|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay marriage and the law | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I'm having a hard time believing that separate could ever be equal. I'm not saying separate but equal -- everyone can have a civil union. That is the only legal option. All it amounts to is a legal contract, for mutual support, registered with the state. Such contracts can also be dissolved by mutual consent or buy-out (with result registered). People can also have a religious ceremony at the church of their choice to make additional vows, celebrate, etc. That part is optional for anyone (and you can always start a church if you can't find one you like eh?) Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4045 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
The LAW says, without invoking any religious connotations, that homosexuality is an abomination. Immediately back up that statement or retract.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Naturally, I assume you are exempt from projecting bias...?
I wish! You are of course free to your opinion, you just shouldn't be able to oppose your opinion on others. You can marry the love of your life, but gay people can't? That is clearly discriminatory.
I just busted 4 out of 5 Danish sailors with child pornography. Nevertheless, child abuse remains illegal in Denmark, and those sailors are more likely to be greeted with revulsion than mass demonstrations of public support, so your prediction is looking pretty shaky. I like your photo by the way. Which one is you? Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You can marry the love of your life, but gay people can't? That is clearly discriminatory. Anybody can enter the contract of marriage. "Gay people" is not some group that is discriminated from entering the contract. The contract, however, must be between a man and a women. Its not discriminatory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2669 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Immediately back up that statement or retract. Second. Chapter and verse, please. Here is a site that has links to all 50 states' statutes. http://www.prairienet.org/~scruffy/f.htm Here is a site for federal statutes. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/uscode/index.html Put up or shut up, Juggs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4045 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
Anybody can enter the contract of marriage. "Gay people" is not some group that is discriminated from entering the contract. The contract, however, must be between a man and a women. Its not discriminatory. "Anybody can enter the contract of marriage. "Black people" is not some group that is discriminated from entering the contract. The contract, however, must be between people of the same race. It's not discriminatory." I fixed it for you. Are you still not getting it, CS? Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2669 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Anybody can enter the contract of marriage. "Gay people" is not some group that is discriminated from entering the contract. The contract, however, must be between a man and a women. Its not discriminatory. Nope. Sorry, CS. Your ahistorical notions of what constitutes "marriage" are way off base. Please read Message 27. Marriage has been defined in a myriad of ways -- including "third genders", polygamy, polyandry, etc.
What anthropologists have learned is that from a global, cross-cultural perspective, “marriage” is in the first place extremely difficult, some would say impossible, to define. One anthropologist, Edmund Leach tried to define marriage in his 1955 article “Polyandry, Inheritance and the Definition of Marriage” published in MAN. Leach quickly gave up this task, concluding that no definition could cover all the varied institutions that anthropologists regularly consider as marriage. It is true that virtually every society in the world has an institution that is very tempting to label as “marriage,” but these institutions simply do not share common characteristics. There are cases of legitimate same-sex marriages as, for example, woman-woman marriage among the Nuer and some other African groups. Here, a barren woman divorces her husband, takes another woman as her wife, and arranges for a surrogate to impregnate this woman. Any children from this arrangement become members of the barren woman’s natal patrilineage and refer to the barren woman as their father. Among some Native American groups, males who preferred to live as women (berdache) adopted the names and clothing of women and often became wives of other men.
Unable to Find Content
If a law is written so that it excludes, by definition, a group of people, then no, not "anybody" can get married. Finally, you have yet to satisfactorily address the "gay people are not a group of people" BS you tried to float...
"Gays" doesn't describe an actual "group of people". Remember that sexuality is a bell curve... Its not black and white. ...just doesn't cut it, CS. Your "bell curve" crap has already been handily refuted (Message 26). What other evidence would you like to offer that "gay people are not a group of people"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The contract, however, must be between people of the same race. The difference is that that would be discriminatory against black people, while this:
The contract, however, must be between a man and a women. is not discriminatory against anyone because everyone is either a man or a women.
I dunno how the contract works for true hermaphrodites, I suppose they're either. People are of different races and the contract shouldn't be limited to the same race, but being gay doesn't make you not a man or not a women, so the contract doesn't exclude people who are gay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Marriage has been defined in a myriad of ways -- including "third genders", polygamy, polyandry, etc. Not in the laws of the United States.
quote: We're not typing about a global, cross-cultural perspective, we're typing about the laws of the United States.
Your "bell curve" crap has already been handily refuted (Message 26). That didn't refute that being gay doesn't make you not a man or not a women, so therefore you wouldn't be excluded from the contract by being gay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2669 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
But you still haven't answered my question. Why should a 20th century American definition of marriage trump all the others?
Isn't it interesting that we managed 200+ years without laws on the books defining marriage? Why do you think that is? Why do you suppose these very recent laws were written to specifically EXCLUDE a group of people?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4045 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
The difference is that that would be discriminatory against black people, while this: There is no difference at all. It is discriminatory against homosexuals.
is not discriminatory against anyone because everyone is either a man or a women. "...is not discriminatory against anyone because everyone is of one race or another."
People are of different races and the contract shouldn't be limited to the same race, but being gay doesn't make you not a man or not a women, so the contract doesn't exclude people who are gay. People are of different sexual orientations and the contract shouldnt be limited to the same sexual orientation. You still havent demonstrated how it's ANY different. Homosexuals are a minority. They are distinct from heterosexuals, and disallowing them from being married to each other is exactly, 100% the same as disallowing interracial marriages. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1282 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
The purpose of this thread is to discuss the legal issues around gay marriage, not moral or religious, except as those things impact the legal questions.
Which I have already pointed out in the other thread is prohibited by the United States Code. Try not to forget for a moment that it is homosexuality infringing on every one else to conform to their ideas, not the other way around. You are a blithering idiot! I got news for you, sweetheart, for the most part gays couldn't care less what you think about them. All they are asking for is the right to marry. They aren't trying to impose anything on you. They're just asking for the same rights as you.
The LAW says, without invoking any religious connotations, that homosexuality is an abomination. Now you are either a blithering idiot or a liar! Cite any law in the U.S. that calls homosexuality an abomination. And it must be a law in the U.S., since U.S. law is the topic of this thread. As long as I'm bitch-slapping you, I'll take up a few points you mention in another post.
What does promoting marriage lead to that you would consider detrimental to society? The societal acceptance of homosexuality which perverts the natural order of God's law. Well, lookie here, a smattering of honesty from the mighty christian. At last, you've told us what you're really trying to prevent. Let's see how that fits in with the Fourteenth Amendment analysis that is the focus of this thread. Hmmmm, I'm at least 100% certain that no court in this country would find that preventing a "perversion of the natural order of god's law" is even a legitimate state interest, much less compelling.
quote: It is an awful lot harder, though. Don't you agree? I do agree, but you are asking me to exonerate a greater sin out of a lesser one. Nobody is asking you to exonerate anything, mate. This thread is about what the law should allow. Despite your gargantuan ego, I guarantee that your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. It's a legal question, not a moral one, that we're debating on this thread.
The institution of marriage is vital to promoting monogamy and stable families. Surely you aren't going to contest that, are you? No. And certainly stable families include mothers and fathers. Wouldn't you agree? Whoa, look at that! Why, it's something relevant to this thread, despite your best efforts to remain off topic. It's actually quite plausible that a court might find promoting stable families as either a compelling or an important state interest. So, let's see whether banning gay marriage would advance that interest in any way. Well, we know that the American Academy of Pediatrics thinks it's actually bad for kids if gay marriage isn't legalized. They said so right here. You got any actual facts to support your filthy prejudice?
I wholeheartedly agree that the singling out of homosexuals over their perceived sin with more ferocity than any other sexual sin by Christians or, whomever, is wrong. *** The belief, among various cultures, is that homosexuality is an aberration. They are entitled to that belief just as the avowed homosexual is entitled to disagree. Wow, something else you said that's accidentally on topic. In this quote, you're recognizing that gays are in fact exactly the kind of discrete and insular minority that the Court was talking about in the Carolene Products footnote that I quoted upthread, thus demonstrating the appropriateness of heightened judicial scrutiny of laws that discriminate against them. It's rather funny, actually. Every time you open your mouth, you make the case for legal recognition of gay marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment stronger and stronger. You might be the best friend that a gay marriage advocate ever had! 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Organicmachination Member (Idle past 5738 days) Posts: 105 From: Pullman, WA, USA Joined: |
Oh Snap!
That's all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
subbie writes:
Rule 10: Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person. You are a blithering idiot! To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
we can play games back and forth all day about what you feel is appropriate. that doesn't change THE LAW. Right, and the law says that homosexuals cannot marry, my feelings be damned. Sooooo.... Where do we go from here? “There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024