Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 2:22 AM
24 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (5 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,793 Year: 9,829/19,786 Month: 2,251/2,119 Week: 287/724 Day: 12/114 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
303132
33
3435Next
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 481 of 519 (474723)
07-10-2008 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 477 by FliesOnly
07-10-2008 9:53 AM


quote:
Catholic Scientist and many others are called bigots because they do not want two people of the same sex to be allowed to marry each other. They deny homosexuals the same rights that they themselves are afforded. See...they're intolerant. It's OK to not agree with same sex marriage. It's when you want to deny marriage to homosexuals that you become a bigot.


i think Catholic Scientist just wants to define the word. as do i. that is not bigotry or denying rights. what about the intolerance of someone else's defintion of a word, because it is a defferent definition than yours?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by FliesOnly, posted 07-10-2008 9:53 AM FliesOnly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by rueh, posted 07-10-2008 11:59 AM Artemis Entreri has responded
 Message 485 by FliesOnly, posted 07-10-2008 12:02 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 2317 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 482 of 519 (474724)
07-10-2008 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 479 by New Cat's Eye
07-10-2008 10:07 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:

Actually, I've posted multiple times now that I don't care if gay people get married.

Let me get this straight. You don't care if two people of the same sex get married? Actually married. Not a civil union...but married?

You're against DOMA. You don't agree with States passing new laws, redefining marriage, or amending their Constitutions to disallow gay marriage. You have been actively trying to repeal such laws and new definitions and have certainly spoken out and/or written your State and Federal Congressmen as well as you State and Federal Senators telling them that you are against any such bans on gay marriage.

Do I have this correct?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-10-2008 10:07 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-10-2008 12:02 PM FliesOnly has responded

rueh
Member (Idle past 1833 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 483 of 519 (474726)
07-10-2008 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 481 by Artemis Entreri
07-10-2008 11:44 AM


Ok how is this. If the concern revolves around having to redefine a word. In any area that list the defintion as husband and wife, include or any combination of the above TWO. There, the simpilist way to define marriage that can include same sex couples while leaving out all the strawmen like polygamy or pedophiles.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-10-2008 11:44 AM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-10-2008 12:11 PM rueh has responded

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 484 of 519 (474727)
07-10-2008 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 480 by ramoss
07-10-2008 11:03 AM


Re: Consti-2-shun
quote:
Of course, the federal constitution take precedence over the individual state constitutions. For example, South Carolina removed the ban for interracial marriage from their constitution in 1998, 103 years after it was made unenforceable because of a supreme court ruling.

not in every case. In recent case of D.C. vs. Heller, had the SCOTUS ruled in favor of "collective" gun rights over "individual" gun rights, then the USA would have effectively violated its agreement with the state of Montana's statehood contract, and therefore made Montana its own seperate self-governing nation. the feds cannot do what ever they want.

people have the right of self determination in the form of local government, as it is clearly expressed in the declaration of independence. if the federal government violates this then it is violating its own rules, and stripping itself of any validity.

and it shouldn't in rules that are left up to the states, such as marriage.

quote:

Should the supreme court jump in, and take a stand, it could be the Defense of Marriage act and the various state constitutions can be made
obsolete in their stance.

only if they are ready to be the cause of the 2nd american civil war

quote:

The fact you were from Missouri does explain a lot.


yeah we are big fans of liberty and freedom.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by ramoss, posted 07-10-2008 11:03 AM ramoss has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 491 by subbie, posted 07-10-2008 5:02 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 2317 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 485 of 519 (474729)
07-10-2008 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by Artemis Entreri
07-10-2008 11:44 AM


Artemis Entreri writes:

i think Catholic Scientist just wants to define the word. as do i. that is not bigotry or denying rights. what about the intolerance of someone else's defintion of a word, because it is a defferent definition than yours?

Look, this really isn't that difficult. As long as I am not actively trying to prevent you from expressing your definition, then it is not bigotry. Now, keep in mind that that doesn't really allow you to make up a definition just to suit your fancy. I mean, you can't just redefine bigotry to mean simply a matter of disagreeing with someone, and not expect me to call you out on it.

Edited by FliesOnly, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-10-2008 11:44 AM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 487 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-10-2008 12:07 PM FliesOnly has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 486 of 519 (474730)
07-10-2008 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 482 by FliesOnly
07-10-2008 11:52 AM


Let me get this straight. You don't care if two people of the same sex get married? Actually married. Not a civil union...but married?

Right, I don't care.

You're against DOMA.

I think DOMA accurately defines the word "marrige" as it was understood to be when the 1000+ laws were written that explicitly use the word "marriage".

I'm not against it.

You don't agree with States passing new laws, redefining marriage, or amending their Constitutions to disallow gay marriage.

They're not REdefining it :rolleyes:

If a state wants to allow or disallow gay marriage, then that's their prerogative.

You have been actively trying to repeal such laws and new definitions and have certainly spoken out and/or written your State and Federal Congressmen as well as you State and Federal Senators telling them that you are against any such bans on gay marriage.

Nope. I've done absolutely nothing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by FliesOnly, posted 07-10-2008 11:52 AM FliesOnly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by FliesOnly, posted 07-11-2008 7:09 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 487 of 519 (474732)
07-10-2008 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 485 by FliesOnly
07-10-2008 12:02 PM


As long as I am not actively trying to prevent you from expressing your definition, then it is not bigotry.

I'm not actively trying to prevent gay people from getting married, but ZOMFG!!! I'm arguing on them Internets!1! IMMA horriblez fucking bigot... O NOES! :rolleyes:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by FliesOnly, posted 07-10-2008 12:02 PM FliesOnly has not yet responded

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 488 of 519 (474734)
07-10-2008 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 483 by rueh
07-10-2008 11:59 AM


quote:
Ok how is this. If the concern revolves around having to redefine a word. In any area that list the defintion as husband and wife, include or any combination of the above TWO. There, the simpilist way to define marriage that can include same sex couples while leaving out all the strawmen like polygamy or pedophiles.

yeah let the people decide the definitions in thier own states. if more people in my state want to say marriage is between tow people reguardless of gender, then guess what? im for it.

pedophile is a realative term to some degree. age of consent laws very state by state (because the states make thier own rules reguarding marriage). Take the socalled polygamists at the YFZ ranch in Texas who were marrying girls at age 14. this could be pedophillia in another state, but in Texas the age of consent is 14 (with parental permission).

Polygamy is not really an issue, because those people who practice it only have one leagal wife, the other wives are spiritual marriages accepted by the community, and not recognized by the state, so really they are doing nothing wrong. unless of course you support adultery laws, but then i would find it odd you support adultery laws when you are not a fan of sodomy laws that supposedly discriminate between same sex partners. I think neither the sodomy laws nor the adultery laws are really enforced anymore, though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by rueh, posted 07-10-2008 11:59 AM rueh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by rueh, posted 07-10-2008 12:32 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

rueh
Member (Idle past 1833 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 489 of 519 (474738)
07-10-2008 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 488 by Artemis Entreri
07-10-2008 12:11 PM


Just to clarify your fact it is 14 in Texas so long as the other party is 17. The actual age of consent is 17. Age of consent by State I just threw the last sentence in there because I have seen that argument brought up so many times already. Thought I might be able to preempt it.

Edited by rueh, : Man I am terrible at spelling. Thank god for F7


This message is a reply to:
 Message 488 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-10-2008 12:11 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 490 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-10-2008 12:44 PM rueh has not yet responded

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 490 of 519 (474742)
07-10-2008 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 489 by rueh
07-10-2008 12:32 PM


quote:
Just to clarify your fact it is 14 in Texas so long as the other party is 17. The actual age of consent is 17. Age of consent by State I just threw the last sentence in there because I have seen that argument brought up so many times already. Thought I might be able to preempt it.

my bad. you are right. i said the wrong thing. you are right as far as sexual consent goes, though its interesting that in texas it is only between a male and female (as per your link).

since we were talking about marriage, i got my marriage laws and consent laws mixed up.

From wikepedia:

quote:
Texas: 18, 16 with parental consent. 14 with judicial consent or if person under 18 had previously married and divorced.

I meant marriage then intercourse, sorry to make such a broad assumption. these young girls are getting married 1st.

also its deiffernt in the various counties within a state, and i made the assumption that it was the whole state. my bad again.

but still you can get married at 14, and then as a married person engage in intercourse legally, in TX at 14.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by rueh, posted 07-10-2008 12:32 PM rueh has not yet responded

subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 491 of 519 (474760)
07-10-2008 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by Artemis Entreri
07-10-2008 12:00 PM


Re: Consti-2-shun
quote:
not in every case.

Yes, in every case. That's what the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means.

(Some stuff about Montana, that does raise some fascinating legal issues, off topic on this thread.)

quote:
people have the right of self determination in the form of local government, as it is clearly expressed in the declaration of independence. if the federal government violates this then it is violating its own rules, and stripping itself of any validity.

No. The Declaration of Independence is of no legal effect, and guarantees nobody any rights against the federal government.

quote:
and it shouldn't in rules that are left up to the states, such as marriage.

So then I assume you would be against a federal Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

However, even in this statement you are still wrong. This issue was decided 41 years ago in Loving v. Virginia. While the regulation of marriage is traditionally a matter for the states, they cannot have laws that run afoul of the Constitution.

quote:
only if they are ready to be the cause of the 2nd american civil war

I doubt it would come to that. After all, requiring the states to recognize gay marriage wouldn't change one single heterosexual marriage. I doubt that people would go to war over something that wouldn't demonstrably change their lives in any way.

quote:
yeah we are big fans of liberty and freedom.

I spent 7 years in Misery. You can have it.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-10-2008 12:00 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-10-2008 11:11 PM subbie has responded

Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2401 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 492 of 519 (474785)
07-10-2008 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 491 by subbie
07-10-2008 5:02 PM


Re: Consti-2-shun
quote:
So then I assume you would be against a federal Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.


yep.

quote:
I doubt it would come to that. After all, requiring the states to recognize gay marriage wouldn't change one single heterosexual marriage. I doubt that people would go to war over something that wouldn't demonstrably change their lives in any way.


i was typing WRT the supreme courts making state constitutions obsolete, sorry for the vagueness i will spell everything out for you in the future.

quote:
I spent 7 years in Misery. You can have it.


i will and i'll take a real baseball team like the cardinals too ;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by subbie, posted 07-10-2008 5:02 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by subbie, posted 07-11-2008 8:20 AM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 2317 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 493 of 519 (474807)
07-11-2008 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 486 by New Cat's Eye
07-10-2008 12:02 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

Right, I don't care.

I find this a bit difficult to swallow. Your next quote is the reason why I find this difficult to swallow.

Catholic Scientist writes:

I think DOMA accurately defines the word "marrige" as it was understood to be when the 1000+ laws were written that explicitly use the word "marriage".

I'm not against it.

You, on the one hand, claim that you're fine with two guys getting married...married in exactly the same way the two members of the opposite sex can get married. And then on the other hand, you claim to be in support of a law that prevents two guys from getting married. Do you not see any contradictory behavior here?

Catholic Scientist writes:

They're not REdefining it.

Prior to DOMA and all of the "new" States laws the now define marriage as being between one man and one women, the laws didn't define them as such. Therefore, two guys could get married. Homophobes got their panties all in a bunch over the idea of two guys getting married and changed the definitions of marriage to specifically prevent such a terrible thing from happening. How is that not redefining marriage? It now says something that it previously did not.

Catholic Scientist writes:

If a state wants to allow or disallow gay marriage, then that's their prerogative.

Not according to that stupid, pain in the ass Constitution that you seem to be forgetting about.

Catholic Scientist writes:

Nope. I've done absolutely nothing.

Yeah...that's the point. To sit there are say that because you are not actually, physically doing something to stop this homophobic discrimination, that you are somehow or another absolved of being called a bigot is a bit of a stretch of the definition of bigotry, don't you think? Especially in light of your admission that you support DOMA and your belief that States should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to accept or recognize gay marriage.

You just seem to be a big bag of contradictions.

You want to allow gay marriage
Yet, you support laws the prevent gay marriage

You don't consider yourself a bigot because you don't "actively" prevent gays from getting married.
Yet, you also don't 'actively" do anything that would allow for gay marriage.

You support our Constitution.
Yet, you say it's OK for States to ignore it and set their own marriage laws.

Strange.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-10-2008 12:02 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-11-2008 9:54 AM FliesOnly has responded

subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 494 of 519 (474811)
07-11-2008 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 492 by Artemis Entreri
07-10-2008 11:11 PM


Re: Consti-2-shun
quote:
i was typing WRT the supreme courts making state constitutions obsolete, sorry for the vagueness i will spell everything out for you in the future.

Oh, silly me. I thought you were saying something relevant to the real world. My mistake. The Supreme Court is no more likely to make state constitutions obsolete than you are to learn correct capitalization.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-10-2008 11:11 PM Artemis Entreri has not yet responded

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 495 of 519 (474824)
07-11-2008 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 493 by FliesOnly
07-11-2008 7:09 AM


You, on the one hand, claim that you're fine with two guys getting married...married in exactly the same way the two members of the opposite sex can get married. And then on the other hand, you claim to be in support of a law that prevents two guys from getting married. Do you not see any contradictory behavior here?

Nope, they’re not mutually exclusive. Supporting DOMA doesn’t necessitate that I not be fine with two guys getting married and being fine with two guys getting married doesn’t necessitate that I oppose DOMA.
Prior to DOMA and all of the "new" States laws the now define marriage as being between one man and one women, the laws didn't define them as such. Therefore, two guys could get married.

Except, they couldn’t. They needed legislation and/or judicial interpretation in order to get married.
Homophobes got their panties all in a bunch over the idea of two guys getting married and changed the definitions of marriage to specifically prevent such a terrible thing from happening.

They’re not necessarily afraid of gays. What they feared was one state being forced to recognize the marriage from another.
How is that not redefining marriage? It now says something that it previously did not.

What it says now is the same as what it previously meant.
Catholic Scientist writes:

If a state wants to allow or disallow gay marriage, then that's their prerogative.

Not according to that stupid, pain in the ass Constitution that you seem to be forgetting about.

Maybe by your interpretation but not by mine. Its up to the SCOTUS.
Catholic Scientist writes:

Nope. I've done absolutely nothing.

Yeah...that's the point. To sit there are say that because you are not actually, physically doing something to stop this homophobic discrimination, that you are somehow or another absolved of being called a bigot is a bit of a stretch of the definition of bigotry, don't you think? Especially in light of your admission that you support DOMA and your belief that States should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to accept or recognize gay marriage.

I don’t think its homophobic discrimination. Marriage has always been between one man and one woman, that’s what it is. A guy can’t marry a toaster because it’s impossible. That isn’t discrimination against toastersexuals. Now, if some state wants to change their definition of marriage so that a guy can marry a toaster, then I don’t really care. But the Constitution doesn’t demand that all the other states have to allow toastersexual marriages as well.

You just seem to be a big bag of contradictions.

You’re just misunderstanding me.
You want to allow gay marriage
Yet, you support laws the prevent gay marriage

I have no desire to allow gay marriage.

You don't consider yourself a bigot because you don't "actively" prevent gays from getting married.
Yet, you also don't 'actively" do anything that would allow for gay marriage.

Doing nothing is not doing something.

You support our Constitution.
Yet, you say it's OK for States to ignore it and set their own marriage laws.

States wouldn’t be ignoring it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by FliesOnly, posted 07-11-2008 7:09 AM FliesOnly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by FliesOnly, posted 07-11-2008 10:57 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

RewPrev1
...
303132
33
3435Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019