|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
AndyGodLove  Suspended Member (Idle past 5800 days) Posts: 18 From: Wentworth Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I greatly doubt that the 1000+ federal laws that refer to marriage all have within them the definition that marriage is between one man and one woman. Could you provide some examples of said laws with excerpts from the text that validate your claim? None of the laws have the definition of marriage within them. The definition of marriage had been implicit until DOMA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Why would they give you the six million dollars when they can use a small portion of that six million on a divorce lawyer to take the movie rights? (Or any of a thousand other doors that would be open to the less stupid of the parties in your little schema.) Did you really think you had a brilliant point to bring us all up short, or were you being entirely facetious? They coulda had a pre-nup.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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. Actually, I've posted multiple times now that I don't care if gay people get married. What I've been arguing against is the notion that the Constitution grants a right to gay people to have marriages and that gay marriage must be allowed due to constitutionality. I've been called a bigot because I didn't agree with the liberal position and spoke out against it. It doesn't matter what I actually think or how I actually act, its all about whether or not you agree, whether your opinion is the same or not. If not, then you are a fucking bigot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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: Not according to that stupid, pain in the ass Constitution that you seem to be forgetting about. If a state wants to allow or disallow gay marriage, then that's their prerogative.Catholic Scientist writes: 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. Nope. I've done absolutely nothing. 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.
States wouldn’t be ignoring it.
Yet, you say it's OK for States to ignore it and set their own marriage laws.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
How is that possible? I need a bit more of an explanation here, Catholic Scientist. How can you both support and yet not support the same thing? It's like saying: "I support laws preventing murder, but I'm OK with it if someone murders someone else". Right. A person could consider murder something that should be illegal all the while having no moral opposition to it.
Bwa ha ha ha! I love that..."what it meant". Of course...not "what it said". They felt the need redefine marriage because it previously did specifically state "between one man and one women". No, there never was an explicit definition of marriage before DOMA. They didn’t need a definition until people started trying to include things as marriages that weren’t marriage according to the implicit definition that was understood.
Catholic Scientist writes: I have no desire to allow gay marriage. Now I'm completely confused. Your OK with gay marriage, but you don't want to allow it. And there's no contradiction there...correct? Right. I lack a desire to allow gay marriage and I also lack the care for whether or not they are allowed to marry.
Catholic Scientist writes: Well, thus far the Courts seem to be disagreeing with you on this one. States wouldn’t be ignoring it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I just asked my toaster to marry me. He didn't respond. So I then asked him to sign a marriage license and pre-nup. Again...no response. How many times do we need to remind you of "consent". Christ, it's like dealing with a thread full of Leonard Shelbys. So enough already with the stupid comparison between homosexual sex and tree sex, child sex, animal sex, and now a new one...toaster sex. You failed to notice one of the premises...
quote: That change would have to be that consent is no longer required
Artemis Entreri writes: Its called self determination. And likely to eventually be called Unconstitutional. Hell, one day the libs will probably find the Constitution to be unconstitutional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No...the premise changes nothing. Other than making your response pointless.
You guys still want to make the stupid comparison between homosexual sex and sex with trees, and kids, and animals, and now, apparently, toasters. Not in the slightest. It doesn't have anything to do with sex. I'm making the comparison between different definitions of the word "marriage". You guys are teh ones who run and cry anytime someone exposes the slippery slope of an ambiguous definition of the word "marriage" because, since there's no good response all you can do is slander your opponent by claiming that their comparing things that they aren't. So basically, you want us to want to compare gay sex to ridiculous sex. Its too bad I wasn't.
Blah, blah, blah...whatever. Yeah...us stupid whiny libs...sticking up for and defending our Constitution. Damn us to Hell, how dare we love our Country so much that we're willing to speak out when we disagree with discrimination based solely on sexual orientation. No, how dare you purposely wear your shit colored glasses and make everything out to be something its not just so you can vilify your opponents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
because you are looking at the wrong things, and all hung up about the homosexual marriage part of it. that is not the big deal of it. the big deal is allowing states to recogninze or not recognize the full faith and credit clause of Article IV Section 1 of the United States Constitution. It alows the states to determin thier own stance on this issue. by not caring about the homosexual marriages in CA, or MA, but not supporting it in IL, or MO you can not care about an issue in other states while not wanting it in your state. I realize this might be hard for Socialists to understand, but please try and think outside of your box. Its about States' Rights. this is how i see it, how about you Catholic Scientist, am i close?
Yes, real close. I was sorta comming at it from a different angle though. People were trying to say that the Constitution grants gays a right to gay marriages and to disallow them it is unconstitutional so therefore gay marriage must be allowed. I think that is bullshit. So since I was arguing against gay marriage, I was a "fucking homophobic bigot", when the core of the issue isn't really even the gayness. Plus, I think that marriage has always been understood to be between one man and one woman. That's just what it is. It was never explicitly defined because people knew what it meant So, I think DOMA isn't a bad law because of is accuracy in defining. Also, the second part of it that allow states their right's is just a good thing in general. I'd hate for the people in California and New York to run the Midwest too. So there you have it, the opinion of a "fucking homophobic bigot". And I don't even fear or hate gays! They've pretty much turned "bigot" into a meaningless word. Well, it could just mean a person who disagrees with a liberal
what is amazing is your lack of ability to understand other views without labeling them in a very negative light, while saying you are about tolerance. I can understand that in order to be tolerant, then you have to be intolerant of intolerance, but the libs are so quick to jump on people for having even a slight variance from their own status quo that they, themselves, are exemplifying the same behavior they oppose. I think there's a word for that....... hypocracy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Bullshit. Why would someone want to marry a fucking toaster? It's a stupid, meaningless comparison, The point is that the definition of "marriage" needs to tight. It can't be a general definiton like "a contract between people" because it opens up the 1000+ laws that mention the word marriage to exploitation. 'Consent' needs to be in there, 'adult' needs to be in there, 'one' person needs to be in there. My argument was that sense the 1000+ laws were written with the understanding that marriage was between one man and one woman, then that is the way that marriage should be explicitly defined when the need for the explicit definition arrose. Alos, if somebody found a way to personal gain from marrying a toaster, I don't doubt that they would do it.
Well, if you would bother to look back over the last 1000 posts or so, you would see that quite the opposite is true. We actually would greatly appreciate it, and would like nothing more than, if you guys to stop making these stupid comparisons. Yeah, but yall are saying that people are comparing things that they're not (in an effort to slander and villify them).
what the hell are laws preventing two guys from marrying each other based on if they're not based on their sexual orientation? Height? Hair Color? How they dress? What? What are laws preventing two guys from marrying each other based upon? They are based on what marriage actually is. Its not about sexual orientation at all. It dosen't matter if they are hetero, homo, bi, or tostersexual, marriage is between one man and one woman. Period. Now, people could certainly change the definition of marriage if they want too. And that should be done on a state by state basis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote: Artemis Entreri writes: basically it was hastily pushed through before any disention could take place. In fact Confederate States were not allowed back into the Union unless they agree to ratify this amendment (wow lots of freemdom there!). the way this amendment was swindled into the constitution is complete BS. This would make a great new topic and is getting fairly off-topic for this thread... Some quotes from wiki on the 14th amendment:
It is perhaps the most significant structural change to the Constitution since the passage of the United States Bill of Rights. ... Bruce Ackerman claims that the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment violated Article V of the Constitution, because: * The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed by a rump Congress that did not include representatives and senators from most of the former Confederate states, and, had those congressmen been present, the Amendment would never have passed.* Former Confederate states were counted for Article V purposes of ratification, but were not counted for Article I purposes of representation in the Congress. * The ratifications of the former Confederate states were not truly free, but were coerced. For instance, many former Confederate states had their readmittance to the Union conditioned on ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment. Wow. That could be an interesting thread. Perhaps someone could propose a new topic on the 14th Amendment's ratification. Its too late for me to do it now. Besides, I don't shit about that shit and my OP would probably be shitty ABE: It does seem that the crux of Subbie's argument relies on the 14th amendment and the opposing argument suggests that State's rights could be violated come Federal legislation in a case like this one. Someone start a new thread... Edited by Catholic Scientist, : SEE ABE:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote: Artemis Entreri writes: Full Faith and Credit does not apply to essential freedoms. And the States themselves agreed to this when passing the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
all the states as of 1868, maybe, but not ALL THE STATES. and it took until 2003 for all the states that were states in 1868 to accept it, which definately tells me its probably a shady amendment. The validity of the 14th Amendment has been challenged for a long time. It was ratified right after the Civil War, and the 13 Confederate States did not have thier Congressmen and Senators present. basically it was hastily pushed through before any disention could take place. In fact Confederate States were not allowed back into the Union unless they agree to ratify this amendment (wow lots of freemdom there!). the way this amendment was swindled into the constitution is complete BS.
The U. S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. What that means is that all laws in all states are subject to being struck down if they do not comport with the Constitution and what happends if they dont? the judical branch has no powers of enforcement. you think the executive branch (the president) is going to send the military to the 39 states that have preposed male/female marriage amendments. do you think because of DC v. Heller i can take my glock into DC now? Pardon my ignorance, but what does happen if a State decides to not acknowledge a gay marriage in lieu of a SCOTUS decision that it is unconstitutional?..if the State thinks its rights are being violated through the 14th? Just a crap-load of lawsuits? Then somebody gets paid?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024