Be specific.
quote:
And for you to say that I do makes you a bigot of first order.
What am I denying to you that I am demanding for myself?
Be specific.
quote:
(But I stand in defense of your homophilic bigotry, just as I stand in defense of anyone's preferred sexuality, whether or not he or she got that way naturally.)
So come here and prove it. Again, I know many people who would be happy to help you test that claim.
No, I'm not going to have sex with you, so don't ask.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Fosdick, posted 08-01-2008 10:40 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Fosdick, posted 08-05-2008 10:35 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 260 of 333 (477659)
08-05-2008 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Fosdick
08-05-2008 10:35 AM


Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote:
I was a high-school wrestler who made it to the state finals. Stuck my head and hands into many young men's crotches, grabbed them by their balls, threw them down and tried to pressed them into submission. Won some and lost some. And all the while I NEVER thought about having sex with them.
Then put your money where your mouth is. I know some people who would be happy to see just how far you're willing to go.
Hint: Does the word "context" mean anything to you? Of course when you've got people jumping up and down on top of each other, you're going to find your face in someone else's crotch at some point. In and of itself, one cannot ascribe any particular meaning to it at all. But when the phrase, "That ain't right," is attached to it, the context becomes quite clear.
Note your assumption of context in your response. You keep assuming that I'm trying to have sex with you despite my explicit denial of same.
But if it had been a pretty boy like you, Rrhain, I might asked you for a date instead of crushing your nuts in a crotch lock.
quote:
Are you sure about this, pretty boy? I've got a slick move for you called the Lorena Bobbit tooth lock.
(*chuckle*)
Once again, you assume that I am going to be involved despite my repeated explicit statements to the contrary. And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot. Despite repeated indications that I will not have sex with you, you keep asking me to do so.
Why are so obsessed about my genitalia, Hoot Mon? I keep telling you that you're never going to see and you keep on making requests to be shown.
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Fosdick, posted 08-05-2008 10:35 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Fosdick, posted 08-06-2008 11:13 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 269 of 333 (477737)
08-07-2008 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Fosdick
08-06-2008 11:13 AM


Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Why are so obsessed about my genitalia, Hoot Mon?
I'm not obsessed
And yet you keep inquiring about my sex life. I don't know how else to put it to you: I'm not going to have sex with you so stop asking.
Now, are you finally going to get around to answering the questions put to you?
If it's a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
What about the contract of marriage requires the participants to be of opposite sex? Only a woman can transfer property to a man? Only a man can sponsor a woman for citizenship?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Fosdick, posted 08-06-2008 11:13 AM Fosdick has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 270 of 333 (477741)
08-07-2008 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Fosdick
08-06-2008 3:35 PM


Hoot Mon writes:
quote:
Perhaps you missed the test I performed on this and other threads to expose the real sentiments behind "gay marriage."
You never did. All you ever said was that gay people can't. You never explained why.
Be specific.
quote:
I went on record to support legalizing civil unions for gays”domestic partnerships that are as comprehensive for them as they are for heteros
And you were shown that such a thing is a legal impossibility. Not only is it unconstitutional ("separate but equal"), but also every single time it has been attempted, the "domestic partnership" has always fallen short despite direct orders from the court to make them identical.
The only way to ensure "comprehensive" equality is to have a single contract for all.
So in direct contradiction to your claim, you don't want equality. You want there to be a separate and unequal contract.
quote:
some straights said that's not what marriage was intended to mean.
Since when is the law only beholden to straight people? There's this thing called the Fourteenth Amendment which demands equal treatment under the law.
quote:
Subsequently, to accommodate both sides, I proposed that we get the law out of the business of marriage: let the churches decide who gets married and let the law decide who gets civilly united. And I, who opposes legalizing the titularity of "gay marriage" because I regard it as an oxymoron, would not be affected by whatever the churches decide to do.
But you don't really believe that or you wouldn't call your previous relationships "marriages." If you truly want your religious ceremony separate from the law, then you would come up with a new phrase for your "special friendship" and leave the law, which uses the term "marriage," alone.
quote:
And for my efforts to find equanimity on this issue I get called a bigot.
That's because you don't have the courage of your convictions. You don't actually believe what you claim. You have yet to explain why it is that marriage requires the people to be of opposite sex. You want to deny others that which you demand for yourself.
So help us out. Explain why it is that "marriage" requires the participants to be of opposite sex. If it was a crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimatcy when applied to sexual orientation? Only women can transfer property to men? Only men can sponsor women for citizenship?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Fosdick, posted 08-06-2008 3:35 PM Fosdick has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 271 of 333 (477744)
08-07-2008 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Fosdick
08-06-2008 8:06 PM


Hoot Mon writes:
quote:
But I don't care what they want to call it; I only care what the law calls it
...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:
I only care about the laws that affect me.
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:
Everybody is absolutely equal in my preferred arrangement.
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:
Where would the "same but different" problem have any legs.
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:
If Chuck and Larry, under my preferred arrangement, told me they got married in a Las Vega casino right after they got their DP status certified by the government, I wouldn't have any problem with that.
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:
It would be the same law, under my preferred arrangement, and it wouldn't include the word "marriage," only the words "civil union."
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:
Let me ask you if you think I qualify as a bigot for my opinion of what "marriage" really means, and for my preferred arrangement”i.e., getting the law out of it.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Fosdick, posted 08-06-2008 8:06 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Fosdick, posted 08-07-2008 1:25 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 279 of 333 (477821)
08-08-2008 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Fosdick
08-07-2008 1:13 PM


Hoot Mon writes:
quote:
I can't believe you are equating interracial marriage with gay marriage. It's a false analogy.
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:
because nature provides them with the marriageable hitching equipment
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:
Why do the gays have to be just like the straights?
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:
They don't have the marriageable equipment.
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:
Why can't they just be like themselves?
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:
Why can't they be civilly united without being married?
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:
Are we still in third grade?
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 gays give it a rest?
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Fosdick, posted 08-07-2008 1:13 PM Fosdick has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 280 of 333 (477822)
08-08-2008 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Fosdick
08-07-2008 1:25 PM


Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote:
quote:
What is it you think "marriage" really means that requires it to be only between mixed-sex couples?
Well, for starters, they don't have marriageable equipment.
And what, specifically, does this mean? Spell it out.
quote:
Would you use a Phillips screwdriver on a slotted head?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Fosdick, posted 08-07-2008 1:25 PM Fosdick has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 281 of 333 (477823)
08-08-2008 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Modulous
08-07-2008 3:29 PM


Modulous writes:
quote:
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?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Modulous, posted 08-07-2008 3:29 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Modulous, posted 08-08-2008 8:15 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 285 by Fosdick, posted 08-08-2008 2:18 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 282 of 333 (477824)
08-08-2008 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by New Cat's Eye
08-07-2008 4:21 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
In the United States, the laws that specifically mention marriage were written with the presumption that marriage is between one man and one woman.
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:
They were not, however, written with the presumption that marriage is between people of the same race.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-07-2008 4:21 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 283 of 333 (477825)
08-08-2008 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by New Cat's Eye
08-07-2008 5:12 PM


Catholic Scientist responds to DrJones*:
quote:
quote:
The marriage laws in that case were written with the presumption that marriage is between people of the same race.
No they weren't.
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:
DOMA correctly defines marriage in that regard, however the RIA was incorrect and was rightly overturned.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-07-2008 5:12 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 286 of 333 (477885)
08-08-2008 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Modulous
08-08-2008 8:15 AM


Modulous responds to me:
quote:
quote:
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?
Huh? I don't recall saying anything about you. All I did was ask you to spell out what you're trying to say.
Hint: I get what you're trying to say. Hoot Mon, on the other hand, is being evasive. So by you using his terms, he gets to keep not saying what it is he's talking about.
quote:
You just decided to ignore the bits
Incorrect. It was crystal clear. It would help if you would respond to what I actually say and not what you wish I would have said.
Hoot Mon has a real reason why he doesn't want gay people to have the same rights as straight people, but he won't actually say what it is. He'll continue to avoid and evade. I'm trying to get him to spell it out. You're using his evasive terminology, so I'd like somebody to actually say it rather than playing coy.
quote:
I was mocking Hoot Mon's "because nature provides them with the marriageable hitching equipment" argument
As was I. Exactly what is this "marriageable hitching equipment"? Somebody needs to spell it out. It's Hoot Mon's term. He needs to be specific about what it means.
Not everything is about you, Modulous.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Modulous, posted 08-08-2008 8:15 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 287 of 333 (477886)
08-08-2008 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Fosdick
08-08-2008 2:18 PM


Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote:
Just what do you think bestial men do to sheep that straight people don't do?
Get consent.
Now, spell it out. "Natural barrier" to what?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Fosdick, posted 08-08-2008 2:18 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Fosdick, posted 08-08-2008 7:28 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 290 of 333 (477895)
08-08-2008 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Fosdick
08-08-2008 7:28 PM


Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote:
let me turn this around
No, let's not. You're the one saying that gay people should be denied the same rights as straight people. Therefore, you are the one who needs to explicitly state what it is that gay people do that straight people don't that would be the basis for denying them their rights.
Spell it out.
quote:
Possible answers: Have intercourse with members of the opposite sex.
So marriage is about penis-vagina sex? How do you reconcile that with Lawrence v. Texas? Was it wrongly decided?
quote:
What happens to the wives when two men get "married"?
Who said there needs to be a "wife"? What is it about marriage that requires the participants be of opposite sex? Only women can transfer property to men? Only men can sponsor women for citizenship?
quote:
Wives would seem to be terribly discriminated against, wouldn't you say?
Huh? What is it about two men getting married that prevents a woman from getting married?
Be specific.
quote:
Wives are real people too, you know, who just happen to be women married to real men.
Huh? Gay people aren't real? Then what on earth are you complaining about?
quote:
Maybe the wives need to come out of the closet and demand special laws to protect their titular marriages from being stolen by gay people who hate them.
Huh? How does two people getting married get interpreted to mean they hate marriage? It would seem to be the opposite: People who hate marriage would not get married.
We're back to the question you never answer: How does the neighbor's marriage affect you? But now we've got a new fantasy of yours: Somehow the neighbor's marriage means you can't get married. How does that happen?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Fosdick, posted 08-08-2008 7:28 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Fosdick, posted 08-08-2008 8:05 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 292 of 333 (477898)
08-08-2008 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Fosdick
08-08-2008 7:49 PM


Hoot Mon writes:
quote:
Can you imagine a gay married man being elected POTUS? What would his partner be called? "The First Gay Gentleman"?
Huh? That's your argument? Calling the husband of an executive the "First Gentleman" is too difficult? What does the sex of the executive have to do with anything? We should deny rights to people in this country on the off chance that they become the leader of the country and you want to giggle?
quote:
Can you imagine the First Family hosting a dinner for OPEC officials to get them to lower their oil prices?
Huh? That's your argument? We should deny rights to people in this country on the off chance that they become the leader of the country and other countries decide they don't like us?
Then why on earth do we allow women to vote? Why do we allow black people to get married?
quote:
Can you imagine the First Family hosting a dinner for the Pope to get him to relax his opposition to birth control?
Huh? That's your argument? We should deny rights to people in this country on the off chance that they become the leader of the country and other countries decide they don't like us?
Then why on earth do we allow Protestants to vote? According to you, we're beholden to the Pope.
quote:
What would a gay POTUS say to the rest of the world?
"Hello."
What would you think they would say? We should deny rights to people in this country on the off chance that they become the leader of the country and other countries decide they don't like us?
Then how on earth did Bush become President?
By the way, you do know about James Hormel (link 1, link 2), yes? US Ambassador? His confirmation was held up in the Senate because he was gay. This despite the fact that the country he was going to was begging the US to let them have him for the ambassadorship.
It would seem the world doesn't have the same problems you do.
quote:
And why should there be anything wrong with that?
Huh? That's your argument? We should deny rights to people in this country on the off chance that they become the leader of the country and other countries decide they don't like us?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added 2 James Hormel links.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Fosdick, posted 08-08-2008 7:49 PM Fosdick 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