You want to talk about unnecessary and frivolous lawsuits burdening the legal system–this issue is going to be a bigger burden. Do we really need legislation to tell two men it’s their right to be legally bound to each other?
Why is it okay for a man and a woman and not a woman and a woman or man and man?
I don’t get it.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
You want to talk about unnecessary and frivolous lawsuits burdening the legal system–this issue is going to be a bigger burden. Do we really need legislation to tell two men it’s their right to be legally bound to each other?
Why is it okay for a man and a woman and not a woman and a woman or man and man?
I don’t get it.[/quote]
Please go back and reread the thread
i still don’t get it.
You may be right. We’ll have to wait and see.
Moving the bar up from “rational” as defined by Boston, makes it much more likely for state driven attempts to be struck down.
Given it has been, perhaps incorrectly, struck down already, you don’t imagine it will get easier to pass these laws with higher hurdles do you?
Other than the expected legal outcome, your arguments are lining up with my statements perfectly. I’m not trying to claim preference defines your sex, I’m saying it is the sum of the attributes. On that we agree. I think that is enough for my conclusion.
I’m okay with being wrong, if in fact I am.
[quote]vroom wrote:
You haven’t, Vroom, and your error is glaring and overwhelming.
You may be right. We’ll have to wait and see.
Moving the bar up from “rational” as defined by Boston, makes it much more likely for state driven attempts to be struck down.
Given it has been, perhaps incorrectly, struck down already, you don’t imagine it will get easier to pass these laws with higher hurdles do you?
Other than the expected legal outcome, your arguments are lining up with my statements perfectly. I’m not trying to claim preference defines your sex, I’m saying it is the sum of the attributes. On that we agree. I think that is enough for my conclusion.
I’m okay with being wrong, if in fact I am.[/quote]
vroom:
I think you make a valid point, but a properly worded amendment to the constitution ends it all!
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
i still don’t get it.[/quote]
Marriage, as defined, has always been a man to a woman. This thread was established to discuss the legal issues that would grant such gay marriages. If, in fact, said marriages would be covered under discrimination laws.
And, if present liberal/activist jurists are trying to rewrite/reinterpret existing law to accomodate said marriages.
Although feelings about the actual act of marriage are involved, the basis has been the law covering those issues and how the are/should be acted upon.
I have said it several times, that if they are allowed to marry it ultimately does not affect me one bit. I think it would be negative for marriage and society as a whole, but that is because my personal belief of the gay lifestyle as abhorent.
What originally this thread was based on though, was the constitutionality of gay marriage and judicial decisions concerning it.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
vroom:
I think you make a valid point, but a properly worded amendment to the constitution ends it all!
[/quote]
How can you properly word a document that will ask us to give rights to some but deny them to others based on their sexual preference (wether it be genetic, chosen, or because you tossed a coin and lost)?
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Marriage, as defined, has always been a man to a woman. This thread was established to discuss the legal issues that would grant such gay marriages. If, in fact, said marriages would be covered under discrimination laws.
And, if present liberal/activist jurists are trying to rewrite/reinterpret existing law to accomodate said marriages.
Although feelings about the actual act of marriage are involved, the basis has been the law covering those issues and how the are/should be acted upon.
I have said it several times, that if they are allowed to marry it ultimately does not affect me one bit. I think it would be negative for marriage and society as a whole, but that is because my personal belief of the gay lifestyle as abhorent.
What originally this thread was based on though, was the constitutionality of gay marriage and judicial decisions concerning it.[/quote]
Okay, personal feelings aside: In order to prove its affect on society as a whole we’d have to test it first. In order for this to happen it needs to be allowed.
I understand your aversion to gay marriage–you are not capable of stepping back and just observing individuals as the animals they are in their behavior–that’s another debate. If you do–and try not to fit what humans should be–in your mind–into some preconcieved mold just because historically it has always been that way. You will see where the majority of proponents of gay marriage are coming from. The definition of marriage is something that–despite what people like you try to do–will in the end change.
I understand your aversion to change as well–people had a hard time accepting that the Earth was round too. Peoples beliefs aren’t always going to determine what is right and therefore, legal.
Zeb,
Yes, that is very true, I had overlooked that… 
If the heavy lifting to write and pass such a thing occurs, the rules will certainly change.
Rainjack,
Although it does look silly, I believe that there is a legal phrase that describes this process…
“The exception proves the rule”
where the word “proves” comes from older english, implying “to test”. Coming up with silly but possible situations places the law and its interpretation under intense scrutiny.
It isn’t just silly word games. The exception will point out the flaws in the logic or the law, possibly leading to new interpretations.
I’m no lawyer, forgive me if I’ve mangled this up.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack,
Although it does look silly, I believe that there is a legal phrase that describes this process…
“The exception proves the rule”
where the word “proves” comes from older english, implying “to test”. Coming up with silly but possible situations places the law and its interpretation under intense scrutiny.
It isn’t just silly word games. The exception will point out the flaws in the logic or the law, possibly leading to new interpretations.
I’m no lawyer, forgive me if I’ve mangled this up.[/quote]
Well put.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Is this the level your argument has been reduced to? Pulling extreme cases out of your ass and trying to equate it with gay marraige?
Rainjack,
Although it does look silly, I believe that there is a legal phrase that describes this process…
“The exception proves the rule”
where the word “proves” comes from older english, implying “to test”. Coming up with silly but possible situations places the law and its interpretation under intense scrutiny.
It isn’t just silly word games. The exception will point out the flaws in the logic or the law, possibly leading to new interpretations.
I’m no lawyer, forgive me if I’ve mangled this up.[/quote]
I’m not sure what a hermaphrodite proves as far as gay marraige is concerned. If the argument is that there are some anomolies wrt genetic make up then - you have a point.
But that is not the argument here. You are equating a penis with something other than what it is - a penis.
I’m not really sure what point you are trying to make, but evidently Lifimumaximus agrees with you 100% - and that should at the very least give you some pause.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Not only that, but what about people born with both sexual organs, a penis and a vagina? They do exist. Who can they marry? Is this up to the church? Please, Ranjack, let me know.
Once again with the Religion straw man? I’ve never mentioned the church in this entire thread. Please tell me why this is my question - 100M was the one who introduced religion.
Is this the level your argument has been reduced to? Pulling extreme cases out of your ass and trying to equate it with gay marraige?
Nice try - but I’m not taking the tangent bait. [/quote]
How is it so extreme that it defies this argument? How is that a strawman? If a person with both organs wants to marry someone, what will the court have to say? You act like it is too rare to even consider. It isn’t. Why completely avoid the question? Did it not fit into a nice enough box for you to label?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
Is this the level your argument has been reduced to? Pulling extreme cases out of your ass and trying to equate it with gay marraige?
Rainjack,
Although it does look silly, I believe that there is a legal phrase that describes this process…
“The exception proves the rule”
where the word “proves” comes from older english, implying “to test”. Coming up with silly but possible situations places the law and its interpretation under intense scrutiny.
It isn’t just silly word games. The exception will point out the flaws in the logic or the law, possibly leading to new interpretations.
I’m no lawyer, forgive me if I’ve mangled this up.
I’m not sure what a hermaphrodite proves as far as gay marraige is concerned. If the argument is that there are some anomolies wrt genetic make up then - you have a point.
But that is not the argument here. You are equating a penis with something other than what it is - a penis.
I’m not really sure what point you are trying to make, but evidently Lifimumaximus agrees with you 100% - and that should at the very least give you some pause.
[/quote]
The point is clear, you lose your stance the moment that the sex of the individual is undetermined…making this sexual discrimination at its base.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Please Morty - faking confusion after I have written my position ad nauseum? It’s not my fault you have no reading comprehension skills.
[/quote]
I’m not faking confusion, and my reading comprehension skills are pretty good. Now that we’ve gotten that useless bit out of the way, back to discourse.
I just went back through the thread and you have not commented on the two point I brought up. I’ll ask you again:
Why is the presence of a singular gene your de facto standard for protected status? It’s a odd burden of proof to establish. It’s likely that if homosexuality is genetic, it would be expressed as many small, unobservable differentiations that sum to a complex outcome. I also know of no legal standard that holds the presence of a gene as de facto criteria to prove physical differentiation. Your standard for protected status seems arbitrary. For whatever you refuse to address this portion of your argument, and are instead resorting to calling people stupid instead of simply stating your rationale.
And why the quick dismissal of the “gay twin” study?
I’ve noticed that even if someone treats your opinions with the utmost respect (no name calling), tries patiently to understand exactly what your saying, you seemingly always reach a point in discourse where you get angered by the fact that you have to defend your positions. Is there any level of discourse that would be sufficient to prevent you from calling a person with a opposing viewpoint stupid?
I believe that females have the XX chromosome, and the males have the XY.
You’re a doctor, right?
I’m still unsure what exactly dragging religion into this argument is all about. That was definitely a straw man. The whole “what about hermaphrodites” straw man has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutional ramifications wrt gay marraige - which makes it yet another profX straw man argument.
Please try harder, prof - this is getting easier the more you post on this thread.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
Why is the presence of a singular gene your de facto standard for protected status? It’s a odd burden of proof to establish. It’s likely that if homosexuality is genetic, it would be expressed as many small, unobservable differentiations that sum to a complex outcome. I also know of no legal standard that holds the presence of a gene as de facto criteria to prove physical differentiation. Your standard for protected status seems arbitrary. For whatever you refuse to address this portion of your argument, and are instead resorting to calling people stupid instead of simply stating your rationale.[/quote]
First off - please post the quote where I even use the word stupid, much less call someone stupid.
I have answered this several times. The pro-gay group says that they are deserving of preferential treatment because they are hardwired to be gay. That there is no choice involved. It is who they are. I, as well as 2/3 of all those voting on gay marraige referendums in 2004 hold the same opinion - that it is a choice, and that gays are not deserving of inclusion wrt marraige. If there is no choice in their lifestyle - then prove it. The most definitive - and yes the most difficult - way to prove this is by genetic differentiation between straights and gays.
I don’t know how much more of an answer you want, but that’s all you’re going to get as I’m sick of typing the same repetitive shit to everyone who thinks they have the answer. How 'bout you guys fucking read what I wrote the first fifty times?
If it is the one I’m thinkng of, and the one that Thunderbolt spoke of - there is hardly definitive proof when 50% of the twin siblings of gay twins are also gay. That can be interpreted eother way depending on your bias - so it’s hardly a ringning endorsement of your position.
Once again - you show me where in this thread I have called anyone stupid. Short of that you are making shit up. Read all of my posts. This is how I write. I’ve been doing it this way for over two years here in the old political threads. If you don’t like it I suggest you find a more docile forum to frequent.
I get tired of defending myself not because I can’t, but because those that are attacking me don’t read, or don’t process the information the they have read. I mean, honestly, How many times would you write the same damn thing before getting impatient?
So for those of you fixated on the ‘exception’ to the rule…
…the only time there is trouble determining sex is when a person is born intersex - the genetic anomaly of the hermaphrodite - correct?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I believe that females have the XX chromosome, and the males have the XY. [/quote]
Well, shit, what about those with XXY chromosomes?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I believe that females have the XX chromosome, and the males have the XY.
Well, shit, what about those with XXY chromosomes?[/quote]
See Thunderbolt’s post right above you.
And once again what does this have to do with the constitutional issues wrt gay marraige?