Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-22-2019 3:26 PM
34 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, dwise1, Faith, JonF, ooh-child, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (11 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,860 Year: 6,897/19,786 Month: 1,438/1,581 Week: 260/393 Day: 83/110 Hour: 5/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
25262728
29
30Next
Author Topic:   Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 10 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 421 of 448 (470392)
06-11-2008 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by Fosdick
06-10-2008 10:19 AM


Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:
Isn't that the attitude of a bigot?

No. The bigot says, "I can, but you can't."

The morally correct person says, "If I can, so can you."

Does the phrase "double standard" not mean anything to you?


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 410 by Fosdick, posted 06-10-2008 10:19 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 10 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 422 of 448 (470396)
06-11-2008 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by Fosdick
06-10-2008 10:52 AM


Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:
Suppose Mr. and Mrs. Smith out in Iowa are sitting on their front porch and feeling very distraught about their son's recent announcement that he's gay and he wants to marry Clifford, the next door neighbor's son.

Suppose Mr. and Mrs. Smith out in Iowa are sitting on their front porch and feeling very distraught about their son's recent announcement that he's in love with someone outside the faith and wants to marry the next door neighbor's daughter.

At any rate, this doesn't answer the question. Why are the rights of a person who has reached the age of majority and is an independent citizen dependent upon what the parents feel? Not on any actual change in their lives...simply their feelings that their child isn't the person they had envisioned? The child isn't different. The child hasn't changed. The only difference is that now they know something they didn't know before.

So why does their squick factor get to trump his rights?

quote:
You stop to help them out by telling them that they are immoral

Huh? Since when did recognizing bigotry in others require being a jerk to them?

quote:
What right do you have to tell me what is moral and what is not?

Multiple places. On a trivial level, the First Amendment allows me to speak my mind. Doing something about it is a different matter, of course. As I said, it's a trivial level. And it goes both ways. Just as I am perfectly free to point out her bigotry (though why on earth I would do so unbidden and in a completely obnoxious manner is only answerable by the deep recess of wherever it was you pulled this strawman), she is free to respond in kind.

But again, doing something about it is another thing.

The bigot says, "I can, but you can't."

The morally correct person says, "If I can, so can you."

Where do I get the right? Logic, compassion, empathy, etc. If the Mr. and Mrs. want it for themselves, then it is immoral for them to deny it to their children.

I note the assumption you have made that I am gay. Is there a particular reason you have ascribed a sexual orientation to me? I know I haven't mentioned it. And note, I am still not mentioning it even now. Rest assured that you don't know me from Adam and such assumptions you make are simply that. Please respond to what I actually say and not what you wish I would have said.

And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

quote:
Rrhain, you need to explain why, in the case of "same-sex marriage," a minority can be more moral than a majority.

Logical error: Shifting the burden of proof.

You're the one trying to say that straights deserve special rights. Since it is long-settled law that "separate but equal" is unconstitutional, it is your burden to explain why, in the case of marriage, the majority gets to trample on the rights of the minority.

quote:
So far all we get from you are your passionate opinions.

Huh? You mean all those pages of court decisions I've transcribed were actually written by me? And here I thought I was quoting the justices of the California Supreme Court.

You did read their decision, yes?

quote:
If you could come down from your self-righteous perch and touch the ground of reality you would know that gravity and marriage are two things that most people regard as being purely NATURAL.

Nice try, but that's my argument to you. As you will recall, I was the one quoting to you the Loving v. Virginia decision that marriage is a fundamental right. As you will recall, I was the one quoting to you the many California cases that had the courts declaring marriage to be a fundamental right.

You're the one saying that there are citizens who are to be prevented from exercising this fundamental right.

Simply because you get a funny feeling in your tummy.

quote:
marriage doesn't unit two members of the same sex.

Why not? Nobody is confused when someone says that two people of the same sex have been "married."

Marriage is a fundamental right. What is your justification for denying this fundamental right to certain citizens?

Remember, neither the Loving v. Virginia case nor the Perez case established a right to "interracial marriage." After all, the definition of "marriage" specifically required the people to be of the same race.

No, those cases indicated that the right of "marriage" is inherent to all.

The Pledge ends, "liberty and justice for all."

What part of "for all" are you having trouble with?

And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

quote:
I've got a lot of empirical evidence on that to show you.

Over 400 posts and you haven't put forward a single hint of this evidence you claim to have despite my repeated direct requests for you to do so:

How does your neighbor's marriage affect you? Does your marginal tax rate go up? Are they then granted an easement? You now have to park on alternate sides of the street every other Thursday? You'll immediately be deported?

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 411 by Fosdick, posted 06-10-2008 10:52 AM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by Fosdick, posted 06-11-2008 11:06 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 10 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 423 of 448 (470400)
06-11-2008 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 415 by New Cat's Eye
06-10-2008 3:10 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:
Second, they don't have a Constitutional right for what I am supposedly denying them in the first place.

Incorrect.

As Loving v. Virginia pointed out, marriage is a fundamental right.

Did you not read any of the CSC decision? They go on and on about how marriage is a fundamental right.

As discussed below, upon review of the numerous California decisions that have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to marry (and that illuminate why ), we conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family — constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.

What part of "this right has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution" are you having trouble understanding?

As the Loving v. Virginia case stated:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

What part of "vital person rights" are you having trouble understanding?

Then there's Skinnder v. Oklahoma that called marriage one of the "basic civil rights of man."

quote:
Then you guys are saying that gays are the same basic thing as black people.

Indeed. You seem to be intimating that there is something wrong with that.

Both are human.
Both are citizens.
Both routinely have their fundamental rights denied.

quote:
What a stupid thread this is.

Indeed.

It is always stupid to deny people their rights.


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 415 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2008 3:10 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 10 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 424 of 448 (470402)
06-11-2008 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 418 by Fosdick
06-10-2008 4:35 PM


Hoot Mon writes:

quote:
Then I suppose men discriminate against women, and vice versa, in public restrooms.

What are we, twelve? Hint: You don't have a right to an audience for your bodily eliminations. The way we have arranged the bathroom isn't about you.

Actually, there is some discrimination involved. Because women's rooms are stalls while men's rooms combine stalls and urinals, it means that the women's room typically cannot service as many people at a time as the men's room.

quote:
At our ages we ought to be more worried about discrimination against the elderly who wouldn't know a Hershey Highway from a hot fudge sundae.

And you wonder why you keep getting tagged 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 418 by Fosdick, posted 06-10-2008 4:35 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 10 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 425 of 448 (470404)
06-11-2008 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 420 by New Cat's Eye
06-10-2008 5:26 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:
I do not support the right of right of homos to marry. That isn't active denial of a right though.

Incorrect. As many court cases have shown, and have been quoted here, marriage is a fundamental right.

You did read the CSC decision, yes?

quote:
I'm saying that they don't have a Constitutional right to marriage within the same sex.

The Constitution says differently.

Are you saying that when the Loving v. Virginia case declared marriage to be a fundamental right, that was the wrong thing to do?

quote:
The aren't excuded from anything that the 9th and 14th refer too. Marriage has limitations that apply to everyone.

But gay people can't get married despite marriage being a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment.

How do you reconcile that?

quote:
In a similiar way, NJ and HM's comparisons don't say that gays and gravity, or trees or whatever, are basically the same thing.

Right...because humans are the same thing as a force and a tree.

You seem to be saying that gay people aren't actually people, that they aren't citizens. How else to explain your continued insistence that fundamental rights don't apply to them?


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 420 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2008 5:26 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1429 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 426 of 448 (470409)
06-11-2008 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 418 by Fosdick
06-10-2008 4:35 PM


Re: Nuthin' but opinion
Longtime couple to kick off gay marriage in Calif.
quote:

SAN FRANCISCO - Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon's nuptials at City Hall ignited the gay wedding spree that thrust San Francisco into the national spotlight in 2004.

Now the city plans a repeat of the ceremony when gay marriage becomes legal in California on June 16.

Mayor Gavin Newsom plans to officiate at the couple's wedding, just as he did for them in 2004. He said Monday that Martin and Lyon will be the only gay couple married at City Hall on June 16. The clerk's office will issue licenses for other couples beginning June 17.

Martin, 87, and Lyon, 84, are lesbian activists who have been together for more than five decades. They were plaintiffs in the California Supreme Court case that led to the state's legalization of gay marriage.


Hoot, I'm sure these two have been together for 5 decades just to piss you off. How many times have you been married?

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.


I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by Fosdick, posted 06-10-2008 4:35 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by dawkinsisNOTGod, posted 06-11-2008 7:56 AM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 429 by Father Ted, posted 06-11-2008 7:56 AM Taz has not yet responded

David Icke 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3907 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 06-11-2008


Message 427 of 448 (470469)
06-11-2008 7:55 AM


Where do you stand on rimming within same sex marriages?
  
dawkinsisNOTGod 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3907 days)
Posts: 33
From: Lashville, Tennessee
Joined: 06-11-2008


Message 428 of 448 (470470)
06-11-2008 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by Taz
06-11-2008 2:58 AM


Re: Nuthin' but opinion
Im not a bigot, but its adam and eve, not trevor steven.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Taz, posted 06-11-2008 2:58 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
Father Ted 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 3907 days)
Posts: 23
Joined: 06-11-2008


Message 429 of 448 (470471)
06-11-2008 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by Taz
06-11-2008 2:58 AM


Re: Nuthin' but opinion
Homophobia is a disgustion perversion if 2 sausage jockeys wish to rumble around there rusty sjeriffs badges who am I to stop them. I've taken Mrs Ted up the Oxo Tower on may occasions, a lovely tight fit that I'd highly recommend
This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Taz, posted 06-11-2008 2:58 AM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by Ickes Love Child, posted 06-11-2008 7:58 AM Father Ted has responded

  
Ickes Love Child 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3907 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 06-11-2008


Message 430 of 448 (470475)
06-11-2008 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 429 by Father Ted
06-11-2008 7:56 AM


Re: Nuthin' but opinion
Havent we all Father
This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by Father Ted, posted 06-11-2008 7:56 AM Father Ted has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by Father Ted, posted 06-11-2008 8:01 AM Ickes Love Child has not yet responded

  
Father Ted 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 3907 days)
Posts: 23
Joined: 06-11-2008


Message 431 of 448 (470477)
06-11-2008 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 430 by Ickes Love Child
06-11-2008 7:58 AM


Re: Nuthin' but opinion
Yeah but at least I lasted longer than 10 seconds
This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by Ickes Love Child, posted 06-11-2008 7:58 AM Ickes Love Child has not yet responded

  
David Icke 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3907 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 06-11-2008


Message 432 of 448 (470479)
06-11-2008 8:01 AM


She doesn't mind a bit of beef stock thrown in her casserole dish now and again
  
Hiram 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3907 days)
Posts: 14
Joined: 06-11-2008


Message 433 of 448 (470480)
06-11-2008 8:01 AM


What if you accidently slipped a cock in your mouth, does this count? I thought if the Priest said it was ok then God would be down with it as well.
Replies to this message:
 Message 435 by dawkinsisNOTGod, posted 06-11-2008 8:04 AM Hiram has not yet responded
 Message 438 by Father Ted, posted 06-11-2008 8:07 AM Hiram has not yet responded

  
twoheadedcat 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3907 days)
Posts: 13
From: Bluesville, Mississippi
Joined: 06-11-2008


Message 434 of 448 (470482)
06-11-2008 8:04 AM


I've slipped a digit up the odd hoop in my time. Things didn't work out for them when they threatened to tell their parents. I'm not going to prison.
  
dawkinsisNOTGod 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3907 days)
Posts: 33
From: Lashville, Tennessee
Joined: 06-11-2008


Message 435 of 448 (470483)
06-11-2008 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 433 by Hiram
06-11-2008 8:01 AM


Nothing wrong with imbibing the fishy soul of god through Priest spunk.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Hiram, posted 06-11-2008 8:01 AM Hiram has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
25262728
29
30Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019