Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 29 of 519 (471067)
06-14-2008 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by New Cat's Eye
06-11-2008 11:32 AM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
quote:
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.
That merely begs the question. Yes, you have claimed that it is "between one man and one woman," but the Constitution clearly indicates otherwise. If marriage is a "basic, inalienable civil right guaranteed to an individual," why are you advocating that certain citizens be denied that right?
quote:
Gays have a right to have a social contract that functions like marriage. They don't, however, have a right to same sex MarriagesTM.
You do realize that those two sentences contradict each other, yes?
The only contract that "functions like marriage" is MarriageTM. Didn't you read the decision? "Civil union" does not provide the full benefits of marriage. "Separate but equal" is still unconstitutional.
So since the contract you want to provide is sub-standard and since the only constitutional solution is to have a single contract, why do you keep insisting upon having two?
Be specific.
quote:
My point was the I, myself, have not actively denied a right to gays. (not that marriage isn't a right)
You do realize that those two sentences contradict each other, yes?
Since marriage is a fundamental right and since you say, and I quote: "They don't, however, have a right to same sex MarriagesTM," how exactly is it that you can justify claiming that you, yourself, have not actively denied a right to gays?
Since marriage is a fundamental right and since gays cannot get married, your support of that state of affairs is an active denial of a right.
Civil union is not marriage. The contracts are not the same anywhere in the country and cannot be as we learned so long ago: There ain't no such thing as "separate but equal." How many times do we have to relearn this lesson before it sticks?
If you have to say, "I agree, BUT," then you don't really agree.
No exceptions.
No excuses.
quote:
and Loving v. Virginia could just as easily be read with the proper definition of MarriageTM.
Incorrect. Didn't you read the opinion? The "proper definition" of MarriageTM at the time was that the people couldn't be of mixed race. The finding of Loving v. Virginia was not that people had a "right to interracial marriage." It was that people had a right to MarriageTM and thus race couldn't be used to deny it.
Since the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal treatment under the law, this necessarily means that gays have a right to MarriageTM and as Lawrence v. Texas pointed out, you can't use sexual orientation as a basis to deny rights.
Just how much of the Constitution are you willing to ignore to calm your squick factor?
quote:
Gay people can get MarriageTM
No, they can't. If they could, there wouldn't have been a case. You did read the CSC's opinion, yes? They covered this canard. The idea that gay people have just as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex as a straight person is facile and, to be blunt, insulting.
For someone who claims to value MarriageTM so much, why do you hate it so?
quote:
but they, just like everyone else, have to abide by the rules on what marriage is.
Indeed. And the rules state that it is a fundamental right belonging to the person. The rules state that you cannot deny it based on sexual orientation. The rules state that you cannot have "separate but equal" contracts.
How much of the Constitution are you willing to ignore to calm your squick factor?
quote:
quote:
Right...because humans are the same thing as a force and a tree.
I wasn't saying that they are the same thing
Try again. See, the thing about the internet is that your posts are persistent. This is a common argument of yours: Comparing the sexual activity of two consenting adults of the same sex to everything except the only thing that logically follows: The sexual activity of two consenting adults of mixed sex.
The sex of the participants has no bearing on any other characteristic and thus comparisons to different species, even to things that aren't even alive, exist for no other purpose than to impugn the integrity of gay people.
quote:
The rights do apply to them
So why do you deny them? Gay people can't get married and you want to keep it that way.
Since marriage is a fundamental right, how is it "applying to them" when they can't exercise it?
quote:
and they apply to them the same way they apply to everyone else.
So why is it gay people can't get married?

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 4 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-11-2008 11:32 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2008 2:38 PM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 30 of 519 (471068)
06-14-2008 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by New Cat's Eye
06-11-2008 11:34 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
You're welcome to your opinions, but the Constitution disagrees with you. Our laws must follow the Constitution over people's opinions.
You do realize you just contradicted yourself, yes? You previously stated:
They don't, however, have a right to same sex MarriagesTM.
The Constitution says they do. If you truly believe that our laws must follow the Constitution over your opinion, why are you having such a hard time with this?
  1. Marriage is a fundamental right (Loving v. Virginia and many others)
  2. Fundamental rights cannot be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation (Lawrence v. Texas)
  3. "Separate but equal" is unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education)
Please explain how the denial of the right of MarriageTM to gays can possibly withstand these Constitutional decisions?
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 6 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-11-2008 11:34 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Fosdick, posted 06-14-2008 11:48 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 31 of 519 (471069)
06-14-2008 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Fosdick
06-11-2008 11:56 AM


Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote:
Am I the kind of bigot you despise just because I oppose "gay marriage"?
I despise all bigotry. You will note that I have not called for any sanctions against you.
The bigot says, "I can, but you can't."
The moral person says, "I can, and so can you."
If you don't like same-sex marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex. Nobody is forcing you to do so, are they?
How is your life affected by the neighbor's marriage? You still haven't given any concrete example.
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 7 by Fosdick, posted 06-11-2008 11:56 AM Fosdick has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 32 of 519 (471070)
06-14-2008 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by New Cat's Eye
06-13-2008 9:50 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
Just to clarify that I'm specifically talking about the current legal definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman rather than a more general definition that could also include gay marriage.
Didn't you read the CSC decision? The definition of MarriageTM always included same-sex marriage due to the compulsion of the Constitution to apply the law equally to all citizens. It was simply denied for all this time.
Nobody ever had a right to own slaves or deny women equal participation in society or any of a host of things that we take for granted that previous generations would be amazed to see. It was simply that the previous generations were never stopped.
That's the point behind rights: They are only useful when they are accepted despite ourselves. If we only have the rights that are popular, then there would never be a question about those rights. Everyone would simply assume them.
That was part of the debate over the existence of the Bill of Rights in the first place: People thought such things were self-evident. As we have seen, they aren't. If you don't make it explicitly clear that we have the right to speak, to assemble, to have equal protection of the laws, people assume that you don't...even if we go out of our way to point out that our lack of explicitly stating such doesn't disparage the existence of said rights.
The Ninth Amendment means something:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Marriage is a fundamental right.
The Fourteenth Amendment means something:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You cannot deny rights to citizens based upon their sexual orientation.
You cannot create separate contracts and ever expect them to be equal.
Article IV, Section 2 means something:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
You cannot deny the rights of citizens.
So since the Constitution clearly indicates that marriage is a right of the person, that it cannot be denied to gay people, and that only a single contract for MarriageTM will ever be in concordance with the Constitution, why do you keep insisting on two unequal contracts?
As soon as you grant the right of MarriageTM, then you necessarily grant it to gay people, too.
The only question is whether or not you are going to live up to your Constitutional obligations by recognizing it.

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 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2008 9:50 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 33 of 519 (471071)
06-14-2008 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by New Cat's Eye
06-13-2008 10:07 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
Yes, in order for gay marriage to be legit, the definition of MarriageTM would have to be changed.
When are you going to get around to reading the decision? This is expressly denied.
The definition of MarriageTM doesn't change at all because it already includes same-sex couples. The CSC decision does not grant a right to "same-sex marriage" just as the Perez decision and the Loving v. Virginia decision didn't grant a right to "interracial marriage."
It simply recognized that MarriageTM necessarily includes couples of both the same and mixed races, the same and mixed sexes.
To use a bit of a crude aphorism, marriage is about chemistry (the bond between the couple) and engineering (the building of a family), not physics (what pieces fit where).
quote:
Marriage, as a concept, has not necessarily been considered to be between the same race, as it has been for seperate sexes.
Incorrect. You didn't read the CSC decision at all, did you? That was precisely what it was defined as. Until the Perez decision, interracial marriage was NEVER allowed in California:
California Supreme Court, in RE, footnote 32 writes:
The marriage statute enacted in California’s first legislative session contained an explicit provision declaring that “[a]ll marriages of white persons with negroes or mulattoes are declared to be illegal and void.” (Stats. 1850, ch. 140, 3, p. 424.)
The very first legislative session of the state of California declared interracial marriage to be null and void.
quote:
To add the part about it not being between whites and blacks (which was ruled unconstitutional) is different than maintaining the definition as being between one man and one woman.
Incorrect. It is exactly the same. You are using the exact same arguments put forward to deny equality to gays that were used to deny equality to blacks, literally with the word "black" taken out and "gay" put in.
Since disparate treatment under the law is not allowed (Fourteenth Amendment) and was explicitly recognized as applicable to gays (Lawrence v. Texas), why do you keep insisting that there is something different about being gay that renders the exact same argument used to deny equality to blacks somehow valid?
quote:
I think we should consider the ramifications first.
And what, precisely are those ramifications?
How does the neighbor's marriage affect you?
Be specific.
quote:
I don't really have to have a reason other than my hesitation so long as the it's constitutional.
But the Constitution clearly contradicts you, so out with it:
How much of the Constitution are you going to ignore to calm your squick factor?
There is no right to "same-sex marriage" just as there is no right to "interracial marriage." There is only a right to "marriage." Because that right applies to all citizens equally, it cannot be denied simply because someone doesn't like the race or sex of the participants.
"Civil union" is not "marriage." All citizens have the right to "marriage."

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 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2008 10:07 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 34 of 519 (471072)
06-14-2008 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by New Cat's Eye
06-13-2008 3:23 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
I will stand by SCOTUS's decision though.
Why don't I believe that? Marriage is a contract of the state, not the feds. DOMA inherently violates the Tenth Amendment.
So since the CSC clearly indicates that marriage is a fundamental right which cannot be denied to gay people, why are you still fighting?
quote:
Having restriction on the marriage contract doesn't deny rights to anyone if the restriction is the same for everyone.
So why can't gay people get married?
quote:
Gays can still get married, they just can't marry each other.
You do realize that the first clause contradicts the second, yes?
If they can't marry each other, then they can't get married.
quote:
But that is because of what a marriage is.
Incorrect. It would really help if you would stop for a moment and actually read the decision. In RE did not find that there is a right to "same-sex marriage." Instead, it recognized that the previous decision in Perez, whereupon it was found that marriage is a fundamental right, applies to gay people, too. Perez did not find a right to "interracial marriage" but rather a right to "marriage." It was simply that the law refused to recognize this right by denying it to people on the basis of race.
Same argument: In RE doesn't not find a right to "same-sex marraige" but rather a right to "marriage." It was simply that the law refused to recognize this right by denying it to people on the basis of sexual orientation.
"Black people can get married...just not to white people." That is just as disingenuous an argument as what you said: "Gay people can get married...just not to someone of the same sex."
The CSC decision dealt directly with that claim and showed how disingenuous, fatuous, and unconstitutional it is.
You have read the CSC decision, yes?
quote:
The definition of Marriage was implicitly between one man and one woman.
The definition of marriage was explicitly between people of the same race.
Are you saying the CSC was wrong to overturn that in Perez?
They didn't find a right to "interracial marriage." Instead, they simply recognized the right to "marriage." The definition of marriage did not change.
quote:
The lack of an explicit definition allowed for gays to start talking about getting married too.
Which necessarily means the definition fit just fine. Everybody knows that the term "marriage" means and nobody is confused when it is used with same-sex couples.
quote:
Seeing that that didn't fit with the implicit definition, an explicit one was provided (DOMA).
And that's precisely the point: The definition of "marriage" inherently included same-sex couples. It was because it did that the laws were changed to explicitly exclude them.
In RE didn't find a right to "same-sex marriage" just as Perez and Loving v. Virginia didn't find a right to "interracial marriage."
There is simply a right to "marriage."
Why do you wish to deny this right to certain citizens?
How much of the Constitution are you willing to ignore to calm your squick factor?

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 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2008 3:23 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 35 of 519 (471073)
06-14-2008 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Hyroglyphx
06-13-2008 3:26 PM


Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote:
Are some people more or less "sexually oriented" towards pre-pubescent teenagers?
Oh, Christ...here we go again.
Tell us, NJ: Why is it that whenever you think of having sex with someone of your own sex, you immediately start having fantasies of having sex with children?
What is it about being gay that leads you to these fantasies that being straight does not?
Unless and until you can explain why homosexuality has a connection to raping your infant sons for money (I got them all, didn't I? Child molestation, polygamy, incest, prostitution, right?) while heterosexuality does not, then you don't have an argument.

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 22 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-13-2008 3:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 36 of 519 (471074)
06-14-2008 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
06-13-2008 4:28 PM


Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote:
Then what about polygamy or incest
Oh, Christ...here we go again.
Tell us, NJ: Why is it that whenever you think of having sex with someone of your own sex, you immediately start having fantasies of having sex with children?
What is it about being gay that leads you to these fantasies that being straight does not?
Unless and until you can explain why homosexuality has a connection to raping your infant sons for money (I got them all, didn't I? Child molestation, polygamy, incest, prostitution, right?) while heterosexuality does not, then you don't have an argument.

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 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-13-2008 4:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 37 of 519 (471075)
06-14-2008 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Hyroglyphx
06-13-2008 5:21 PM


Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote:
Here, read it again and answer appropriately:
NJ writes:
Here's the thing though with sexual orientation. Are some people more or less "sexually oriented" towards pre-pubescent teenagers? Do some people have some sort of natural affinity for the pre-pubescent?

...
quote:
That's like saying paedophilia is only illegal because of paedophiliac bigots.
...
quote:
Why should Oscar Wilde's lover, a boy
...
quote:
so would dual marriages for polygamists, marrying sisters for the incestuous, marrying dogs for the bestialists, adultery for the adulterers, or anything else under the sun.
Oh, Christ...here we go again.
Tell us, NJ: Why is it that whenever you think of having sex with someone of your own sex, you immediately start having fantasies of having sex with children?
What is it about being gay that leads you to these fantasies that being straight does not?
Unless and until you can explain why homosexuality has a connection to raping your infant sons for money (I got them all, didn't I? Child molestation, polygamy, incest, prostitution, right? No...wait...I forgot the animals.) while heterosexuality does not, then you don't have an argument.

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 27 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-13-2008 5:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 60 of 519 (471333)
06-16-2008 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Fosdick
06-14-2008 11:48 AM


Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote:
Rrhain, a hypothetical question for you: If SCOTUS decides that "gay marriage" is not supported by US Constitution will you then shut up?
Of course not. Plessy v. Ferguson was clearly the wrong decision. It had to be overturned by Brown v. Board of Education. Are you saying that because of the Plessy decision, there was no reason for Brown to have gone as far as it did and that even if it had, the SCOTUS should have voted the other way?
Bowers v. Hardwick was clearly the wrong decision. One of the justices in that decision, after he stepped down of course, went on the record saying that he was wrong. It had to be overturned by Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas. Are you saying that because of the Bowers decision, there was no reason for Romer and Lawrence to have gone as far as it did and that even if it had, the SCOTUS should have voted the other way?
The burden of proof is on you to explain why your argument is invalid when it comes to questions of race and religion but valid when it comes to questions of sexual orientation. Your argument is literally the exact same argument used to deny interracial marriage with "black" removed and "gay" inserted. Remember, in Scalia's dissent of Lawrence v. Texas, he said the decision means that there is no justification for denying marriage to gay people.
If the neighbor's marriage is none of your concern when the participants are of different race, why does it suddenly become your conern when the participants are of the same sex? How does the neighbor's marriage affect you?
Be specific.
quote:
And my other guess is that if SCOTUS decides against your position you will claim that the U.S. Constitution is unconstitutional.
Incorrect. The Constitution is clearly in support of same-sex marriage.
The SCOTUS, on the other hand, makes mistakes. Surely you aren't intimating that the SCOTUS is perfect, are you?
Now, please answer the question:
How does the neighbor's marriage affect you?
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 39 by Fosdick, posted 06-14-2008 11:48 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Fosdick, posted 06-16-2008 11:02 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 61 of 519 (471335)
06-16-2008 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by New Cat's Eye
06-15-2008 2:25 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
It was a response to the claim that gays are being denied rights because of their sexual orientation, which they’re not.
Gays don't have the right to get married.
Gays don't have the right to be secure in their households and not be evicted for being gay.
Gays don't have the right to be secure in their jobs and not be fired for being gay.
Gays don't have the right to be secure in their parenthood and not have their children taken away because the parents are gay.
Gays don't have the right to serve in the military.
Gays don't have the right not to be tortured because they are gay.
Given all of this, by what justification do you claim that gays are not being denied rights?
quote:
Marriage has restrictions on it that apply to everyone.
Indeed. What does sexual orientation have to do with it? By this logic, Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided.
Is that what you're saying? The SCOTUS was wrong to strike down miscegenation laws? Especially when over 70% of the population at the time felt that interracial marriage was wrong? That's more than currently think same-sex marriage is wrong.
Was the SCOTUS wrong in Loving v. Virginia?
That's a direct question. I would appreciate an answer.
quote:
Nobody is denied this right.
Gay people are. Marriage is a fundamental right. The Loving v. Virginia decision did not find a right to "interracial marriage." Instead, it found a right to marriage, in and of itself. Because marriage is a fundamental right, it cannot be abridged on the basis of race. And as Lawrence v. Texas found, rights cannot be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation, either.
So if marriage is a fundamental right and rights cannot be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation, by what justification do you conclude that marriage can be denied to gay people?
Be specific.
And again, this is a direct question. I would appreciate an answer.

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 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2008 2:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2008 10:27 AM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 62 of 519 (471338)
06-16-2008 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Hyroglyphx
06-15-2008 4:41 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
What does paedophilia have to do with homosexual marriage? Absolutely nothing.
Then why did you bring it up? If there is no connection between the two, then your comments revert to gibberish with no actual content. It would be akin to having a discussion about the charge on the electron and then having someone say that the conjugation of the preterite in Spanish has some bearing on the case.
It leaves people scratching their heads since a non sequitur has just been uttered.
But since you seem to have an extremely hard time discussing being gay without jumping to such non sequiturs, it then becomes clear that you do think there is a connection between the two.
Therefore, it makes your claim of, "I wasn't attempting to equivocate" disingenuous at best.
Prove us wrong.
Go through this entire discussion without bringing up anything except heterosexuality to contrast against homosexuality.

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 46 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-15-2008 4:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 171 of 519 (472221)
06-21-2008 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by New Cat's Eye
06-16-2008 10:27 AM


Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
Gays DO have the right to get marrieg, but they have to follow the same rules that everyone else must follow on what a marriage is.
If that were true, then gays could get married. Since they can't, they clearly do not have the right to get married. "The rules" are that marriage is a fundamental right which cannot be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation. Therefore, since gays are specifically barred from the contract of marriage, your claim fails by inspection.
Loving v. Virginia did not find a right to "interracial marriage." Instead, it recognized that people have a right to marriage and thus, that right cannot be abridged on the basis of race.
By your logic, Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided because blacks could get married: They just "had to follow the same rules that everyone else must follow on what a marriage is," which was that it was only between people of the same race.
If it was a pile of crap when applied to race, what makes it suddenly such a valid argument when applied to sexual orientation?
Be specific.
quote:
Isn't it illegal to evict or fire someone because of their sexual orientation?
No. It all depends on where you live. In most of the country, you can be evicted or fired for being gay.
quote:
Can you link to an article on someone having their children taken away because they were gay? 'Cause I don't believe you.
I already did.
In a thread you participated in.
I am not here to do your homework for you. You have access to a search engine. Use it. I've provided the specifics in previous threads, including case numbers in some instances. Go look them up.
quote:
Why doesn't the military want to know if soldiers or gay or not?
Non sequitur. You are claiming that gays are not disciminated against and yet gay people are not allowed to serve in the military while convicted criminals are.
quote:
Huh? Torturing gays is legal?
Yes. It's called "reparative therapy" and gay children are forced to undergo it every day in this country. They hook your genitals up to electrodes.
quote:
And what does that have to do with marriage anyways?
Logical error: Shifting the goal posts. Your claim was that gays are not discriminated against. You were given examples of how gays are discriminated against, one of which was that gay people cannot get married.
quote:
If fact, DOMA doesn't even mention sexual orientation.
Just how stupid do you think we are? Are you seriously claiming that because something does mention the words "sexual orientation," "gay," or "straight," then it necessarily isn't referring to sexual orientation, gays, or straights?
Do yourself a favor. Go back to that search engine of yours and look up the debate that took place over DOMA as it was passing through Congress. Consider the words of Funderburk, Coburn, Hyde, and Lewis.
Hint: Nobody thinks that the restriction of marriages to one man and one woman has anything to do with the sex of the participants. If you had read the in RE case out of the California Supreme Court, you would know that. Since you're making this ludicrous argument, there aren't many options for why:
1) You haven't read the decision which means you are speaking from ignorance and really ought to withdraw until you have read it. We'll still be here when you've finally finished doing your own homework.
2) You have read the decision but think we're all stupid and haven't, thus you can get away with a line of reasoning the courts have explicitly rejected.
quote:
That's why gays are not being specifically denied rights. DOMA just affirms the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
You realize that those two sentences contradict each other, right? DOMA specifically denies the rights of gays.
Marriage is a fundamental right: Loving v. Virginia and many other cases.
Rights cannot be denied on the basis of sexual orientation: Lawrence v. Texas.
Ergo, marriage cannot be denied to people on the basis of sexual orientation.
Remember, Loving v. Virginia did not define a right to "interracial marriage." Instead, it found a right to marriage and because that right is fundamental, it cannot be abridged due to the race of the participants.
So if your argument of "they have to follow the same rules that everyone else must follow on what a marriage is" is a pile of crap when it comes to race, how does it suddenly acquire legitimacy when it comes to sexual orientation? The "rules" of marriage were that you had to marry someone of your own race. Blacks could handily marry other blacks. So there wasn't any discrimination, right?
It's time for you to be specific: If this argument doesn't fly when the question is the race of the participants, why does it suddenly become legitimate when the question is the sexual orientation of the participants?
Remember: The laws about restricting marriage to people of the opposite sex are not about the sex of the participants. Nobody thinks that. The lawmakers who wrote the law didn't think that (as can be found by their own words...look them up) nor have the courts interpreted them to mean that. Instead, the laws are about stopping gay people from getting married.
quote:
They were right that legislating that whites cannot marry blacks was unconstitutional.
Then where on earth does the legitimacy of DOMA come from? Loving v. Virginia did not find a right to "interracial marriage." Instead, it found that marriage is a fundamental right and as such, it cannot be abridged on the basis of race.
Since DOMA is not about the sex of the participants but about the sexual orientation of the participants (again: Do you really think we're that stupid?) and since rights cannot be abridged on the basis of sexual orientation, why does your argument suddenly become legitimate when dealing with sexual orientation while it's a piece of crap when dealing with race?
quote:
Maintaining that the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is not unconstitutional. If it said that gay people cannot get married then sure.
You do realize that those two sentences contradict each other, yes?
You're not about to feign innocence and claim that because the words "sexual orientation" don't appear in the text, that means it doesn't have anything to do with it, are you?
Do you really think we're that stupid?
quote:
Gay people can marry people of the opposite sex
You do realize that such marriages can be annulled due to fraud, yes? And annullment means the marriage never existed.
Therefore no, gay people can't get married.
quote:
Because marriage is not abriged on the basis of sexual orientation.
Since gay people can't get married, your claim is trivially proven false by inspection.
quote:
Straight poeple can't marry people of the same sex either. That's just what marriage is. Nobody is being discriminated against if everyone is being treated the same.
White people can't marry someone of a different race, either. That's just what marriage is. Nobody is being discriminated against if everyone is being treated the same.
If it was a piece of crap in 1969, what gives it legitimacy now?

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 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2008 10:27 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Taz, posted 06-21-2008 2:43 AM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 173 of 519 (472227)
06-21-2008 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Fosdick
06-16-2008 11:02 AM


Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote:
It carries the bogus assumption that race and sex orientation have rightful places on the same causal landscape. To do so convincingly, you would need to prove that homosexuality is as heritable as racial characteristics are.
Why? You're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, which is clearly not a heritable trait.
At any rate, you can change your religion. You can't change your sexual orientation.
Prove us wrong. Change yours. Go out right now and find someone of the same sex, get massively turned on, and do what you can to eventually wind up in bed with him. When you finally succeed (we can wait through the dating period for you to earn his trust), come back and give us the details of how you got off and how you'll want to do it again and again and again.
At any rate, how does one determine "race"? It isn't like there is a gene that makes you white and if you have it, you're white and if you don't, you're not. Are we about to go to the "one drop" method of determination? Why does having a "black" grandfather make you "black" but having a "white" grandmother doesn't make you "white"?
Race is not a heritable characteristic. It's simply an arbitrary collection of external morphology.
Serious question: How does one determine "race"?
quote:
Then I think you have little pink puffs of chantilly lace stuck to eyeballs.
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
quote:
You need to show just how "clearly" the Constitution supports "gay marriage."
Already done. You have read the court decisions I presented you, yes?
You seem to be about to argue that the Constitution is a laundry list: If you don't find the exact phrase of the concept you are looking for, then the Constitution doesn't apply to it, right?
So by this logic, you think Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided, right? The Constitution doesn't mention marriage and yet somehow the SCOTUS seemed to think the Constitution had something to say about it.
Tell us: Which specific clauses in the Constitution were mentioned in the decision? Why do you think they don't apply?
quote:
I have it here before me, and it doesn't say a goddamn word about "gay marriage."
You are! You are about to claim the Constitution is a laundry list! Even though it directly says that it isn't! How precious. How absolutely precious.
The Constitution says nothing about driver's licenses, and yet the State seems to think it has the right to require you to have one. I suppose that makes the driver's license unconstitutional, right?
When was the last time you read the Federalist Papers? Read Federalist 84 and let us know what you think:
"Federalist 84" writes:
For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?
Ooh, there's this:
"Federalist 84" writes:
On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing.
This is pretty much your, "If it doesn't say it, therefore it doesn't exist," argument. You will see that it was clearly rejected because we have a Bill of Rights.
quote:
quote:
How does the neighbor's marriage affect you?
Rrhain, I never said it did.
Incorrect. You said over and over again that if we allow gay people to get legally married, then you will be affected as a person living in such a country since you are affected by the law. Do you really need me to do a crawl of your posts and repeat your own words back to you?
So out with it: How are you affected?
quote:
I said it affected Mr. and Mrs. America, because they have the audacity to believe that "marriage" should be only between a man and woman
Why? Why do we care what someone else thinks? Since when does your squick factor get to affect someone else's rights? When Loving v. Virginia was decided, more than 70% of the population felt that interracial marriage should not be allowed. And yet, the SCOTUS unanimously decided that it should.
So how did this affect "Mr. and Mrs. America"? If their squick factor cannot be allowed to abridge other people's rights when it comes to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when it comes to sexual orientation? Espcially in the light of Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas that specifically said such reasoning is not legitimate?
If you don't like marriage between people of the same sex, then don't marry someone of the same sex. How does the marriage of the neighbors affect you?
quote:
and that the notion of "same-sex marriage" is utterly ridiculous.
Why? Be specific.
Are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided in finding that marriage was a fundamental right? Remember, it did not find a right to "interracial marriage." It simply recognized that marriage was a fundamental right and as such, it could not be abridged based upon race.
Are you saying this was the wrong thing to do? After all, the Constitution doesn't mention "marriage" anywhere in its text.
Are you saying Romer v. Evans was wrongly decided in finding that participation in the political process was a fundamental right? Remember, it did not find a right to "gay political rights." It simply recognized that participation in the political process was a fundamental right and as such, it could not be abridged based upon sexual orientation.
Are you saying this was the wrong thing to do? After all, the Constitution doesn't mention "political process" anywhere in its text.
Are you saying "Lawrence v. Texas" was wrongly decided in finding that sexual privacy was a fundamental right? Remember, it did not find a right to "gay sex." It simply recognized that the sexual privacy was a fundamental right and as such, it could not be abridged based upon sexual orientation.
Are you saying this was the wrong thing to do? After all, the Constitution doesn't mention "sexual privacy" anywhere in its text.
Be specific. Were Loving v. Virginia, Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas wrongly decided?
quote:
I don't know how their neighbors' marriages should affect them.
But that's your argument for why the neighbors should be prevented from getting married. So how are they affected?
Be specific.
quote:
All I know is that many good people simply believe that the institution of marriage would suffer
Why do we care? Since when are rights denied simply because somebody else's feelings will be hurt? There are plenty of people who simply believe that the institution of marriage would suffer if we allow people of different races to marry (it's why the laws on the books against it were still present just a few years ago despite the Loving v. Virginia ruling.) And yet, we still decreed marriage to be a fundamental right that cannot be abridged based on race despite all the hurt feelings such a decision would cause (and still cause).
If it's a piece of crap when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
if the gays got their dainty little feet through the door.
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
quote:
Furthermore, I know that the gays won't be satisfied with only civil unions, even if they coved all their legal rights. They want the LAW to say they're "married."
Indeed. That's the only way to guarantee equality. Have you forgotten Brown v. Board of Education already? There is no such thing as "separate but equal." The contract of "civil union" can never be the same as the contract of "marriage" and, in fact, in every jurisdiction in which there is a "civil union," it is not equivalent to the contract of "marriage." The mere act of calling it something lese necessarily declares that it is something else. That's why the phrase is, "Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate." Those are different things.
The only way to guarantee equality is to have a single contract. The current contract is called "marriage." Surely your argument is semantic, is it? We should have to rewrite literally thousands of laws to come up with a new term that applies to everyone rather than leave everything as it is and simply recognize that the current contract applies to everyone?
quote:
You have never explained why legalizing civil unions for gays is insufficient to meet their legal needs.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? I have done nothing but. How many times have I said, directly to you, that "separate but equal" does not exist? How many times have I brought up, directly to you, the lesson of Brown v. Board of Education? How many times have I brought up the in RE case, directly to you, referring to its recognition that the California "civil union" is not equivalent to "marriage"? Same about the Vermont "civil union"?
Do you really need me to repeat our entire conversation together?
quote:
Therefore, your demands for "gay marriage" are nothing but temper tantrums. Go to your room.
What are we? Twelve?

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 64 by Fosdick, posted 06-16-2008 11:02 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Fosdick, posted 06-21-2008 11:46 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 176 by Coyote, posted 06-21-2008 12:51 PM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 174 of 519 (472230)
06-21-2008 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by New Cat's Eye
06-16-2008 12:32 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
In the eyes of the law, marriage is a social contract that has nothing to do with love.
Thus showing that you still haven't read any of the court decisions you've been shown. Marriage creates a "next of kin" relationship that overrides all others. It is not undertaken on a whim (unless you're straight and named "Spears").
But at any rate, let's follow this disingenuous claim: In the eyes of the law, marriage is a social contract that has everything to do with sex. Marriage is a contract that legitimizes a sexual relationship. That's why a marriage can be annulled if you don't consummate it. Note, an annulment means the marriage never existed in the first place. Thus, things like prenuptial agreement clauses that would trigger in the case of divorce do not trigger. There was no marriage.
That's why when the INS investigates what is commonly called a "marriage of convenience" between an American citizen and a foreign national, they investigate if the couple has had sex. If you haven't, that's a sign that the marriage isn't legitimate.
That's why if your spouse gets injured by a third party and loses sexual function, you can sue that third party for "loss of marital relations." That's why "lack of marital relations" is a legitimate cause for divorce. Heck, that's why we even have a phrase, "marital relations," in the first place.
Marriage is about a lot of things, but one of the things it is about is sex. That's why the rite of marriage is sealed with a sexual act (the kiss) and then the couple is sent off to have sex (the honeymoon).
quote:
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.
Whites are being denied having those things with a person of a different race 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 race.
If it's a piece of crap when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
By your logic, Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided. Is that your argument?
That's a direct question. I would like an answer:
Do you think Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?
quote:
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.
Huh? Marriage comes with rights. Many of those rights can only come via the contract of marriage. So if gay people can't get married, they are denied the ability to exercise those rights.
I am asking you nicely: Please don't play dumb. And please don't pretend that we're stupid.
quote:
What I'm arguing against is this notion that they are Unconstitutionally being denied rights and that we must allow gay marriage.
Marriage is a fundamental right. Or are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?
Gays cannot get married. Therefore, they are unconstitutionally being denied rights and we must allow same-sex marriage.
Why is your argument a piece of crap when applied to race but somehow legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
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.
Huh? By your logic, people can "get married" anyway. So what's to stop them from getting married to people of the opposite sex? By your logic, we need to stop gay people from getting married to anybody.
At any rate, your claim has already been shown to be false. If we let gay people get married, it's a financial win.
quote:
They could also try to change the way that it is decided who the person who makes those decisions is.
They are: It's called "marriage." Marriage creates a next-of-kin relationship that supercedes all others. And even if you grant power of attorney to someone else in an attempt to create a next-of-kin relationship, it can be overruled by your family it usurped on the grounds that you were somehow "coerced" despite being in a relationship with the other person for decades.
quote:
Or, they could just get the definition of marriage changed.
Incorrect. The definition of marriage doesn't change. It is simply recognized to apply to all without regard to sexual orientation.
Remember, Loving v. Virginia didn't find a right to "interracial marriage." The definition of marriage didn't change at all. It was simply recognized to apply to all without regard to race.
If your argument is a piece of crap when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
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.
You have been repeatedly asked very nicely not to play dumb.
At any rate, why is it you didn't bother to look it up before commenting on it? Why are you refusing to do your homework?
quote:
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.
Gay people don't have sex with straight people and vice versa. What sex do you think is going to happen?
Why is it so many straight people think that they are so attractive that gay people will be incapable of keeping their hands to themselves?

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 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2008 12:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024