Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
33 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, dwise1, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Theodoric (7 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,486 Year: 20,522/19,786 Month: 919/2,023 Week: 427/392 Day: 43/74 Hour: 4/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On the Threshold of Bigotry
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 187 days)
Posts: 6349
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 responded

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

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 272 of 333 (477765)
08-07-2008 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Modulous
08-06-2008 8:51 PM


Re: Have I crossed your threshold of bigotry?
Mod writes:

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.


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, 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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Modulous, posted 08-06-2008 8:51 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Modulous, posted 08-07-2008 3:29 PM Fosdick has not yet responded
 Message 279 by Rrhain, posted 08-08-2008 4:18 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 273 of 333 (477768)
08-07-2008 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Rrhain
08-07-2008 5:20 AM


Marriageable equipment
Rrhain writes:

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. Would you use a Phillips screwdriver on a slotted head?

—HM

Edited by Hoot Mon, : Just helping Rrhain out with his tools.


If you got some quince, Pussycat, I got a runcible spoon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Rrhain, posted 08-07-2008 5:20 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Rrhain, posted 08-08-2008 4:23 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 419 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 274 of 333 (477778)
08-07-2008 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Fosdick
08-07-2008 1:13 PM


Re: Have I crossed your threshold of bigotry?
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.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-07-2008 4:21 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 281 by Rrhain, posted 08-08-2008 4:27 AM Modulous has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 275 of 333 (477780)
08-07-2008 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Modulous
08-07-2008 3:29 PM


Re: Have I crossed your threshold of bigotry?
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.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by DrJones*, posted 08-07-2008 4:24 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 278 by Modulous, posted 08-07-2008 6:14 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 282 by Rrhain, posted 08-08-2008 4:36 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1987
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 276 of 333 (477781)
08-07-2008 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by New Cat's Eye
08-07-2008 4:21 PM


Re: Have I crossed your threshold of bigotry?
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.


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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-07-2008 5:12 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 333 (477784)
08-07-2008 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by DrJones*
08-07-2008 4:24 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by DrJones*, posted 08-07-2008 4:24 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Rrhain, posted 08-08-2008 5:12 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 419 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 278 of 333 (477789)
08-07-2008 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by New Cat's Eye
08-07-2008 4:21 PM


Re: Have I crossed your threshold of bigotry?
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:
For prevention of that abominable mixture and spurious issue which hereafter may encrease in this dominion, as well as by negroes, mulattos, and Indians intermarrying with English, or other white women, as by their unlawfull accompanying with one another, Be it enacted . . . that . . . whatsoever English or other white man or woman being free, shall intermarry with a negro, mulatto or Indian man or woman bond or free shall within three months after such marriage be banished and removed from this dominion forever. . . .

And be it further enacted . . . That if any English woman being free shall have a bastard child by any negro or mulatto, she pay the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, within one month after such bastard child shall be born, to the Church wardens of the parish . . . and in default of such payment she shall be taken into the possession of the said Church wardens and disposed of for five yeares, and the said fine of fifteen pounds, or whatever the woman shall be disposed of for, shall be paid, one third part to their majesties . . . and one other third part to the use of the parish . . . and the other third part to the informer, and that such bastard child be bound out as a servant by the said Church wardens until he or she shall attain the age of thirty yeares, and in case such English woman that shall have such bastard child be a servant, she shall be sold by the said church wardens (after her time is expired that she ought by law serve her master), for five yeares, and the money she shall be sold for divided as if before appointed, and the child to serve as aforesaid.


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...


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 yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 187 days)
Posts: 6349
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 yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 187 days)
Posts: 6349
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 yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 187 days)
Posts: 6349
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 responded

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

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 187 days)
Posts: 6349
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 yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 187 days)
Posts: 6349
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 yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 419 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 284 of 333 (477835)
08-08-2008 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Rrhain
08-08-2008 4:27 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Rrhain, posted 08-08-2008 4:27 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Rrhain, posted 08-08-2008 6:49 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 285 of 333 (477870)
08-08-2008 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Rrhain
08-08-2008 4:27 AM


rrhain writes:

Huh? "Natural barrier" to what? Spell it out, Modulous. Just what is it you think gay people do that straight people don't?


Just what do you think bestial men do to sheep that straight people don't do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Rrhain, posted 08-08-2008 4:27 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Rrhain, posted 08-08-2008 6:51 PM Fosdick has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019