If Marriage Is a Fundamental Right, Then?

[BigBallinStalin]

Scroll up to my response with ooge, then follow the links. That's the extent of my hand-holding for ya, Sym!

[Symmetry]

Scroll up to my response with ooge, then follow the links. That's the extent of my hand-holding for ya, Sym!

Ah- the 1964 one.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[1] that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and also women.[2] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

You object to this?

[BigBallinStalin]

Scroll up to my response with ooge, then follow the links. That's the extent of my hand-holding for ya, Sym!

Ah- the 1964 one.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[1] that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and also women.[2] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

You object to this?

Sym, based on your historic inability to argue well, I see little point in taking you seriously.

Good day! <tips hat>

[Symmetry]

Scroll up to my response with ooge, then follow the links. That's the extent of my hand-holding for ya, Sym!

Ah- the 1964 one.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[1] that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and also women.[2] It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public (known as "public accommodations").

You object to this?

Sym, based on your historic inability to argue well, I see little point in taking you seriously.

Good day! <tips hat>

Bye bye.

[Woodruff]

Then ALL "marriages" are only considered civil unions in the governments eyes and "marriages" are only a religious practice.I can live with this interpretation of the Constitution.

I think it's the right way to handle it, to be honest. However, far too many of the religious folk use this as an excuse not to allow homosexuals to marry while privately recognizing that getting the government out of marriage is highly unlikely. It's their way of having their cake and eating it too.

I also will add that a religious institution should not be forced to marry anyone they do not want to.

Absolutely correct.

That I am afraid is were the battle will be fought next.

Perhaps. I don't see that happening, to be honest. Or maybe I should say that I don't see it as being a serious battle (I'm sure there will be a court case...there always is). The US views religious institutions in a far different way than most other countries (rightly or wrongly).

[Woodruff]

It's like trying to reason with someone who sticks their fingers in their ears, shouts "la la la la" at the top of their voice and just keeps repeating the same points that have already been showed to be flawed every other time they've raised them.

If you're not interested in an actual discussion and properly defending your opinion then I'm out.

Why hello there, crispybits! It's good to have you join our forum. Since you're quite obviously new around these parts, let me be the first to welcome you and to tell you that if you have any questions, please just ask!

[Woodruff]

The only means of support? Marriage is the only means of support of a significant portion of the general population? I don't even understand what you mean by that, but I don't think it's complimentary of heterosexual marriage.

Marriage is an institution that perpetuates the creation and proper raising of future generations of Homo Sapiens. Recent changes in the institution in the past few centuries has already created significant cracks in the process; ignoring it completely is the number one cause of permanent poverty in large areas of this country.

So then based on this argument, you believe that children raised by a homosexual couple is worse than being raised by a heterosexual couple? If so, what is your basis for that determination?

Bear in mind that only a very small minority of same gender couples want to "raise a family"

So? How few or how many should be irrelevant to equality.

and an equally small minority of same gender couples want to destroy the notion of marriage completely and bring about the same gender equivalent of the free love hippie era of the 1960's.

Uh...what? I can honestly say that I haven't heard a single "same gender couple" say anything about wanting to destroy the notion of marriage completely. Possibly there are a few, but you're definitely reaching here. Why would a homosexual couple care about such a thing?

Most want common sense rights which, as far as I can tell, really has nothing to do with supporting couples bearing and raising children.

Yes, I would say that's probably all true. That being said, there's no rational reason to keep a homosexual couple from raising children if they desire to do so.

[thegreekdog]

Can we go back to what the problem is with the following potential law change:

"Gay couples will be recognized as married with respect to federal and state law."

I'm not sure I (still) understand what the problem is.

[Symmetry]

Can we go back to what the problem is with the following potential law change:

"Gay couples will be recognized as married with respect to federal and state law."

I'm not sure I (still) understand what the problem is.

There isn't one. It was established as as basic civil right by the Supreme Court. The rest is sound and fury.

[Woodruff]

Can we go back to what the problem is with the following potential law change:

"Gay couples will be recognized as married with respect to federal and state law."

I'm not sure I (still) understand what the problem is.

Works for me.

[thegreekdog]

Thanks guys. That was directed at Phatscotty, Night Strike, and the others.

Also, one of the rules is that they cannot make a "slippery slope" argument. Good luck and god speed!

[Phatscotty]

Then ALL "marriages" are only considered civil unions in the governments eyes and "marriages" are only a religious practice.I can live with this interpretation of the Constitution.I also will add that a religious institution should not be forced to marry anyone they do not want to.That I am afraid is were the battle will be fought next.

again! We agree! And you are right about the next fight being in the church. Suppose we'll just have to redefine separation of Church n State.

[Phatscotty]

Thanks guys. That was directed at Phatscotty, Night Strike, and the others.

Also, one of the rules is that they cannot make a "slippery slope" argument. Good luck and god speed!

Interestingly, the slippery slope argument does not need to be made anymore. All you have to do now is pay attention.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... erent.html

'It's ok for homosexuals to do what they want at home, how is this different?' Lawyer defends Columbia professor charged with incest

The lawyer representing a professor charged with incest with his 24-year-old daughter has questioned why the alleged affair has been made public.

David Epstein was charged last week with one count of incest for what was allegedly a consensual three-year sexual relationship with his daughter.

The political science professor at Columbia University, 46, allegedly slept with her between 2006 and 2009.

Epstein, who specialises in American politics and voting rights, is also said to have exchanged twisted text messages with the woman during their relationship.

Matthew Galluzzo, defending Epstein, has said that even though his daughter had emerged as a victim in the case, she could 'best be described as an accomplice'.

[Woodruff]

Thanks guys. That was directed at Phatscotty, Night Strike, and the others.
Also, one of the rules is that they cannot make a "slippery slope" argument. Good luck and god speed!

Interestingly, the slippery slope argument does not need to be made anymore. All you have to do now is pay attention.

1. You didn't at all address thegreekdog's point (of course).
2. So it is your contention that because there is a case in court about something, the law is now likely to be changed?

[Phatscotty]

It's like trying to reason with someone who sticks their fingers in their ears, shouts "la la la la" at the top of their voice and just keeps repeating the same points that have already been showed to be flawed every other time they've raised them.

If you're not interested in an actual discussion and properly defending your opinion then I'm out.

That's how I feel about you too. You keep redefining terms, like "banning marriage". How can something that has never existed be "banned"?

I don't accept any of the language you use. If you are a trial lawyer and cannot help it, I forgive you, but I suspect you are a student, or were recently.

When I read your post, in the second sentence I have a problem with how you are twisting terms and manipulating the language. Then the rest of your post is built on that false premise. Of course I just disagree with all of it. But you are honorable in your discourse, and I have tried to be too. Maybe we just need to start from the top. And don't let any of the trolls in the convo.

#1
What is the definition of discrimination

[Phatscotty]

Can we go back to what the problem is with the following potential law change:

"Gay couples will be recognized as married with respect to federal and state law."

I'm not sure I (still) understand what the problem is.

which means....if passed......that "gender does not matter"......correct?

[Woodruff]

It's like trying to reason with someone who sticks their fingers in their ears, shouts "la la la la" at the top of their voice and just keeps repeating the same points that have already been showed to be flawed every other time they've raised them.

If you're not interested in an actual discussion and properly defending your opinion then I'm out.

That's how I feel about you too. You keep redefining terms, like "banning marriage". How can something that has never existed be "banned"?

I don't accept any of the language you use. If you are a trial lawyer and cannot help it, I forgive you, but I suspect you are a student, or were recently.

When I read your post, in the second sentence I have a problem with how you are twisting terms and manipulating the language. Then the rest of your post is built on that false premise. Of course I just disagree with all of it. But you are honorable in your discourse, and I have tried to be too. Maybe we just need to start from the top. And don't let any of the trolls in the convo.

The trolls who ask you direct and relevant questions which you continue to ignore because you have no legitimate answer? Those trolls?

#1
What is the definition of discrimination

Off the top of my head: The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things.

Legal definition: Discrimination refers to the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

Which do you want to go with?

[BigBallinStalin]

12 pages later:

[Phatscotty]

That's what it looks like when words no longer have any meaning or definition

More and more Catholic charities and orphanages closing every month. Perhaps Catholics are too busy laughing about how Catholic charities and orphanages aren't closing all over the place.

[BigBallinStalin]

This is what I look like cuz my words no longer have any meaning or definition:

[Symmetry]

That's what it looks like when words no longer have any meaning or definition

The gay folk of the world haven't stolen the meaning or definition of words, Scotty.

[Phatscotty]

Exactly Symm. So the definition of marriage remains man and woman, and will not end up meaning "club to bash and ultimately destroy religion" and whither away the 1st amendment.

Thanks for clearing that up

[Symmetry]

Exactly Symm. So the definition of marriage remains man and woman, just as it always has.

Thanks for clearing that up

Nope, troll on big shot.

[Juan_Bottom]

Civil Rights has gone from:

"I guess race has no meaning or definition anymore?"

to

"I guess gender has no meaning or definition anymore?"

to

"I guess words have no meaning or definition anymore?"


This excuse for privilege is ridiculous.

[Phatscotty]

Nice brainwashing image dump. I do wonder if you have ever actually looked at this issue from a non biased p.o.v.? If you are still posting racist pictures from 50 years ago, that tells me you don't know too much except for how to repeat what gets repeated.

Race and gender are not even close to the same thing. Stop trying to manipulate