|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 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 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote: 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: 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 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: 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: 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: 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 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: "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: What am I denying to you that I am demanding for myself? Be specific.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote: 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: (*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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote:quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: You never did. All you ever said was that gay people can't. You never explained why. Be specific.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Modulous responds to me:
quote:quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote: 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: So marriage is about penis-vagina sex? How do you reconcile that with Lawrence v. Texas? Was it wrongly decided?
quote: 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: Huh? What is it about two men getting married that prevents a woman from getting married? Be specific.
quote: Huh? Gay people aren't real? Then what on earth are you complaining about?
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes:
quote: 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: 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: 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: "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: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024