"Separate but equal." It doesn't work.
Repeat your mantra as much as you like.
Laws reflect society. While there is a long history of marriage being a monetary contract, that isn't why most people get married in this country.
Heheheh... this is very true, but does nothing except support my position. You as a gay person are free to get married anytime you choose, as long as you find and/or invent a religious body to accept gay marriage. The problem
only enters the picture once we get to the legal contract to bind rights and responsibilities to the union. The long historical legal definition of marriage (stemming from the traditional religious/legal concept of marriage) is mixed sex.
Thus people who are hung up on semantics and "saving tradition", as much as we may both roll our eyes at such things, have a valid point.
Do gay people love each other the way straight people do? What is different about the relationship between people that is dependent upon the sex of the participants.
This has nothing to do with a legal contract. You are simply trying to make it look like a person who questions your position must hold there is a difference based on those criteria. This is not true.
If it matters to you I think gays can love just as much as straights and there is no difference in their relationship.
By calling it something else, you necessarily define it as distinct and different. Separate can never be equal.
Yawn. Have you ever started a business? Do you cry when there are different types with different names and different forms (or boxes to check) for each, when the rights given are the same?
I realize it makes no logical sense to have them. It is semantics. But it's out there already. You can have different names and tied effects by law. It all depends on creating the right law.
Do I need to construct a quote file for you, too? And how very nice of you not to link to the post to which you were responding which makes it difficult to trace the thread back in order to find your original words.
Actually I rarely link back to specific posts. Even then I often just do the page and not the specific post. It's laziness, not a malevolent machination.
But lets begin the quote mining operation...
Message 199
Fifth, if you wish to use this as a reason that rights should be given, then why are you not fully behind polygamy, incestuous, and pedophilic marriages.
Message 119
It hurts because pretty much worldwide, in just about every religious tradition, there is no such thing as gay marriage.
So that's twice you invoked religious history in order to justify a denial of same-sex marriage. I wasn't the one who brought it up, holmes. That was you.
You are just not that bright. Neither of those "justify" denial of same-sex marriage, at least not from my position.
What I was doing was pointing out that
in fact the
historical definition/context of marriage is mixed sex union. Those that wish to hang their justification of protecting a traditional definition in law and culture on that fact, have a hook. We may all disagree that such a thing is silly in these days, or pointless for other reasons, but it is
true that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman and not just any two people.
Indeed the first quote you put up there says if YOU wish to use X as a reason for justifying why laws should change to accommodate other definitions of marriage. I did not say it was mine.
Right. Then you can give me an example where it happened. Show me where a legal contract was called two different things and were always treated identically.
I believe I have already done this for you in specific in another thread. But maybe it was that I offered this and then you disappeared. In any case, go start a business and discover the magic world of different names and different forms for different business "types". They get the same treatment, but the definitions (usually based on structures) result in different titles and sometimes forms. Yawn. How many times do I have to tell you this before you remember?
Now for you. Tell me why a law providing that other than difference in name and requirement for nature of partners all legal references to marriage and civil unions will be treated as synonymous is impossible?
A limited liability corporation is not the same as an incorporated entity and neither are the same as a partnership nor a sole proprietorship. They have different rules and responsibilities. That's why they have different names. They're not the same thing. If they were the same thing, they'd have the same name. This is basic law, holmes.
Snicker snicker... right. Uh-huh. There are differences between LLCs, Incs, and nonIncs. However you can have a range of businesses within them. Again, differing based on name and sometimes forms used. There are different laws to address the differences in structure, but how they do business under the license given to them are the same. Remember I explained this in an earlier thread regarding polygamy.
But given that we are dealing with something complex (esp as they differ state to state), the thread is closing soon, we're not on topic, and its just regarding an example... I'd rather switch than fight.
Let us assume for sake of argument that there are absolutely no cases where a contract with different titles and prereqs are given equal rights. Even given that, explain what legal obstacle there is such that it is impossible for a civil union to be created such that all references to marriage or CU in past and future law will pertain to all? That is why can they not be made synonymous by law, with the exception of name and prereq?
But that isn't the way the law works. By definition, if you call it something different, then you are explicitly declaring that they are different. Why else would you have a separate term for something that is identical?
Your incredulity does not make something impossible. Give a reason it could not hold up under law.
Prove it. I want to see the message where I said it. We had no such discussion.
I don't know if I can prove it as I don't think the thread is around anymore. Is there a place for archived threads? In any case we certainly did, and you derided the polygamists for flouting state law to issue themselves licenses. Maybe you can't remember because you had some psychological block once the SF crowd did the exact same thing and I stuck it to you. You disappeared quick enough.
As I pointed out to you, and you so glibly ignored, the reason why the various legal challenges to the marriage laws were carried out in the states that they were was specifically because those states did not explicitly state that marriage was between a man and a woman.
Yawn. I have already said that any state that did not have a mixed sex definition as part of their marriage laws, gays had every right to get married. We both know this was not the main case with regard to marriage law, and it certainly does not suggest that traditional definitions of marriage were in any way same sex. Oversight in writing laws based on common understandings is not a sign of anything.
Not just brevity but plain not saying what you mean.
Whatta paranoiac. No, it was brevity. I repeat that it was
not set law and not wholesale, when such laws were not national, or even a majority of the states. Yeah it was "set" and "wholesale" for the states that had them, but I was discussing the nation as a whole. It was not set and it was not wholesale across the nation. The concept of marriage as between a man and a women was.
Yes, it does. At the time that Loving v. Virginia was decided, 70% of the country thought that it should be illegal for mixed-race couples to marry. Even when Kentucky finally took its miscegenation law off the books in 2000, 40% of the population voted to keep it.
Uhhhh, well I can't speak for opinion polling back then, but I can point out that if 60+% of the nation does not have such laws, it is not the set law of the land. And I should point out that not wanting something to happen is separate from not believing it is part of the definition of something. I would guess that all of them agreed that it was a man and a woman and so it was possible to be married, even if the result is something they did not want happening.
Because "separate but equal" is unconstitutional and legally impossible.
Snooze. Mantras =/= reality. You have shown no reason that a law could not be created making marriage and CU's synonymous to law outside name and prereq.
Try making your argument when the cop pulls you over in your car and you show him your driver's license that is only rated M2. It's a driver's license, but it does not give you the right to drive a car. It only gives you the right to drive a moped. That's why they call it "M2" rather than "C."
Right, a license will let you drive one thing, or another. This could be things rated for the highway or not. Thus a license may be for separate types of vehicles, but as long as all vehicles are rated for the highway, then you have no problem on the highway.
You are stretching an analogy way out of proportion. Analogies do not have to be one to one, they only have to be correct for what they are covering.
You and I both know there are different licenses for vehicles which are given the same rights, only different requirements.
And even if there were not, we can assume this for sake of argument, there is nothing prohibiting this from occuring.
No, you can't. You can't drive a car in the carpool lane with only one occupant. You can't drive a truck outside of the designated truck lanes. You can't take a moped onto the freeway.
The fact that you think this is appropriate is laughable. All of these are not restrictions on licenses, but on vehicles. The restrictions on vehicles are based on transportation issues. You are just nitpicking on details superfluous to the analogy.
Oh, but I forget...us "reality-based" folk are out of favor these days. Wishing makes it so.
Oh my feet are on the ground. Reality means I can deal with a hypothetical as a hypothetical and not refuse to answer in order to continue a pretense.
It's a constitutionally mandated statement and a direct outcome of the method of jurisprudence we have. The law is dependent upon words. If you are using a different word, then you are directly stating that there is a difference between them. If there is no difference, then you would use the same word.
Words: Marriages and Civil Unions will be treated as synonymous under law, with the exception of name and prerequisite of gender.
We can make it tighter if we want to.
But there is no definitional distinction between the two, so why are you using a different term?
I thought we were reality based. Oh that's right we can deny portions of reality when presented and therefore create the illusion of another reality. Like how you dismissed answering all my questions regarding the implications of the Boswell issue.
But that means it is dependent upon the good will of those in the majority to make sure that it gets repealed rather than upon the strict requirement of equality laid out in the constitution.
No, not repealed. It would require the will of the majority to get the right law enacted in the first place. I meant fight against a bad law enacted, before one would have to fight for a repeal.
And I find this sort of silly since it will equally depend on the good will of the majority to get gay marriage enacted as well.
Get with the program.
quote: As an offshoot of this there is the logical suggestion that even in adults toward adults, there is an increased preying by homosexuals on others.
Incorrect. It's the other way around.
Oh ha ha hahahahahahahhahahaha. I cannot believe you just said that. Are you seriously suggesting that the homosexual men getting preyed upon sexually by other men are in fact being sexually molested (even as adults) by straight men?
quote:
It did not show this and instead showed a strong correlation between homosexuality and mental/physical harm.
However, you have the arrow backwards.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Oh man you are so lame. So you are claiming that homosexuals are produced from mental/physical harm?
Perhaps what you meant to say is that an arrow comes from somewhere else to connect the two? Like say it is society's beating down on gays for being gay that leads toward greater depression etc etc?
Yeah, that could be (and I would be one to agree), though that does not immediately address the apparent increased predatory sexual activity of gays (even on adults). And if this does hold true for gays just being gay, it certainly rings true for the effects of societal pressures on youths regarding sex in general.
Then why do the psychologists and psychiatrists who examine and treat pedophiles make it? Why do the pedophiles, themselves, make this claim?
To answer the first question, not all do say this and even if they did it would be much the same as when they were all on line about the nature of homosexuals. There are cultural expectations which prevent many from accurately approaching the issue.
Your second question was answered, but as usual you slice and dice every post. Here it goes...
Some do. The vast majority do not. The fixation is upon children, not gender. Children are chosen precisely because they are androgynous.
Children are androgynous in the torso and to some extent the face. With the exception of the extreme few children who grow into another gender, their genitalia leave them pretty well defined sexually. There is no mistaking a penis for a vagina or vice versa.
Pedophiles are of any sexual orientation, but do not discriminate based on age. Thus gay-male and straight-female pedophiles seek boys, straight-male and gay-female pedophiles seek girls, and bisexual male and female pedophiles seek either.
It is not surprising to me that most pedophiles would be bisexual in nature, and indeed maybe that is why they would enjoy some aspects of childlike androgyny. I would also tend to believe that some (maybe many) that have sex with the same gender child may do this, yet act "straight" with regard to adults, because of pressures to not accept their underlying sexual orientation. In this way the facial androgyny would help them say to themselves I am not gay, while quite obviously they are seeking the same gender.
Rapists, which are different from strict pedophiles in that it is all about power, are likely to choose any gender as it is not an overtly sexual issue.
I don't know about you but I can tell a girl from a boy when young, indeed it was how I first recognized my own sexual preference (or outstanding preference) when I myself was very young. This is also the claim of many homosexuals about their youth.
The wish of people to define pedophilia as another orientation and "children" as if a separate sex, is wishful thinking and a cultural artifact that will one day drop away like it did with homosexuality.
"Assault"? When did we go from a loving, mutually supportive relationship to assault? You're trying to turn the arrow backwards.
Men and women engage on sexual assaults on each other. They also do so toward the same sex. Assaults are not the same thing as a mutual loving relationship. However they often go hand in hand with a person's basic orientation.
For a guy that continually harangues anti-gay people with the notion that people who do so are often hiding that they are gay, it is odd for you to attack me when I say essentially the same thing.
Denial by someone of a sexual orientation, does not make it so.
No, I'm not going to have sex with you, holmes.
Uhhhhh, you ripped into DD not me. My insinuation attached to your treatment of someone else. Maybe this slip means you want to have sex with me.
Brrrrrrr... as much as I enjoy sex with guys every once in a while, I can tell you that you are not my type (if that is indeed your face). Not to say you are unattractive in general, indeed I'm sure you may seem quite handsome to others. But to me? Blech.
Now that we have the ad hominem commentary out of the way, can we get back to the issue at hand?
Pot calls kettle black. You are never in a position to criticize others for ad hominem commentary.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2