Catholic Scientist responds to me
quote:
But it wasn't. The RIA said that whites can't marry non-whites. Not that marriage is of the same race.
Let's not play dumb. I keep on asking you this nicely. If a white person is not allowed to marry someone who isn't white, then that means the definition of "marriage" is the union of people of the same race.
quote:
It isn't applied to sexual orientation.
Then why can't gay people get married? You did read the in RE decision, yes? This assinine claim of yours that "sexual orientation has nothing to do with it" was tackled head on. It is, to put it mildly, disingenuous. The restriction on marriage is not on the basis of the sex of the participants. The reason it was overturned is not because it is a case of sex-based discrimination: A person, as a male, is being prevented from marrying someone that he could were he a female, for example.
No, the reason it was overturned is because it was denying marriage on the basis of sexual orientation. Straight people do not marry straight people of the same sex. The idea that the laws against same-sex marriage aren't based upon sexual orientation is fundamentally flawed.
You were given the references to look up the debate on the floors of Congress regarding it. Have you bothered to do your homework? Can you quote me what the elected officials were specifically saying?
quote:
It doesn't matter if you're gay or straight, marriage is to the opposite sex.
It doesn't matter if you're white or not, marriage is to the same race.
If it's a piece of crap argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
There aren't restrictions based on sexual orientation.
Since gay people cannot get married, your argument fails on inspection.
quote:
No, those cases were not decided incorrectly.
So if gay people cannot be denied their fundamental rights and laws cannot be written to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, then how is preventing gay people from getting married not a direct violation of Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and Loving v. Virginia?
Be specific. Even Scalia directly stated that Lawrence v. Texas necessarily requires same-sex marriage. Now, I will handily admit that Scalia isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but he's onto something here.
What do you know that he doesn't?
quote:
Its not the exact same.
It's precisely the same. Loving v. Virginia did not find a right to "interracial marriage." You are seemingly upset that there might be a right to "same-sex marriage." But no court found that. Instead, what was found was what Loving v. Virgina declared as well as Perez two decades before that:
There is only a right to "marriage."
Because that right is a fundamental right, it cannot be restricted on the basis of race (Loving v. Virginia) and thus the definition of marriage that it must be between people of the same race (whites can only marry other whites; let's not play dumb) is simply wrong. Race has nothing to do with the definition of marriage. It applies to all.
Because that right is a fundamental right, it cannot be restricted on the basis of sexual orientation (Lawrence v. Texas) and thus the definition of marriage that it must be between people of the opposite sex (only straights can marry; let's not play dumb) is simply wrong. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with the definition of marriage. It applies to all.
quote:
Marriage hasn't always been defined as between the same race as it has been between different sexes.
In California, it always has. You did read the in RE decision, did you not? I have quoted it I don't know how many times here. The very first legislative session of the brand new state of California codified into law that interracial marriage was null and void and any such marriages performed elsewhere in the country would not be recognized.
quote:
Loving v. Virginia declared the RIA to be unconstitutional, which it was, because it was restriction based on race.
Incorrect. Loving v. Virginia did not find a right to "interracial marriage." How many times do I have to repeat this before you remember it? Instead, it found a right simply to "marriage." Since it is a fundamental right and since fundamental rights cannot be abridged on the basis of race, it is unconstitutional to proscribe marriage as only being between people of the same race.
Do you seriously not understand? It has to do with the arrow of implication. You are starting with race and working your way back to marriage but that isn't what happened. Instead, the court started with
MARRIAGE and found that race was not a restriction.
Marriage is a fundamental right. It is something that everyone is entitled to. Putting restrictions based upon race on it is to abridge the right of marriage, not the right of "interracial marriage" as there is no such thing.
The exact same thing was stated in the in RE decision. You did read it, did you not? The court started with
MARRIAGE and found that sexual orientation was not a restriction.
Marriage is a fundamental right. It is something that everyone is entitled to. Putting restrictions based upon sexual orientation is to abridge the right of marraige, not the right of "same-sex marriage" as there is no such thing.
quote:
The same definition of marriage is applied equally to everyone and that is that it is between opposite sexes. There isn't anything unconstitutional about that.
But this argument is trivially proven false by simple inspection: Gay people can't get married. Therefore, the definition of marriage is not applied equally to everyone specifically because it requires mixed-sex couples. That is patently unconstitutional as Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas decided.
quote:
Of course not. We have a Constitution.
That's not what you said. You said you went with your gut. Are you trying to say your gut is the Constitution?
What is it about the Fourteenth Amendment that you are having such a hard time understanding? What is it about "equal treatment under the law" that you cannot grasp? If restrictions based upon race are violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, then how can restrictions based upon sexual orientation not be?
If it's a piece of crap argument when applied to race, how does it gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
If a right isn't there in the first place, then I'm not denying it. The Constitution doesn't grant people the right to have a marriage with someone of the same sex.
Indeed. It grants the right to have a marriage. How many times does this need to be told to you directly before you remember it? Loving v. Virginia did not find a right to "interracial marriage." It only found a right to "marriage." Because
MARRIAGE (not "interracial marriage") is the fundamental right, it cannot be abridged on the basis of the race of the participants.
But gay people aren't allowed to get married.
Ergo, their rights are being violated. If it's a crap argument when applied to race, how does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
No, they weren't.
Yes, they were. You did read the in RE decision, did you not? I've quoted it here over and over again. When are you going to do your homework?
quote:
Why type the same response into multiple messages?
Because you haven't answered it. Instead, you keep falling back to saying that the laws with respect to race are somehow illegitimate whereas the laws with respect to sexual orientation are somehow just fine.
quote:
Again, there is nothing WRT marriage that is applied to sexual orientation.
But your claim is trivially proven false by simple inspection: Gay people can't get married.
If it's a piece of crap when applied to race, how does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
Nope. The RIA was unconstitutional.
So if miscegenation laws are unconstitutional, how does DOMA gain legitimacy?
If it's a piece of crap when applied to race, how does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
Marriage is not abridge on the basis of sexual orientation.
But your claim is trivially proven false by simple inspection: Gay people can't get married.
If it's a piece of crap when applied to race, how does it suddenly gain legitimacy when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
I know why I'm being tagged a bigot. Its because my opponents are hateful idoits who would rather try to make me look bad than understand my actual position.
Right...it has nothing to do with your claim that there would be "ramifications" and "loop-holes" if we let gay people do what straight people already do. How is it that marriage does not cause you to go into apoplexy about "ramifications" and "loop-holes" when the people are of mixed sex? Just what is it you think gay people do that straight people don't?
Since you only hesitate when the couple is of the same sex, that necessarily means that you are drawing a distinction between them, seeking to find a justification for denying to them what you would demand for yourself.
That is the definition of bigotry.
Nobody can make you look bad. You do that for yourself.
quote:
I'm not saying that gay people are more likely to be criminals and scoundrels than straight people.
So why the sudden panic attack? Why the hesitation and wringing of hands over "ramifications" and "loop-holes"? Just what is it you think gay people are going to do that straight people don't already do? You seem to be saying that gay people are more likely to be criminals and scoundrels than straight people.
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
quote:
In fact, I'm really only worried about the straight people finding and exploiting loop-holes.
You don't believe that. If you did, you would be fighting against marriage in the first place. Since you only seem to come up with this argument when the subject is equal treatment under the law for those who aren't straight, it is clear that your concern is about the gay people.
But, let's go along with you playing dumb. Let's assume that you are worried that straight people will find "loop-holes." Just what are these "loop-holes" that you think will come with same-sex marriage? What is it you think gay people do that straight people don't already do?
Every single possible reason for two people to get married has already been carried out by straight people. What could gay people possibly add to the mix?
I don't ask it for my health. I really want an answer:
What is it you think gay people do that straight people don't already do?
quote:
What's the point in writing the same post into multiple messages?
Because you keep repeating the same refuted claims. Come up with a different argument and you'll get a different response.
quote:
I know why I'm being tagged a bigot. Its because my opponents are hateful idoits who would rather try to make me look bad than understand my actual position.
Right...it has nothing to do with your claim that there would be "ramifications" and "loop-holes" if we let gay people do what straight people already do. How is it that marriage does not cause you to go into apoplexy about "ramifications" and "loop-holes" when the people are of mixed sex? Just what is it you think gay people do that straight people don't?
Since you only hesitate when the couple is of the same sex, that necessarily means that you are drawing a distinction between them, seeking to find a justification for denying to them what you would demand for yourself.
That is the definition of bigotry.
Nobody can make you look bad. You do that for yourself.
quote:
I'm not saying that gay people are more likely to be criminals and scoundrels than straight people.
So why the sudden panic attack? Why the hesitation and wringing of hands over "ramifications" and "loop-holes"? Just what is it you think gay people are going to do that straight people don't already do? You seem to be saying that gay people are more likely to be criminals and scoundrels than straight people.
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
quote:
In fact, I'm really only worried about the straight people finding and exploiting loop-holes.
You don't believe that. If you did, you would be fighting against marriage in the first place. Since you only seem to come up with this argument when the subject is equal treatment under the law for those who aren't straight, it is clear that your concern is about the gay people.
But, let's go along with you playing dumb. Let's assume that you are worried that straight people will find "loop-holes." Just what are these "loop-holes" that you think will come with same-sex marriage? What is it you think gay people do that straight people don't already do?
Every single possible reason for two people to get married has already been carried out by straight people. What could gay people possibly add to the mix?
I don't ask it for my health. I really want an answer:
What is it you think gay people do that straight people don't already do?
See: If you don't come up with a new argument, you won't get a new response. Your point has been refuted. You have been asked some direct questions. It is now your responsibility to answer them should you wish the conversation to progress:
What is it you think gay people do that straight people don't already do?
quote:
Christ man, what is your problem?
The fact that you keep on ignoring direct questions put to you. The more you avoid them, the more you get asked them. If you want a different response, then come up with a different argument. Your points have been refuted. You need to come up with something else or you'll just get more of the same. You have been asked a direct question. You need to answer it or you'll just be asked it again.
quote:
Nope. Re-link them.
No, you do your own homework. You've been given the references. I can't make you read them. I can only point out how foolish you are making yourself look by arguing from a position of ignorance.
quote:
I probably read less than half of your posts.
And that's my fault...why? You can thread your own posts, you know. And at the bottom of every post, there are links to the specific posts that are a reply to them. Thus, it is trivial for you to read only those posts of mine that are in direct response to you.
Since I directly responded to you and gave you the references, why haven't you done your own homework? Is it really so hard for you to search for the Congressional debate on DOMA and read the comments for yourself?
quote:
quote:
quote:
You really can't think of any other reason?
There can be only one?
Huh?
Let's not play dumb. You don't remember your own argument?
Hint: It had to do with deerbreh's comment that DOMA was submitted for religious reasons. "If it isn't that, what is it?" "You really can't think of any other reason?" Etc.
No, while I did notice that my comment was a quote from
Highlander, that was only coincidence.
quote:
Whether or not it was for religious reasons isn't really that important to my position.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? You're arguing that the laws restricting marriage to only mixed-sex couples has nothing to do with sexual orientation and the fact that DOMA was submitted for religious purposes has nothing to do with it?
Just how stupid do you think we are?
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.
™ Version 4.2
