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:
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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|