Catholic Scientist responds to me:
quote:
quote:
quote:
It seems there's a little bit more to it than that...
Like what? Be specific.
You have two men and two women. They pair off and get married. What is "more to it than that" if the pairs are girl-girl, boy-boy rather than girl-boy, girl-boy?
Be specific.
Are you a fucking moron or do you do this on purpose?
No, and yes. I'm not going to make your argument for you, though I'm pretty sure I know what it is. You're going to have to do that for yourself. It's your argument. You spell it out.
quote:
Your boy-boy/girl-girl bullshit has absolutely nothing to do with the "little bit more" that I was referring to.
Then what are they, because nothing in your post showed any "little bit more" with regard to the contract of marriage that happens when the couple is same-sex compared to when they are mixed-sex.
What about the legal contract of marriage requires the couple to be of mixed sex? Only women can transfer property to men? A woman can only be sponsored for citizenship by a man?
Be specific.
quote:
In fact, I said multiple times that I really didn't care if they do get married.
And yet you keep arguing against it. Do I really need to remind you of your own words in the previous thread? You brought up polygamy as if that had something to do with the issue, using it as a reason to argue against same-sex marriage: If we allow same-sex marriage, what's to stop us from allowing polygamy?
Message 429:
Catholic Scientist writes:
So is everyone going to start fighting for the polygamists now?
Let's not play dumb and pretend that you only brought it up as part of a thought experiment, an interesting exercise in mental masturbation with absolutely no intention behind it beyond that.
You brought up incest as if that had something to do with the issue, using it as a reason to argue against same-sex marriage: If we allow same-sex marriage, what's to stop us from allowing incest?
Message 425:
Catholic Scientist writes:
So, California must legalize both polygamy and incest marrages or they are violating the rights of the people who want to enter those mariages. If you don't support the legalization of polygamy and incest marriages in California then you are a fucking phobic bigot for denying these people their rights.
Let's not play dumb and pretend that you only brought it up as part of a thought experiment, an interesting exercise in mental masturbation with absolutely no intention behind it beyond that.
You kept on talking about "consequences" of same-sex marriage, implying that there would be a massive rise in fraud and chicanery with regard to insurance if same-sex marriage were to take place:
Message 420:
Catholic Scientist writes:
I think that healthcare costs would go up from the influx of new covered spouses if gay marriage were legalized across the counry one day.
Let's not play dumb and pretend that this isn't an argument against same-sex marriage. But to compound your disingenuousness, you immediately say after this assertion:
Catholic Scientist writes:
But its not like I can prove that or anything.
So as I directly asked you:
Rrhain writes:
Hmm...you are going to insist that there's a problem but you aren't going to actually provide any evidence for such. Even though people have looked at precisely what you're "concerned" about, you're not going to take the time to do your homework and find out.
Then why are you even participating?
At any rate, how would the healthcare system be burdened if John and Jim get married instead of Joan and Jim? By your logic we should prevent people from getting a job since you can get health insurance when you get a job and that's a burden.
By the way: If we expanded marriage, the healthcare system would experience an easing as it would reduce the amount of uninsured people who can only get their healthcare through emergency services. That's more of an argument for the need of universal healthcare that is independent of things like marital or employment status, but it shows the lie of your "concern."
You never did respond. Ah, but that's because, as you admit, you don't read all my posts.
Perhaps that's why you keep thinking you can deny what you have said: Since you don't read all the responses to you, you think everybody else behaves the same way and since you didn't see what other people have said, then they couldn't possibly have seen what you said, therefore they won't be able to prove you wrong.
But that's the thing about the internet: Your words stick around.
But let's be direct:
Message 418:
Catholic Scientist writes:
I can't believe that changing the definition of a word in over 1000 laws isn't going to have substantial consequences. It simply follows.
Let's not play dumb and pretend that you only brought it up as a part of a thought experiment, an interesting exercise in mental masturbation with absolutely no intention behind it beyond that. You brought it up because you thought that there would be bad "consequences" by allowing same-sex marraige..."consequences" that should be prevented. How do I know?
Message 416:
Catholic Scientist writes:
But this particular case doesn't really matter that much. It was just an example of one possibility. There's over 1000 laws that menetion marriage, so...
So as I directly asked you:
Rrhain writes:
So....what? You don't even believe your own example so this is evidence that there is something to worry about?
It's your claim, it's your burden of proof.
What exactly are these "loop-holes" and "ramifications" and "concerns"?
You seem to be saying that gay people are more likely to be criminals and scoundrels than straight people.
You never did respond. Ah, but that's because, as you admit, you don't read all my posts.
Perhaps that's why you keep thinking you can deny what you have said: Since you don't read all the responses to you, you think everybody else behaves the same way and since you didn't see what other people have said, then they couldn't possibly have seen what you said, therefore they won't be able to prove you wrong.
That's the thing about the internet: Your words stick around.
quote:
quote:
Those were your words, Catholic Scientist. You described yourself that way.
Not true, not the first time at least.
But nobody has called you that here (at least, not in recent memory). Why do you ascribe others motivations to those of us here?
quote:
quote:
Ah, yes...refusing to accept intolerance is somehow intolerance.
You just label opposing opinion as intolerance so you get your free pass to be as bigoted as you want.
And thus, you prove the point: Refusing to accept intolerance is somehow intolerance.
On one side, we have those who want all of us to be able to do what we want without interference.
On the other side, we have those who want to do what they want without interference but want to interfere with others doing the same thing.
How are those equivalent?
There is a difference between holding the opinion, "I don't like that," and making the statement, "And thus, you shouldn't like it, either."
quote:
Not according to the definition of bigotry that is found in dictionaries.
Didn't we just have a discussion with Hoot Mon about this very thing? That dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive? That this is the exact same argument that creationists use to claim that evolutionary theory is nothing more than an "educated guess" because there is a dictionary definition of "theory" that is "educated guess" and that this claim is bogus?
Why, yes! Yes, there was!
Oh, but that's right...you don't read the posts. No wonder you never seem to know what's going on.
But, since you seem to be so enamored of dictionary definitions:
Webster's Revised Unabridged:
Big"ot\, n. [F. bigot a bigot or hypocrite, a name once given to the Normans in France. Of unknown origin; possibly akin to Sp. bigote a whisker; hombre de bigote a man of spirit and vigor; cf. It. s-bigottire to terrify, to appall. Wedgwood and others maintain that bigot is from the same source as Beguine, Beghard.]
1. A hypocrite
Well, hypocrisy is "the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness" (American Heritage Dictionary). Essentially, saying one thing and doing another. In other words, a double standard: There's the standard you hold everyone else to and the standard you hold yourself to.
So bigotry is holding a double standard (among other things). And how is denying to others that which you demand for yourself not an example of a double standard?
Oh, that's right...you won't read this post. So how can anybody expect you to follow along?
quote:
Rrhain, you have to be the most annoying and dumbest asshole I have forumed with.
But you don't read my posts. How on earth could you possibly know that?
Hmmm...perhaps you really do read my posts. In which case, why is it you never answer the direct questions put to you?
quote:
I don't want un-equality for gay people. I just don't care.
But that isn't true. Do I really need to quote more of your own words back to you?
Message 413:
Catholic Scientist writes:
Rueh writes:
CS, can you provide an example of one of the aforementioned 1000+ laws that would be violated, if the context of marriage were to include same sex couples as well.
How about all of them
Let's not play dumb and pretend that you only brought it up as a part of a thought experiment, an interesting exercise in mental masturbation with absolutely no intention behind it beyond that. You brought it up because you thought that there would be bad "consequences" by allowing same-sex marraige..."consequences" that should be prevented.
How do I know?
Message 409:
Catholic Scientist writes:
But I don't think that gays have some natural right to marriage, nor that our Constitution grants them a legal right to marriage.
And yet, the Constitution does grant straights the legal right to marriage. Or are you saying Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?
If not, if Loving v. Virginia was correctly decided, then why is it gay people don't have the same Constitutional right as straight people? How do you reconcile your claim that you "don't want un-equality for gay people" with your direct statement that they don't have the same rights that straight people do?
Be specific.
quote:
I haven't done anything at all to get in the way of gay marriage
You mean you didn't say you'd vote against equality in marriage laws? How is that "not doing anything"?
quote:
its advocates have still identified me as a "fucking homophobic bigot".
Those were your words, Catholic Scientist. You described yourself that way.
quote:
But simply not supporting gay marriage, while still not getting in the way, is also on the must hate list.
I think that, itself, is another form of bigotry.
Ah, yes...refusing to accept intolerance is somehow intolerance.
Do you wish to deny others that which you demand for yourself? Then that's bigotry.
Calling people out on that is not bigotry. You're right: Not supporting gay marriage is all it takes. Bigotry is unacceptable. Denying others that which you demand for yourself is bigotry. Therefore, not advocating equality in marriage is bigotry and therefore unacceptable.
Now, let's not wander into the "But I don't kick puppies!" response as if being, to use your words, a "fucking homophobic bigot" means you're equivalent to a genocidal maniac. Nobody is saying you're wandering the streets at night, looking to murder innocent gays as they come home from work.
You simply don't want equality for gay people.
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.
I bet they want to assume things, change the subject, NOT test the observable facts. I bet they want to get political.
™ Version 4.2