|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,475 Year: 3,732/9,624 Month: 603/974 Week: 216/276 Day: 56/34 Hour: 2/2 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Gay Marriage | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I typed up this message for the other gay marriage thread but it was closed before I could submit it. I'll just post it here.
From message 423:
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? The part where it says that they have a right to a literal MarriageTM of someone of the same sex when marriage can only be between one man and one woman. What they say that gays have a right to is this:
quote: and I agree. Gays have a right to have a social contract that functions like marriage. They don't, however, have a right to same sex MarriagesTM.
quote: Indeed. You seem to be intimating that there is something wrong with that.
Well, I wasn't. I was responding to someone else who said that they were not saying that gays and blacks are the same thing. From message 425:
quote: Incorrect. As many court cases have shown, and have been quoted here, marriage is a fundamental right.
My point was the I, myself, have not actively denied a right to gays. (not that marriage isn't a right)
quote: 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?
The Constitution does not say differently. and Loving v. Virginia could just as easily be read with the proper definition of MarriageTM.
But gay people can't get married despite marriage being a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment. How do you reconcile that?
Gay people can get MarriageTM but they, just like everyone else, have to abide by the rules on what marriage is.
quote: Right...because humans are the same thing as a force and a tree.
I wasn't saying that they are the same thing 
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?
Well, I wasn't. The rights do apply to them and they apply to them the same way they apply to everyone else. How come most of the things you think I'm saying, or the ways that what I say "seem" to you, aren't really what I'm actually saying?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You, CS, you personally can, if you're willing and so is your "partner", you can marry the person you love...the person with whom you want to spend the rest of your life. In the eyes of the law, marriage is a social contract that has nothing to do with love. I don't have a right to marry the one I love and neither do gays.
You can then, as a married couple receive the benefits of that marriage. Things like inheritance, things like tax breaks, things like medical coverage for your spouse, things like hospital visitation rights, things like the making of major medical decisions, things like keeping your home after the death of your spouse. Yet homosexuals are denied these very things. That's right, CS...homosexuals are obviously being denied these marital benefits. They are being denied having those things with a person of the same sex because that is the way that marriage is defined and those things come from being married, but they are not being denied having those things on the basis of their sexual orientation. Any problems with those things could be solved within those things themselves without having to change the definition of marriage, or the definition of marriage can be changed.
But again, you already know all of this because I mentioned it to you in the previous thread. And you acted all: "Whu? I didn't know that that's what you were talking about...ass". Remember that exchange, CS? So why are you repeating the same ole bullshit again...and again...and again. It was a total crappole argument then, and it's a complete fabrication now. Please stop. You took me out of context in the other thread so I didn't know what you were talking about. Sometimes people talk about the right to marriage and sometimes people talk about the rights associated with marriage. When I say that gays are not being denied the right to marriage but that they must follow what mariage is and someone takes that out of context and starts talking about all the rights associated with being married, it gets confusing. My opponenets are comming at me from different angles on the same quote. It is hard to keep up.
Do you understand what we're talking about here. The homosexual couple that you don't want to see married, Again, I don't really care if they get married or not. What I'm arguing against is this notion that they are Unconstitutionally being denied rights and that we must allow gay marriage. I don't see that as being the case. Also, I think there could be some negative ramifications (health insurance costs going up, for example) if we simply "hit a lightswitch" and allow gay marrage. I think we should think it through a little better. So, I oppose the notion that gay marriage must be allowed.
The homosexual couple that you don't want to see married, cannot have the person they truly want to be making these sorts of decisions actually make these decisions. You're basically telling them that someone else, someone they don't love...someone that they really don't want making these decisions, have to make these decisions because you won't let them choose the person they want. They could also try to change the way that it is decided who the person who makes those decisions is. Just sayin'. They could do that, or introduce civil unions, or prolly some other things that I've failed to think of. Or, they could just get the definition of marriage changed. Whatever. But to take the angle that they are being discriminated against unconstitutionally and the current definition of marriage must include them is wrong, IMHO. And dishonest. And I'm going to argue against it on anonymous message boards. I know, I know... I'm a horrible person
Catholic Scientist writes: I don't understand what you're asking here. The military does want to know if a soldier is gay or not. They're just prevented from asking. However, if they somehow or another find out or suspect that you're gay...then you're kicked out. Why doesn't the military want to know if soldiers or gay or not? I'm sorry, I know absolutely nothing about the military. I thought "Don't ask, don't tell" was the military's position. Like, they didn't want to know if you were gay or not.
Why should the military care if a soldier is gay or not? What effect would it have on their ability to serve? Do you honestly believe that there are no homosexuals in the military? Do you honestly believe that for some reason or another, gays are incapable of performing their given duties at a level that meets the military standard? If so, what duty (or duties) would that (those) be...and why can a homosexual not preform this task in a manner that meets military standards? I thought that the military is weary of gays because they don't want people having sex in the barracks, but I don't know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It's not about the love, per say. But again, you know this already and are, by your own choice, continuing to play stupid. Seriously, this too was covered in the previous thread. I'm not playing stupid, ass. If someone says: "ZOMG! Gheys have teh consitutional right to marry". And then I explain why they don't. Then you come in and start talking about all these other rights associated with marriage, and I don't follow because you never specified what your were saying, then I'm not playing stupid, you're just debating poorly.
You, CS, you personally, you can choose to marry someone (regardless of love) with whom you are happy (I assume, but certainly not a requirement) to spend the remainder of your life. This person, the one that you personally have chosen (and assuming that this person agreed with the choice and themselves chose to act in a reciprocal manner) is then afforded certain rights that those that are not married do not get. You chose this person because amongst other things, you perhaps wanted them to make the types of decisions I mentioned in the previous post. Important decisions. Live choices that may very well have huge impacts. Yet, you're telling a homosexual that they are not free to choose as you are free to choose. They do not get to pick the person that they really want to make these decisions. Why?
Now you're playing dumb. Marriage is defined as between one man and one woman... we've been over this.
Why do you want to deny homosexuals the right to choose whomever they want (as long as the other individual wants and/or can legally enter into such a contract) to make these import life decisions? It doesn't matter to me if they do or not. It does matter to me if you trample all over the constitution and open it up to say any thing you want it to say. The way our Constitution and laws are written, Gays cannot get these benefits from someone of the same sex. The benefits, themselves, could be changed to allow people to bring in people that they aren't married to or the definition of marriage needs to be changed. But I'm not going to sit here and watch people tear up the Constitution and say that it says that this or that is unconsitutional and we must allow gay into marriage.
I will admit that I completely and utterly fail to follow this line of argument. How can you seriously use these two sentences together? Because I'm not blinded by the hatred I have for people with different oppinions than mine.
Marriage was purposefully defined by homophobic bigots when it became obvious that homosexuals were NOT legally allowed to be denied marriage. Once homophobic bigots found out that marriage was NOT defined legally as being between one man and one women, homophobic bigots passed laws and re-wrote definitions to be worded as such. So don't sit there and tell me that they are being not denied the right to marry based on their sexual orientation. They're not being denied the right to marry based on their sexual orientation. Your judgement is clouded by your bigoty. All that crap above is bullshit hate-speach you fucking bigot.
I mean, hey, if they're not being denied the right to marry because of their sexual orientation, then remove the new definitions that define marriage as being between one man and one women and let's see what happens. The ambiguity of the implicit definition of marriage would cause the need for the explicit definition again.
Catholic Scientist writes: Any problems with those things could be solved within those things themselves without having to change the definition of marriage, or the definition of marriage can be changed. So we agree then, that we should just go back to the way things were before a bunch of homophobic bigots decided to define marriage as being between one man and one women. Actually, before Bill Clinton (the homophobic bigot I suppose) signed DOMA, marriage was already defined, albeit implicitly, as between one man and one woman.
But it's a moot fucking point because you know that homosexuals ARE being denied certain rights that married couples get. Then it would seem that those rights could be what are unconstitutional, not necessarily definition of marriage itself  Those rights could just as easily be called discriminatory because they are for married people only.
That's the problem, CS, not some bullshit about how you didn't know what I was talking about. You KNOW that your argument about how they are not being denied the right to marry is bogus. Even if you are stating that "they can marry someone of the opposite sex", or that "you can't marry someone of the same sex either". You KNOW that many of us here will point out the flaws in that argument. It's a total bullshit argument...so please stop using it. Its just not as flawed as you think, I mean, want it to be. There isn't anything that discriminates against sexual orientation by preventing a gay person from entering the contract of marriage.
Other than repeating this Ad nauseam, you have yet to explain WHY the 9th and 14th Amendments do not apply to homosexuals. Rrhain (and to a lesser extent myself and some others) have explained to you why we (as well as SCOTUS, CSC and other Courts) feel that they do apply. Please explain why you feel they do not. I did too. I'm not going to rewrite everything here right now. I'll come back and link you to the messages where I've explained myself while you're searching for them yourself.
So you're shootin for the whole "Separate but equal" thing. Hmmmm, not too original and already addressed as being Unconstitutional. So better yet, why not just call it marriage since, after all, that's what it fucking is?
No, I'm not "shooting" for it. But it is a possibility.
Catholic Scientist writes: Yeah...cuz them crazy homos just try to fuck every guy they see. And yet you claim not to be a homophobic bigot. I thought that the military is weary of gays because they don't want people having sex in the barracks, but I don't know. Oh fuck you asshole. Any chance you get to vilify you opponent and spout hate speech You're way more a bigot than I am. I'm not making any assumptions about gays at all. I was honestly answering a question about what I thought the military's reasons were. Why do you think they don't want gays in the military? Lemme guess, because they're homophobic bigots, right? You're a real piece of work. Wow, I just did an google image search for gay pride parade: gay pride parade - Google Search It seems that they are all about sex...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
