| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Henry Plainview 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
 Posted: September 12 2010 at 01:16 |
 jplanet wrote:
Opinions of judicial power usually align with whether or not people agree with the judge's decisions. For example, with all of the conservative criticisms of judicial power, I have never once heard a conservative complain about when judges handed the presidency over to GW Bush in 2000. And Al Gore clearly won the popular vote - there has been no better example of justices using their power to contradict the will of the people. |
The Supreme Court didn't give the presidency to Bush, they stopped the recount, which probably would have turned out the same way anyway. If Bush did steal the election, which is unlikely, recounting what they had over and over again wouldn't have changed what they already had. The electoral college is in the Constitution, it nothing to do with them and the "will of the people" for the election is irrelevant in this situation. I agree that the electoral college is BS, but your anger is misplaced, and unfortunately it's not going away any time soon because amending the Constitution is a tremendous pain the ass, so we just have to live with it.
| Where was the conservative backlash when the Supreme Court gave corporations the right to make unlimited campaign contributions? No other decision in history has ever edged our country closer to fascism than this. But there were no complaints about judicial power from the right. But now, corruption and private interests is institutionalized as a result. |
Well both McCain and Olympia Snow complained, and I remember others but I'm not really willing to search past Wikipedia. I think it's pretty straightforward to understand why you would see the Court striking down a law you think is unconstitutional as being within its power while I law that you think is fine is overreaching. Because I don't believe there are a lot of people who think the Supreme Court doesn't have the ability to talk about a law's constitutionality at all. Corporations giving money isn't fascism, lol, calm down. I don't agree with it either, although I do have problems with some provisions of McCain-Feingold, but it's not the end of the world.
Easy Money wrote:
Sometimes when people say homophobic, I think what is really meant is homo-adverse, (although I guess that isn't really word). There should be a difference between being afraid of something and just plain being adverse to something.
Although the dread of the shower together does sound like irrational fear.
Personally I don't like communal showers with men, gay or otherwise, but it didn't keep me from high school PE class. |
I will agree that the word homophobic is unbearably overused. Is the group shower really a common thing for people outside the military? I went to a private school and we didn't do that, it seems really f**ked up to me.
Edited by Henry Plainview - September 12 2010 at 03:09
|
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
 |
jplanet
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 30 2006
Location: NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 799
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 02:52 |
|
Henry, you have a much more articulate and philosophical approach, whereas the bits you quoted came from a much more reactive, emotional place. A dry analysis of the individual circumstances of judicial decisions, without empathy for the subject, doesn't seem to make sense in the context of my responses to Rob.
In other words, I would debate this topic in a completely different manner with you, vs. someone who says "you wouldn't want to have to shower with a gay dude, would you?". Take that as a complement - you present articulated, informed thoughts, (whether I agree or share them or not) while the de rigeur rhetoric of detractors of gay rights is designed to elicit a specific emotional, not logical response.... ;-)
I'm being too verbose. How about this explanation; when I can tell someone is thinly veiling their dislike for gay people, I get pissed. It's very easy for me to see. When someone presents objective statements that show a grasp of a higher level of facts and awareness of their point of view, I engage in the debate with much more care. To do otherwise would be like bringing a chess game to a gun fight. :-D
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 03:18 |
Epignosis wrote:
*sigh*. |
*giggle*
Epignosis wrote:
We have equal rights.
A gay man can marry a woman.
A straight man can marry a woman.
A gay man cannot marry a man.
A straight man cannot marry a man.
That's equal. As I've said before, what is being sought is not equal rights, but more rights.
|
That's far from equal because you've not listed all combinations and permutations (so neither shall I), try these:
A woman can marry a man.
A man cannot marry a man.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A gay woman can marry a man.
A gay man cannot marry a man.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A straight woman can marry a man.
A straight man cannot marry a man.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A man can marry a woman.
A woman cannot marry a woman.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A gay man can marry a woman. A gay woman cannot marry a woman.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A straight man can marry a woman. A straight woman cannot marry a woman.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A woman can marry a straight man.
A man cannot marry a straight man.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A gay woman can marry a straight man.
A gay man cannot marry a straight man.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A man can marry a straight woman.
A woman cannot marry a straight woman.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A gay man can marry a straight woman.
A gay woman cannot marry a straight woman.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A woman can marry a gay man.
A man cannot marry a gay man.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A man can marry a gay woman. A woman cannot marry a gay woman.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A straight woman can marry a gay man.
A straight man cannot marry a gay man.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A straight man can marry a gay woman. A straight woman cannot marry a gay woman.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A straight woman can marry a straight man.
A straight man cannot marry a straight man.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A gay woman can marry a gay man.
A gay man cannot marry a gay man.
That's not equal. What is being sort is not more rights, but equal rights.
A gay man can marry a gay woman. A gay woman cannot marry a gay woman.
That's not equal. What is being sort is not more rights, but equal rights.
A straight woman can marry a straight man.
A gay man cannot marry a gay man.
That's not equal. What is being sort is not more rights, but equal rights.
A straight man can marry a straight woman. A gay woman cannot marry a gay woman.
That's not equal. What is being sort is not more rights, but equal rights.
Epignosis wrote:
It's not the same thing as black people not being allowed to vote. |
However it is the same thing as black people not being allowed to marry white people.
|
|
What?
|
|
Any Colour You Like
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 15 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12294
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 03:43 |
Bravo Dean, you've got more patience than me. 
|
|
jplanet
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 30 2006
Location: NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 799
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 04:00 |
Epignosis wrote:
...
A gay man cannot marry a man.
...
|
Yes, they can. I'm surprised that nobody else has stated the obvious here - I can see why I missed it, as I'm slow to the draw, but some of you are better at this than I am. The above quote is incorrect. Yes, gay men can marry gay men, and gay women can marry gay women. It's allowed in a growing number of states in the U.S., and in other countries as well. And the trend is continuing...the vast majority of younger voters are in favor of it, so ultimately laws where it is presently prohibited will be overturned. There are few people, other than vehemently anti-gay and religious groups, who would deny the inevitability that gay marriage is on its way to being quite mainstream over the next generation or two.
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 04:09 |
|
A person should be able to marry another person. That's really all there is to say.
|
|
Chris S
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 04:21 |
|
or even propose in the shower......
|
|
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 04:37 |
|
Couldn't agree more. Same sex marriages have been recognised in New South Wales, Australia since 1999 and both parties are afforded the same legal entitlements as so-called 'Christian' mixed gender marriages. (However this situation varied between the other states until new legislation was passed on 1st July 2010)
Here's an extract of the defining parameters
A de facto relationship is a relationship that two people who are not married or related by family have as a couple living together on a ‘genuine domestic basis*’.
(*Arrived at presumably to filter out those benefit fraudsters impersonating same sex de-factos but found in reality to be nothing more than heterosexual same sex house/flat mates etc)
It can exist between 2 people of the opposite sex, or between 2 people of the same sex.
All the circumstances of the relationship will determine whether a couple have a de facto relationship. These include:
* the duration of their relationship
* the nature and extent of their common residence
* whether a sexual relationship exists
* the degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between them
* the ownership, use and acquisition of their property
* their degree of mutual commitment to a shared life
* whether the relationship has been registered, in a State or Territory with laws for the registration of relationships
* the care and support of children, and
* the reputation and public aspects of their relationship.
So yeah, saddle up homophobes and ride off into the sunset to join the rest of your
kissin' cousins y'all.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 05:46 |
|
In the UK gays cannot marry, they can enter civil partnerships. There are differences between them aside from the obvious religious connotation of the word "marriage", but in principle they are equal in law.
|
|
What?
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 06:08 |
jplanet wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
jplanet wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
I'm off to bed, but here's a question:
If you support gay marriage, do you support polygamous marriages, group marriages, and/or incestuous marriage? Why or why not?
|
The fact that you have no clue how insulting and condescending that is is unfathomable. The first two scenarios are not even between two consenting adults, and there is no such thing as a sexuality that only allows someone to fall in love with a relative.
|
You're just as bigoted as you're claiming Rob to be. You're acting so high and mighty as a defender of people's rights, then you act as if polygamous marriages are any more objectionable. If Rob is being bigoted, then so are you, except you chose to include gay marriage in your accepted class of marriages which are worthy of recognition.
Jesus Christ. Is your post a joke? Tell me it's a joke. |
There's no joke. Rob's examples are classic homophobic rhetoric designed to scare people away from gay marriage, so they are examples that must be refuted. When people were arguing against interracial marriage, they used the same reasoning, so there is historical precedent in the use of those examples to suppress the rights of others.
And even though I take offense at Rob's posts, I am still respectful to him. There is no need to refer to my posts as a joke. Agree with me or disagree with me. Give me information to see another point of view. Be intelligent. But don't try to bully me and call what I have to say a joke.
|
Explain yourself then.
Why shouldn't three people decide that they want to enter into marriage together? Why can't a brother and sister do the same?
What makes gays so special that they're entitled to marriage, but two people who are related are not?
Your post is full of classic homophobic rhetoric just applied to different forms of marriage.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 06:17 |
Dean wrote:
In the UK gays cannot marry, they can enter civil partnerships. There are differences between them aside from the obvious religious connotation of the word "marriage", but in principle they are equal in law. |
Yes, I stand corrected for Down-Under as well  ,
federal law in Australia does not recognise same sex de-facto couples
as formal 'marriages' but does, as you point out similarly to the UK,
allow them practically all the same rights as those available to
unmarried heterosexual couples. There is a private members bill
currently on the waiting list (I think) which would rectify this
disparity.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 06:50 |
Epignosis wrote:
I'm off to bed, but here's a question:
If you support gay marriage, do you support polygamous marriages, group marriages, and/or incestuous marriage? Why or why not?
|
I question the relevance of this question since none of these would exclude a person from joining the military for any reason other than they are illegal. However, DADT doesn apply just to married couples, or to couples in relationships, it also applies to homosexuals who are single and have never been in a relationship or marriage. (DADT does not apply to Corp. Klinger either, since DADT came into effect after the Korean War and after the TV series was made, nor was he gay or even pretending to be gay, but that's by-the-by).
However, not being one to shirk away from an irrelevant question - yes, I support all those in principle to a degree: For polygamy and polygyny living with one woman is enough for me and I'm far to selfish to share, if others want to I have no objections; Group marriages are again okay in principle it's not something I would consider as being right for me or my personality any more than I would an open marriage or an adulterous one, but again, of others want to I have no objections;. Incestuous marriage is far harder - like Stonie says, has an icky-factor for me, and scientifically in-breeding is a bad thing that leads to all manner of health problems for any resulting offspring actually covers a broad spectrum of definitions so there isn't a definitive answer or opinion that I can hold - if we confine the act of marriage as being a union between two consenting adults then it is their choice - of course there are difficulties in recognising "consensual" when the relationship is between parent and offspring, (this gets further complicated when in-laws, step-relations and adoptive-relations are included in incest laws).
|
|
What?
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 07:21 |
Slight correction my friend Dean, Klinger was pretending to be crazy. 
Dean wrote:
However it is the same thing as black people not being allowed to marry white people. |
I'd be in trouble if that hadn't been ended in this country. Thank god I didn't fall in love with a black man.
Edited by Slartibartfast - September 12 2010 at 07:24
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 07:23 |
Man Overboard wrote:
I can't believe this discussion is still carrying on like this. This should be simple. Epignosis, you in particular hold some repugnant views.
|
And exactly what is my view?
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 07:29 |
Dean wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
*sigh*. |
*giggle*
Epignosis wrote:
We have equal rights.
A gay man can marry a woman.
A straight man can marry a woman.
A gay man cannot marry a man.
A straight man cannot marry a man.
That's equal. As I've said before, what is being sought is not equal rights, but more rights.
|
That's far from equal because you've not listed all combinations and permutations (so neither shall I), try these:
A woman can marry a man.
A man cannot marry a man.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A gay woman can marry a man.
A gay man cannot marry a man.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A straight woman can marry a man.
A straight man cannot marry a man.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A man can marry a woman.
A woman cannot marry a woman.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A gay man can marry a woman. A gay woman cannot marry a woman.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A straight man can marry a woman. A straight woman cannot marry a woman.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A woman can marry a straight man.
A man cannot marry a straight man.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A gay woman can marry a straight man.
A gay man cannot marry a straight man.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A man can marry a straight woman.
A woman cannot marry a straight woman.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A gay man can marry a straight woman.
A gay woman cannot marry a straight woman.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A woman can marry a gay man.
A man cannot marry a gay man.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A man can marry a gay woman. A woman cannot marry a gay woman.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A straight woman can marry a gay man.
A straight man cannot marry a gay man.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A straight man can marry a gay woman. A straight woman cannot marry a gay woman.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A straight woman can marry a straight man.
A straight man cannot marry a straight man.
That's not equal. But this right is not being sort.
A gay woman can marry a gay man.
A gay man cannot marry a gay man.
That's not equal. What is being sort is not more rights, but equal rights.
A gay man can marry a gay woman. A gay woman cannot marry a gay woman.
That's not equal. What is being sort is not more rights, but equal rights.
A straight woman can marry a straight man.
A gay man cannot marry a gay man.
That's not equal. What is being sort is not more rights, but equal rights.
A straight man can marry a straight woman. A gay woman cannot marry a gay woman.
That's not equal. What is being sort is not more rights, but equal rights.
Epignosis wrote:
It's not the same thing as black people not being allowed to vote. |
However it is the same thing as black people not being allowed to marry white people. |
I agree you have a lot of patience, Dean.
However, the permutations here boil down to a different, also recent debate: Should women be permitted to walk around topless in public (I know what the overwhelming opinion here will be- consider it a rhetorical question).
More importantly, as I mentioned, marriage is between one man and one woman and for life. That is an axiomatic definition of marriage I adhere to.
Speaking of axiomatic, being black isn't sinful (according to my religion). Homosexuality is. That's why to me this isn't like interracial marriage. I realize most here won't share that view, but that's mine. You also won't see me campaigning against gay marriage in this country. Perhaps jplanet will appreciate that. But I won't support it either.
Edited by Epignosis - September 12 2010 at 07:30
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 07:30 |
jplanet wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
*sigh*
We have equal rights.
A gay man can marry a woman.
A straight man can marry a woman.
A gay man cannot marry a man.
A straight man cannot marry a man.
That's equal. ...
|
*sigh*
No it's not, that's bigotry.
A straight man or woman can marry who they love.
A gay man or woman cannot.
|
jplanet wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
I'm off to bed, but here's a question:
If you support gay marriage, do you support polygamous marriages, group marriages, and/or incestuous marriage? Why or why not?
|
The fact that you have no clue how insulting and
condescending that is is unfathomable. The first two scenarios are not
even between two consenting adults, and there is no such thing as a
sexuality that only allows someone to fall in love with a relative.
|
That's all I needed to see.
Polygamous marriage has been around as long as homosexuality. The first two are among more than two consenting adults (obviously it isn't two- that's the definition of poly). "There is no such thing as a sexuality that only allows someone to fall in love with a relative." Um...says you?
|
|
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 07:52 |
|
I'm totally apathetic about gay marriage. I believe that gays are not a social evil in any way and that they should not be persecuted or attacked. They should be free to build and share their lives together and celebrate this union with a ceremony of their own devising, with friends and guests who support them, if they wish, which they can already do. I think legally giving them the right to acquire little pieces of paper that mean they have to divide all their property in half if they split up is entirely pointless.
|
|
jplanet
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 30 2006
Location: NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 799
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 09:21 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
jplanet wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
jplanet wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
I'm off to bed, but here's a question:
If you support gay marriage, do you support polygamous marriages, group marriages, and/or incestuous marriage? Why or why not?
|
The fact that you have no clue how insulting and condescending that is is unfathomable. The first two scenarios are not even between two consenting adults, and there is no such thing as a sexuality that only allows someone to fall in love with a relative.
|
You're just as bigoted as you're claiming Rob to be. You're acting so high and mighty as a defender of people's rights, then you act as if polygamous marriages are any more objectionable. If Rob is being bigoted, then so are you, except you chose to include gay marriage in your accepted class of marriages which are worthy of recognition.
Jesus Christ. Is your post a joke? Tell me it's a joke. |
There's no joke. Rob's examples are classic homophobic rhetoric designed to scare people away from gay marriage, so they are examples that must be refuted. When people were arguing against interracial marriage, they used the same reasoning, so there is historical precedent in the use of those examples to suppress the rights of others.
And even though I take offense at Rob's posts, I am still respectful to him. There is no need to refer to my posts as a joke. Agree with me or disagree with me. Give me information to see another point of view. Be intelligent. But don't try to bully me and call what I have to say a joke.
|
Explain yourself then.
Why shouldn't three people decide that they want to enter into marriage together? Why can't a brother and sister do the same?
What makes gays so special that they're entitled to marriage, but two people who are related are not?
Your post is full of classic homophobic rhetoric just applied to different forms of marriage. |
You know, I thought about this and you're absolutely right. Bring on the group and incestuous marriage! Although, polygamists and incestuous couples are not being beaten in the streets or strung up on fences while fighting for the right, but absolutely, bring it on!
|
|
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 09:41 |
I can't see any problems with polygamy (apart from the downturn in the wedding cake industry  ) but the 'relatives' example isn't really a marriage issue at all (yes, there should be no impediment to their being married if they love one another) nor could you make any robust rational argument to deny them a sexual relationship if they so choose but ain't this floundering on the rocks of erm...congenital birth defects? Although such anomalies are not restricted to the offspring of incest, would we as a society be acting responsibly for condoning the higher instances that such inbreeding would produce?
Edited by ExittheLemming - September 12 2010 at 09:42
|
|
rushfan4
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Offline
Points: 66588
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 09:55 |
The problem with Polygamy is the "consenting adult" portion of it. I believe in many instances the woman in question (a) is too young to legally consent, and (b) is forced into the arrangement by either her parents or her religion (cult) leaders.
If on the other hand, it is a two-way street, that the woman can have multiple husbands and the man can have multiple wives and both the man and woman are consenting adults who are OK with this arrangement than more power to them.
As a tax professional, let me just say that that would be a real bitch to try and prepare those tax returns. We'd end up with consolidated individual tax returns.
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Deemed Unconstitutional
