|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 02/08/2006 : 22:45:41 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: Well it is there own fault then. If they are trying to win the public over having decadence parades in broad daylight for all to see this is not the way to go about it.
(This should be fun.) Please explain how S&M is absolutely morally bad. Do you actually know anything about S&M culture? They are huge proponents of safe sex and communities often hold workshops and seminars to ensure that people don't do anything dangerous. The goal of the S&M culture is that everything is consensual and enjoyable for all of the only adults participating. And what is so bad about people wearing clothing that is just as revealing as one would see on a beach? Heck, what is so bad about the naked human body? I draw naked people in school all the time. Nothing absolutely immoral about nudity or scant clothing. Exactly what is hurtful about dancing to the YMCA in such skimpy clothing? You talk like there is something inherently wrong with all these activities, but can you support such a claim? Perhaps you have all sorts of silly stereotypes about S&M participants, like that the majority of them have HIV or AIDS and do cocaine all the time?
I have many friends in Columbus Ohio, most of whom are straight, and are involved in the thriving S&M culture there. Two are a married couple who live in the suburbs, have 2 young kids, the husband is a cop and the wife takes care of children. But on their own time, when the kids are with grandparents, they sometimes go to S&M balls and leather clubs. Please explain what is harmful in that? Why does the general public abhore S&M culture? Is it because of something real about S&M culture, or is it because the majority of Americans are totally ignorant of it and instead have silly, false stereotypes about S&M culture? And if it is because they are ignorant, then how could S&Mers change that view? By hiding, or by putting themselves out there fore the public to see?
The reason people go out into the street with bondage gear and such during Pride Festivals is because people like you keep assuming non-conventional sex culture is morally wrong, even when you have no evidence that the behavior is inherently destructive. And the reason the majority of conventional life-style gays don't eject S&Mers from their parades is because most gay communities are close-knit and thus they realize that the S&Mers are not actually moral deviants. They are normal and valuable citizens like most of us.
Personally, I find the way Amish and Orthodox Jews and Christian fundamentalists live to be perverted and unhealthy. But you don't see me trying to outlaw their way of life or saying they shouldn't be able to get married and have all the same rights as everyone else. I tolerate different lifestyles as long as they don't cause direct harm to unwilling bystanders or the property of unwilling bystanders. You apparently are not so tolerant, which would be fine if you could explain why.
Please, Bill, explain what is so harmful to society about two lesbians getting legally married? What is so harmful about the gay writers Dan Savage and David Sederis – the very opposite of a reckless sexually deviant gay men – getting legally married to their longtime partners? How does that hurt anyone, including themselves??? Please explain the absolute consequences for Steve Lofton and Roger Croteau – two gay men living in a long-term monogamous relationship and taking care of several adopted and foster children with HIV and AIDS? (See http://www.lethimstay.com/loftons.html) I don't see the universe or god or whatever divine force that enforces this supposed absolute morality coming down and smiting Lofton and Croteau. I do see bigots in Florida trying to take their son away from them, but I don't think the officials in Florida qualify as agents of god. (They are trying to take away Lofton and Croteau's foster son because after the baby boy who tested positive for HIV grew to be 10 years old, he s |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 22:55:31 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: Don't forget that they will be "pushing" their agenda and trying to "recruit" Bill, and his children, if they live next to him.
That is the root of Bill's bigoted mindset. He fears that his new homosexual neighbor will be able to recruit him. Bill, that is your own repressed homosexuality speaking. You can't be recruited man, you are or are not homosexual (yes, ignoring the shades between for brevity's sake).
Unless I missed it, Bill never said anything of the kind. Dude, Bill has indeed used many arguments that are textbook fundamentalist Christian arguments. But he's still an individual person, so you putting words of a flat stereotype into his mouth is just plain rude and doesn't lead to productive discussion of the topic. It just wastes everyone's time and makes you look like a jerk.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 23:04:15 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: Homosexuality is a lifestyle, not a race.
Actually it's neither. It is a sexual orientation.
It really bites my ass that people call homosexuality a “lifestyle”. A lot of gay people do it too. That totally twists the meaning of the word “lifestyle”. Dan Savage is married to his long-time partner and they adopted a kid, bought a house, live in the suburbs, and work normal jobs. Their lifestyle is completely conventional. The fact that he and his husband both have a y chromosome and penis does not a “lifestyle” make. Now, monks, priests, nuns, the homeless anarchist girl I know from school who sleeps on peoples' couches and eats out of garbage cans – those people are living alternative lifestyles.
Anyway, the reason we compare homosexuality to race is because both are states of being that the person doesn't choose. You say gays can get married if they do straight marriage, but that's like saying you could get married if gay marriage was your only option. Are you going to fall in love with a man because that's your only option? Of course not. That's ridiculous. And a homosexual is not going to fall in love with someone of the opposite sex just because that's more convenient in regards to the mainstream social moral current and laws. That is why I oppose the mainstream moral current and laws on this issue.
Why do you agree with the mainstream on this issue, Bill?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 23:10:52 [Permalink]
|
| Bill, Bill, please answer me! If morality is absolute and not relative, that means that there are consistent and equally measured consequences from on high whenever anyone breaks one of the absolute moral rules. So please, please, please, I beg of you on my hands and knees, tell me what such consequences that you see befalling lesbians and gay men who are not recklessly promiscuous? Pretty please? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 23:12:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
marfknox said:
Unless I missed it, Bill never said anything of the kind. Dude, Bill has indeed used many arguments that are textbook fundamentalist Christian arguments. But he's still an individual person, so you putting words of a flat stereotype into his mouth is just plain rude and doesn't lead to productive discussion of the topic. It just wastes everyone's time and makes you look like a jerk.
I am a jerk. It is a character flaw I strive to ammend.
Or maybe I am merely percieved as a jerk due to a blunt style of writing.
Or maybe.... is there some point to calling me a jerk?
But Bill has set the tone for this debate. If he is allowed to fabricate, straw-man, fake statistics, red herring, non-sequitur, and all those other fallacies of logic he applies in his every post... then so am I.
He is obviously immune to reason and evidence, as has been apparent for quite some time now. While I would agree that it is worthwhile to pick him apart and illustrate his inability to think rationally, there comes a point when even the non-posting audience has probably stopped reading Bill's tiresome dreck.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2006 : 23:18:17 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrpte: If he is allowed to fabricate, straw-man, fake statistics, red herring, non-sequitur, and all those other fallacies of logic he applies in his every post... then so am I.
What was it that Ghandi said? "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Goodness, that sounds dramatic, doesn't it? Well, anyway, I didn't call you a jerk. I said you come off like a jerk. Fine distinction, I know. I am really wasting way too much time on this forum. *deep sigh* |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/08/2006 23:18:35 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 03:51:32 [Permalink]
|
It ain't no big deal. Like most -- indeed, one might state: all -- who come here to rant and/or troll, Bill is strictly a one-trick pony. Further, I suspect that, as old habits die hard, he has again used the writings of another without attribution. This doesn't look like his style:
quote:
Marriage has been interpreted as man and women from the founding of this nation and has been interpreted as such ever since. It is the basis for our society. Because of leftist judges who were trying to reinterpret the definition of a marriage and make same sex marriage legal, In 1996 the house and senate overwhelmingly passed the DOMA and then Bill Clinton signed it into law.
• First, it allows each state to deny any marriage-like relationship between persons of the same sex which has been recognized in another state.
• Second, it explicitly recognizes for purposes of federal law that marriage is "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" and by stating that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
Congressional proponents assert authority to enact the law under the FFC of the United States Constitution with the purpose to normalize heterossexual marriage on a federal level and permit each state to decide for itself whether to recognize "same sex union" if other states did recognize same-sex unions. Forty states have enacted laws denying the recognition of same-sex marriages, which is more than the needed number of states required to amend the United States Constitution. Six states currently have established laws recognizing some form of same-sex unions, and twelve states ban any recognition of same-sex unions including civil unions.
Clinton said: " I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."
In Nov 2004 the issue of gay marriage was given to the voters in 13 states. All 13 rejected the same sex marriage, including Oreagon. The Federal gov. has spoken, the state gov. has spoken, and the American voters have spoken. WE DON'T WANT TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE. MARRIAGE WAS/IS/WILL ALWAYS BE BETWEEN MAN AND WOMEN.
The 14th does not apply as no adult is being denied marriage. If they care to abide by the the federal laws and definition of marriage, if they care to follow the states laws and defenitions of marriage, then they have every legal right to get married. Rights are only being denied if the definition of marriage is “these two people”. The legal definition is “a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" and by stating that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
From the above: quote:
Clinton said: " I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."
In Nov 2004 the issue of gay marriage was given to the voters in 13 states. All 13 rejected the same sex marriage, including Oreagon. The Federal gov. has spoken, the state gov. has spoken, and the American voters have spoken. WE DON'T WANT TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE. MARRIAGE WAS/IS/WILL ALWAYS BE BETWEEN MAN AND WOMEN.
Ok, so?
We evolve socially as well as physically, one way or another. It is a mistake to state: "WILL ALWAYS BE...." Nothing will "always be," not governments, not countries, not even our species nor our planet, nor, as has been conjectured, even our u |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 06:04:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Bill wrote: I don't think the general public has a problem with interracial marriage...
You are going to make me tear my hair out, aren't you? I did not say that the general public of TODAY had a problem with interracial marriage. Interracial marriage was once illegal in America. It once didn't have enough public support to even be legal. That did change as racism slowly lessened in America. So, yes, the general public does not have a problem with interracial marriage anymore. My whole point (which you totally missed) was that SOMETHING BEING TRADITIONAL IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON BY ITSELF TO KEEP IT AROUND. In Korea they have a tradition - that is much older than 200 years - of torturing dogs to death and then eating them in order to protect men from impotence. Should they keep doing it today even though science has shown it doesn't work and it is cruel to animals? After all, it is a longstanding tradition.
See, tradition alone is not a good reason for anything.
So, yes, the general public does not have a problem with interracial marriage anymore.
(bill) The 14th was established to protect a race of people. If a interracial couple, consisting of a man and a women, were to be denied marriage on the interracial basis, then this violated the 14th, which was established to protect just that, a race of people.
My whole point (which you totally missed) was that SOMETHING BEING TRADITIONAL IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON BY ITSELF TO KEEP IT AROUND.
(bill) Ummm, marriage between man and women is not a "tradition" here sister. It is the basic foundation of this great nation. Our society and country have prospered and grown at a astounding rate for such a young country. Why would we now want to change the foundation after the building has already been built? And if the building is a mighty and strong building, why would we tear it down now to put it in a altered foundation? The federal Gov. has spoken, the state Gov.'s have spoken, the American voters have spoken, we don't think the current foundation is broke, therefor we are not going to attempt to fix it.
Now look, 13 states put the issue to ballot in 2004 and 13 voted down gay marriage. Oregon was among one of those states who turned down gay marriage! This should be a serious red flag for the cause. If gay marriage were forced on the American people in defiance of federal law, state law, and the will of the American people there would be serious problems in our nation. This goes way beyond blue and red states, dem or repub. Bill Clinton is against gay marriage! Oregon is against gay marriage! Gay marriage has been checkmated in the legal square so the cause try's to use a few leftist judges on the east and left coast to deify federal and state law, as well as the will of the American people, and force gay marriage on a entire country who does not want it. That is what it has come down to. The American people will never except it, especially if some unelected loon judge in mass. is trying to tell them they have to except it. I don't see it ever happening....
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 06:36:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by nescafe
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
We had a discussion about that very law here a while ago. It not only makes domestic partnerships in which the same benefits and duties are transferred, but it also effectively opts out of reciprocation between states so that they will not have to recognize a same sex marriage performed in another state.
pointer to thread?
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5355
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 06:41:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My whole point (which you totally missed) was that SOMETHING BEING TRADITIONAL IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON BY ITSELF TO KEEP IT AROUND.
Yes, I will agree. In fact, tradition is just another set of chains....
And there you go, using the 'n' word again. Are you prescient that you can see the future when you pay so little attention to the past? If so, Randi, when he gets his health back, will have a million for you when you prove it.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 06:49:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
All adults have the right to get married. The excepted definition of marriage has always been between a man and a women, and the states one by one will confirm this. The gays don't except the definition of marriage so they dismiss themselves, not the other way around. If they want to get married they can get married. They just have follow the definition of marriage which is man and a women. They refuse to abide by the legal definition so they dismiss themselves from the equation. If I go to the dept of motor vehicles to get a permit the state will ask me to take a test. It is required to get a permit. If I refuse to follow the states requirements then the state will not give me a driver permit. The state has not denied me a driver permit. I lost my right to get a drivers permit because I refused to comply. No adult is denied marriage unless they refuses what is required in marriage. Right now the state and the public say that it is a man and a women. So the gays are denied nothing they just refuses to comply to the definition of marriage. They seek to redefine the institution of marriage not join it. If they choose to join it they must comply to the definition of marriage.
Yup. It was funny.
Again, you have ignored very important points in order to focus on flawed premises and made false analogies.
1) The definition of marriage is not fixed in all aspects. Again, interracial marriages were forbidden by law in several states. These were overturned due to 14th Amendment problems. Same sex marriage is no different.
2) Driving is a priveledge, not a right. Marriage is a civil contract which is enforcable by law. To deny it to same sex couples violates their equal protection as there are no fewer than 1,138 seperate benefits to marriage which are unobtainable by same sex couples.
3) Right now popular opinion defines marriage between a man and a woman. That is morality. The state has laws enacted which are not as specific (read them, Bill. They aren't.), but have consistantly been applied to different sex couples and denied to same sex couples. Therein lies your 14th Amendment problem which you still have not justified.
Marriage has been interpreted as man and women from the founding of this nation and has been interpreted as such ever since. It is the basis for our society. Because of leftist judges who were trying to reinterpret the definition of a marriage and make same sex marriage legal, In 1996 the house and senate overwhelmingly passed the DOMA and then Bill Clinton signed it into law.
Not leftist judges. Ones that saw the problem with the 14th Amendment as it related to same sex couples. Yes, DOMA was passed, it has yet to be challenged in court. That day is coming. With successes in MA, the chance for a challenge to DOMA has increased. It also does not change the WORDING of the law.
quote:
• First, it allows each state to deny any marriage-like relationship between persons of the same sex which has been recognized in another state.
• Second, it explicitly recognizes for purposes of federal law that marriage is "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and w |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 02/09/2006 07:08:06 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 07:57:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
All adults have the right to get married. The excepted definition of marriage has always been between a man and a women, and the states one by one will confirm this. The gays don't except the definition of marriage so they dismiss themselves, not the other way around. If they want to get married they can get married. They just have follow the definition of marriage which is man and a women. They refuse to abide by the legal definition so they dismiss themselves from the equation. If I go to the dept of motor vehicles to get a permit the state will ask me to take a test. It is required to get a permit. If I refuse to follow the states requirements then the state will not give me a driver permit. The state has not denied me a driver permit. I lost my right to get a drivers permit because I refused to comply. No adult is denied marriage unless they refuses what is required in marriage. Right now the state and the public say that it is a man and a women. So the gays are denied nothing they just refuses to comply to the definition of marriage. They seek to redefine the institution of marriage not join it. If they choose to join it they must comply to the definition of marriage.
Yup. It was funny.
Again, you have ignored very important points in order to focus on flawed premises and made false analogies.
1) The definition of marriage is not fixed in all aspects. Again, interracial marriages were forbidden by law in several states. These were overturned due to 14th Amendment problems. Same sex marriage is no different.
2) Driving is a priveledge, not a right. Marriage is a civil contract which is enforcable by law. To deny it to same sex couples violates their equal protection as there are no fewer than 1,138 seperate benefits to marriage which are unobtainable by same sex couples.
3) Right now popular opinion defines marriage between a man and a woman. That is morality. The state has laws enacted which are not as specific (read them, Bill. They aren't.), but have consistantly been applied to different sex couples and denied to same sex couples. Therein lies your 14th Amendment problem which you still have not justified.
Marriage has been interpreted as man and women from the founding of this nation and has been interpreted as such ever since. It is the basis for our society. Because of leftist judges who were trying to reinterpret the definition of a marriage and make same sex marriage legal, In 1996 the house and senate overwhelmingly passed the DOMA and then Bill Clinton signed it into law.
Not leftist judges. Ones that saw the problem with the 14th Amendment as it related to same sex couples. Yes, DOMA was passed, it has yet to be challenged in court. That day is coming. With successes in MA, the chance for a challenge to DOMA has increased. It also does not change the WORDING of the law.
quote:
• First, it allows each state to deny any marriage-like relationship between persons of the same sex which has been |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 08:18:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The American people say no. We like it just the way it was/is/and will always be.
And there you go again.
Upon what basis do you make this preposterous 'will always be' claim?
Read your history, Bill. Nothing will always be; not the country; not the churchs; and not social mores. I think that in the next 20 or so years, legally sanctioned gay unions will be fairly commonplace, and in the next 50 to 75, scarcly worthy of comment.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 08:29:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
The American people say no. We like it just the way it was/is/and will always be.
And there you go again.
Upon what basis do you make this preposterous 'will always be' claim?
Read your history, Bill. Nothing will always be; not the country; not the churchs; and not social mores. I think that in the next 20 or so years, legally sanctioned gay unions will be fairly commonplace, and in the next 50 to 75, scarcly worthy of comment.
Your welcome to any opinion you choose... |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2006 : 08:49:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Not leftist judges. Ones that saw the problem with the 14th Amendment as it related to same sex couples.
(bill) These few "judges" don't see the same interpretation as, oh let's say, the federal gov. state gov., oh, and the will of the voting people. For 200+ years the bench recognized marriage as between a man and a women. Marriage is legally defined as between a man and a women. There are plenty of judges still on the bench who see this as totally legal and can come to the same conclusion that 200+ years of other judges have concluded. A few leftist loon judges in mass. or Vermont, or a crackpot mayor in San Fran are not going to force gay marriage on mainstream usa and get away with it. At least not for very long.
I assume you've heard of separation of powers, Bill? Look it up.
quote:
Yes, DOMA was passed, it has yet to be challenged in court. That day is coming. With successes in MA, the chance for a challenge to DOMA has increased. It also does not change the WORDING of the law.
(bill) The 2004 election should be an eye opener. Yes only 13 states voted it down, only 13 voted. If you can't get Oregon to jump on board then you are toast in the mild blue and red states who have yet had the chance to decide the matter.
What part of "the law is not a popularity contest" do you not understand?
quote:
Stipulated that DOMA says this. It does not change the 14th Amendment.
(bill) Right, and no one is denying any adult marriage. Follow fed. law, state law, and get married today.
Same sex couples need not apply. Clear 14th Amendment issue.
quote:
Source for your 40 state denying same sex marriages? None? Why should I believe you?
(bill) Because you know that it is true.
You've lied before, why should I believe you? No, I don't know that it's true. And this little statement here makes me doubt it even more strongly.
quote:
And secondly, this has anything to do with the 14th Amendment problems.... how?
(bill) What 14th problems?
Yes, Clinton said this. So fucking what.
(bill) I am simply pointing out that the issue transcends blue state and red state, dem or repub. to counter your assertion that a reason for this was a majority of the 13 states were red. If Bill Clinton and Oregon reject gay marriage then this is major blow to the cause as even one of the most lib prezz and one of the most lib blue states have rejected the notion.
Lessee, I point out that the sample you trot out is not representative. So you counter, not with polls, but with a single opinion. This does not approach being a mosquito bite on the ass of the cause. The polls do not bear your assertion out and the law is not a popularity contest.
quote:
The rule of law does not buckle under to mob rule. Check out Article VI of the Constitution.
(bill) Nor do federal and state law, as well as the will of the people, buckle under the weight of a few loony leftist judges trying to dictate law from the bench.
Gee, it's only in their job description. Again, read up on seperation of powers.
quote:
The 14th Amendment is not limited to just racial issues. No matter what the justification was for enacting it, the verbiage clearly states that no citizen shall be denied equal protection under the law. DOMA clearly violates that. The law is not a popularity contest.
(bill) Nope! Any adult who wants to participate in the civil contract know as marriage can do so. What they have been denied is the right to redefine the established institution of marriage and this not a violation of 14th.
Again, same sex couples need not apply. They have been denied equal protection under the law by being denied access to the 1,138 benefits of marriage which cannot be conferred onto domestic partnerships. It is unequal protection under the law no matter how you try to spin it.
quote:
And homosexuality is not a lifestyle. It's a sexual identity. Thug is a lifestyle. Biker is a lifestyle. And yet the 14th Amendment applies to these people as well. They all get equal treatment under the law.
(bill) I kill a heterosexual I will go to jail. If I kill a homosexual I will go to jail. They are protected.
What gay marriage seeks is special treatment to be able to redefine marriage. Of coarse the polygamy group wants to redefine it as well. As well as the bestiality group and whatever other alternative lifestyle should come down the pipe. The American people say no. We like it just the way it was/is/and will always be.
Again, the law is not a popularity contest. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
