|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 02/04/2010 : 12:09:36 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by tomk80 |
Nope. I don't. I never said I did.
In current conditions homosexuals do not have the same possibilities of spending their life with the person they love as heterosexuals have. |
They can spend their whole lives together. Nobody is stopping them from that.
| This is a violation of their civil rights. |
No it is not. Adam cannot claim his civil right to marry was denied if the denied union that he points to is not even defined as marriage.
| It is a violation of their right of equal treatment. |
His rights were not violated. He can marry Eve anytime he wants as that is the definition of marriage.
| And because it is a violation of their civil rights, |
I just showed you that it was not.
| they have every right to try to change the definition of marriage. |
But until they do their civil rights are not be violated as what they want is not defined as marriage.
| The definition of marriage in states has been changed before (it used to allow multiple wives in a number of states) and this has been turned around. It can be changed again. |
Not in a vote of the people can it. Again, it is clear, the only way this has any chance is to try and ram it though the back door using the courts and thus thwarting the will of the people and their representative government.
| And even if I agreed with you on the "proper" definition of marriage, homosexuals have every right to fight to redefine it in every legal way possible, whether through public opinion or through the courts, just as everyone else has on any legal issue in the USA. |
I never said they didn't. I simply said that it appears that ramming it through the court against the will of the people and many state constitutions seems to be about their only option left. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 12:19:37 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| You've got cause-and-effect backwards. Gay people wanted to get married, and so government and the public worked to halt such unions by passing laws and amendments to define marriage as "one man, one woman." |
What makes the difference when they established the definition? The only reason is was not established before is nobody in their wildest dreams every thought we would ever come to a point where some were trying to define marriage as between two men or women. That insanity was just never considered as ever being taken seriously in days gone by. But when the time came to define it there is no mistake on the will of the people here or their representative government. And so now the homosexual activists are left to try and redefine marriage against a public who has made their will on this issue very much known. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 12:42:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
What makes the difference when they established the definition? |
Your argument only made sense if your chronology was correct. It wasn't.| The only reason is was not established before is nobody in their wildest dreams every thought we would ever come to a point where some were trying to define marriage as between two men or women. That insanity was just never considered as ever being taken seriously in days gone by. |
Why is it "insanity," Bill, for the government to consider "marriage" (in a strictly legal sense) to be a contract between two people, blind to their sex and orientation? What business is it of the government's to decide who can or cannot enter into such a partnership?
And nobody's trying to "define marriage as between two men or women," gay people are just trying to get married. They don't really care about the "definition of marriage," they just want the same right to get married as anyone else gets, even those many straight couples who are incapable of having children.| But when the time came to define it there is no mistake on the will of the people here or their representative government. |
Except that California's Prop 8 only passed with 52% of the vote, and with a lot of help from outside the state. That's just one example.| And so now the homosexual activists are left to try and redefine marriage against a public who has made their will on this issue very much known. |
Again: so what? If the public is acting immorally or illegally, then damn the public. Just because anti-gay bigotry is popular doesn't make it correct or good, Bill. But that's the argument you are forced to fall back on, because both of your other arguments, to date, have been ludicrous. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 12:45:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by tomk80 |
They can spend their whole lives together. Nobody is stopping them from that. |
But not in a way that has the same rights. They do not have the same tax benefits married couples have. If they die, their partners do not automatically inherit their property, do not automatically get custody of their children. If they serve in the army, they do not have the same stationing rights as married people do. They do not have the same possibilities that married people have.
No it is not. Adam cannot claim his civil right to marry was denied if the denied union that he points to is not even defined as marriage. |
Yes, it is. Homosexuals cannot obtain the same rights and privileges to live with their life's partner as heterosexuals do.
| His rights were not violated. He can marry Eve anytime he wants as that is the definition of marriage. |
He can only marry someone he doesn't actually love. Some rights.
| I just showed you that it was not. |
The only thing you have shown is that you have either no idea what you are talking about regarding the privileges and benefits that come with marriage and cannot be obtained any other way, or that you know and don't care.
| But until they do their civil rights are not be violated as what they want is not defined as marriage. |
Civil rights are not determined by definitions, Bill.
| Not in a vote of the people can it. Again, it is clear, the only way this has any chance is to try and ram it though the back door using the courts and thus thwarting the will of the people and their representative government. |
If the people are tyrants, the courts have to protect the minority from the people. If that is the way to go, so be it.
I never said they didn't. I simply said that it appears that ramming it through the court against the will of the people and many state constitutions seems to be about their only option left.
|
You are saying it as if that is some kind of travesty. Fine, ram it they shall. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 12:47:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Adam cannot claim his civil right to marry was denied if the denied union that he points to is not even defined as marriage. |
And especially in the case of California's Prop 8, lots of gay couples were legally married before Prop 8 "defined" marriage. They had a right to get married, and were getting married, and then "the will of the people" stripped them of that right.
Once again, Bill, you're living in backwards-land.| But until they do their civil rights are not be violated as what they want is not defined as marriage. |
You've got a funny notion of what "civil rights" are.| Again, it is clear, the only way this has any chance is to try and ram it though the back door using the courts and thus thwarting the will of the people and their representative government. |
As if the courts weren't a part of that government.
What, Bill, is the "gay marriage agenda," exactly? Won't you answer that question? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 13:10:21 [Permalink]
|
So basically the argument against gay marriage starts off as "there is no right" - and then when this is shown to be equivalent to the prohibition of interracial marriage, then the argument morphs to reproductive abilities. When that is shown to also apply to heterosexual couples, and that gay people can in fact reproduce, what's left?
In my opinion, what is left is just pure unadulterated hatred toward homosexuals (for several reasons, religious at the top of the list), stripped of the thin veneer of specious arguments attempting to give some kind of validity to their viewpoint. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 13:52:37 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by tomk80 |
| They can spend their whole lives together. Nobody is stopping them from that. |
But not in a way that has the same rights. |
They are not married.
| Yes, it is. Homosexuals cannot obtain the same rights and privileges to live with their life's partner as heterosexuals do. |
They don't have any legal right to if the hetro couple is married.
| His rights were not violated. He can marry Eve anytime he wants as that is the definition of marriage. |
He can only marry someone he doesn't actually love. Some rights. |
If he does not love any women then no he can not get married. That is the very difinition of marriage, one man and one women.
| I just showed you that it was not. |
The only thing you have shown is that you have either no idea what you are talking about regarding the privileges and benefits that come with marriage and cannot be obtained any other way, or that you know and don't care. |
No. You keep using your definition of marriage and then you say the gays are being denied their civil rights. Under the current definition of marriage they are not. They cannot claim they have been denied the right to marry when what they want is not even defined as marriage.
Gay man: They have denied me my right to marriage.
Straight man: They won't let you marry a women?
Gay man: No. They won't let me marry a man.
Straight man: But that is not the definition of marriage so what you are attempting to do is not marriage so therefor you have not been denied the right to marriage. What you have been denied is your own definition of marriage.
Gay man: Yes, I see your point.
| But until they do their civil rights are not be violated as what they want is not defined as marriage. |
Civil rights are not determined by definitions, Bill. |
Marriage is determined by a definition, Tom. And the definition is between one man and one women.
| Not in a vote of the people can it. Again, it is clear, the only way this has any chance is to try and ram it though the back door using the courts and thus thwarting the will of the people and their representative government. |
If the people are tyrants, the courts have to protect the minority from the people. If that is the way to go, so be it. |
What tyrants? Nobody is being denied their right to marry. Your just upset because your not being allowed to redefine what marriage is.
| I never said they didn't. I simply said that it appears that ramming it through the court against the will of the people and many state constitutions seems to be about their only option left. |
You are saying it as if that is some kind of travesty. |
The will of the people being thwarted in such a way is.
That has been my point. This is the only option they have left. I doubt it will work but what other option do they have? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 02/04/2010 13:57:01 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 14:02:01 [Permalink]
|
Coincidently:
2/04/2010
Family Research Council: Pray That God Helps a Kidnapper Break the Law:
The Rude Pundit was looking over his conservative email on his secret nom de rude account this morning when something struck him as particularly disgusting. See, the Rude Pundit subscribes to a number of conservative groups to spy on what they say when they don't think anyone is listening. The most entertaining of these is the Family Research Council's Prayer Team Targets (generally referred to here as "The Super-Duper Prayer Team," but let's try for a bit of decorum today). Every week, the FRC sends out a list of items that we members of the Prayer Team ought to pray for. Mostly it's the usual "Please, God, help us hate homosexuals, abortion, sex education, health care reform," you know, all the things that Jesus might want us to spend our precious time on earth concerned about.
Today, the Rude Pundit noticed something unusual: a prayer directed against a single individual, a woman who has no power whatsoever. She just wants to be able to visit her child after a break-up. The only reason for calling on celestial intervention is that the woman is a lesbian.
|
Not much new here, really. We already know that the Family Research Council is over-burdened with the more scumbagish species of Christians extant, so it comes as no surprise.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 14:24:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
No. You keep using your definition of marriage and then you say the gays are being denied their civil rights. Under the current definition of marriage they are not. |
In California, the definition was changed after gays had gotten married. They had a right to marriage, and then that right was taken away from them. They were denied their rights.| They cannot claim they have been denied the right to marry when what they want is not even defined as marriage. |
In California, actual legal marriages were vacated by the change in definition.| Straight man: But that is not the definition of marriage so what you are attempting to do is not marriage so therefor you have not been denied the right to marriage. What you have been denied is your own definition of marriage. |
If a gay couple were given all the same rights under the law as any straight couple, and a minister performed a wedding ceremony in a church for the couple, what would you call their union and why?| The will of the people being thwarted in such a way is. |
Then your understanding of our government is a travesty. "The will of the people" can be thwarted by a handful of people in a Congressional committee, by 41 people in the Senate, or by just one person with veto power. The courts are just one more way for minorities to be protected from majorities. It's not a travesty for the government to function as it was intended to function.It worked for interracial couples. Why shouldn't it work for gay couples when the vote against them was so tight? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 15:09:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
No. You keep using your definition of marriage and then you say the gays are being denied their civil rights. Under the current definition of marriage they are not. They cannot claim they have been denied the right to marry when what they want is not even defined as marriage. |
And it's much worse than that, anyway.
In Nebraska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, Kansas, Texas (another state in which all marriages have been annulled), Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan and Virginia, anything which "approximates" marriage (regardless what term is used) has been deemed off-limits for same-sex couples.
In other words, if two single widowers, both heterosexual, swear off women and sex, and they go to their lawyers and draw up contracts and powers of attorney so that in case of emergency or death each could act as the others' "spouse" in regard to their kids and properties, the above-listed states would say "no way, those contracts are invalid."
How is that not denying their rights? Don't you have a right, Bill, to give power of attorney to anyone you see fit, regardless of their sex?
The whole "definition of marriage" argument is pretty weak when states have gone out of their way to say that the terms used to describe such unions are irrelevant, what's being banned is anything like a marriage, no matter what it's called, if it's between two people of the same sex. They are clearly denying legal rights to people based on the sex (and nothing but the sex) of their partners.
It is illegal in all of these states to deny someone a mortgage because of their sex. Why should it be okay for a state to deny a different sort of contract between two people because their sex happens to be the same? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 16:11:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
They are not married. |
Are you finally catching up with the problem? No, they are not married. Because people like you don't let them. And because of that, they do not have the same rights, privileges and protections that married people have. And that is a violation of their civil rights.
| They don't have any legal right to if the hetro couple is married. |
Indeed. Which again is why not allowing them to marry is against their civil rights.
| If he does not love any women then no he can not get married. That is the very difinition of marriage, one man and one women. |
Which points to the problem and is exactly why marriage needs to be between two loving partners, regardless of gender.
| No. You keep using your definition of marriage and then you say the gays are being denied their civil rights. Under the current definition of marriage they are not. They cannot claim they have been denied the right to marry when what they want is not even defined as marriage. |
They are denied there civil right to spend their life with their loved ones given the same protection, rights and benefits as heterosexuals. You have admitted this already.
Gay man: They have denied me my right to marriage.
Straight man: They won't let you marry a women?
Gay man: No. They won't let me marry a man.
Straight man: But that is not the definition of marriage so what you are attempting to do is not marriage so therefor you have not been denied the right to marriage. What you have been denied is your own definition of marriage.
Gay man: Yes, I see your point.Which is exactly why the current definition is against civil rights. |
Fixed that for you.
| Marriage is determined by a definition, Tom. And the definition is between one man and one women. |
As Dave W. pointed out, this is only recently the legal definition. Heck, in other cultures it is not the definition. And the "current" definition is against civil rights. So it'll have to change to something that does not violate them.
| What tyrants? Nobody is being denied their right to marry. Your just upset because your not being allowed to redefine what marriage is. |
The tyrants that do not extend to people in a loving relationship succession rights, adoption rights, etc etc, just because these people are of the same gender.
If you had an equivalent legal setup that would extend gays and lesbians those rights, you'd have no complaint for me. You don't.
| The will of the people being thwarted in such a way is. |
Make up your mind Bill. First you say it's a travesty that they fight this battle in the courts, then you say it is their full right to do so, then you again so it is a travesty. Which is it?
And that's how it works, Bill. If the will of the people is not legal or moral, it has to be thwarted. If gays and lesbians fight in the courts because they think the definition of marriage as between only a man and a woman is against their legal rights and the courts find they are correct, the will of the people is rightly thwarted. Keep being consistent. If it is their right to fight this in court, it is also the court's right to decide on the issue.
That has been my point. This is the only option they have left. I doubt it will work but what other option do they have?
|
Keep on fighting for acceptance. Why would you think they cannot fight in multiple arenas at the same time? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 02/04/2010 16:18:24 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 16:24:48 [Permalink]
|
Marriage used to be defined as: one man and one woman of the same race
Definitions change. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 16:27:35 [Permalink]
|
| I wonder if the definition of marriage was only "one man and one man or one woman and one woman" if Bill would approve of using the courts to get it changed. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 18:19:21 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
Can you think of at least one thing that you do or that you support that would be against the will of the majority? |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 23:11:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Are you finally catching up with the problem? No, they are not married. Because people like you don't let them. And because of that, they do not have the same rights, privileges and protections that married people have. And that is a violation of their civil rights. |
Actually, they don't have the same rights, privileges and protections that unmarried people have. They are forbidden from marrying the love of their life, in a stunningly blatant display of illegal sexual discrimination.
I wonder when (or if) Bill will ever figure out the best possible objection to same-sex marriage (which, unfortunately, is still a failure of an argument). I'm not going to give it away, though. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Deceiving in the name of Jesus, again
