Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 389101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 398
  1. #241  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Yet not silly enough for you to say it.
    I'm not above saying silly things, especially when the response is apropos.
  2. #242  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    ...the shape and structure of the brain is due to the persons choice of lifestyle...
    Right, of course, on top of everything else their "unhealthy" "abbarent" behavior is deforming their brains as well. lol
  3. #243  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I'm just not sure when black men were prohibited from marrying black women.
    Apart from during slavery, they werent. That's the point, it's called an analogy.

    Your implication was that granting marriage certificates to straight couples while denying them to gay couples was not a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution, because the gay couples were free to choose a spouse of the opposite gender.

    My point is that it was the same argument used to defend anti-miscegenation laws in the 1960s. A black man is not denied equal protection under the law because he is free to choose a black wife.
  4. #244  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Not sure what you're talking about but I've always been talking about laws.
    You have been? I will make my point again.
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Then who's to say that we need to "learn" to accept aberrent behavior? Indeed, if you look at the number of homosexuals compared to the population, it is undoubtedly aberrent.
    I can only guess about your motivation in pointing out the "abbaration" of homosexuality. I will assume it's not hate.

    My point was under your given definition of abbarent, white men married to black women are also an abbaration, and yes you will need to "learn" to accept it.
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #245  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    If you read the previous posts on the same subject line you would understand (maybe) that there are individuals who feel that a homosexual is being discriminated against because they can not marry a same sex individual. They go on to say that a polygamist does not have the same right because a homosexual is born that way (even though there is no evidence of that) and a polygamist is just making a choice.
    The two subjects have nothing to do with each other. They don't belong in the same argument. You can have monogomous gays, just as you can have monogomous straights. Being gay doesn't cause, lead to, open the door to, have anything to do with, in any form or fashion; polygamy. Just another silly sidetrack.
    They compare the so-called discrimination as being equal to the racial discrimination of the 1800's. I simply pointed out several times now, that you can not choose your skin color, and to say that because someone chooses to engage in same sex relationships they should be protected from so-called discrimination in the same manner as some one with a different skin color is degrading to those who fought and continue to fight for equality among the races. Your view seems clouded by saying a homosexual is being discriminated against because they can not go outside the laws and court rulings to attain the privileges that are provided to hetrosexual married couples.
    Cardio, are gay's discriminated against? If so, why?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. #246  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Apart from during slavery, they werent. That's the point, it's called an analogy.
    Unless you're saying Gays are being treated like slaves then its a bad analogy.

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Your implication was that granting marriage certificates to straight couples while denying them to gay couples was not a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution, because the gay couples were free to choose a spouse of the opposite gender.
    That's part of my argument, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    My point is that it was the same argument used to defend anti-miscegenation laws in the 1960s. A black man is not denied equal protection under the law because he is free to choose a black wife.
    I'm not sure if that's correct. Nonetheless, anti-miscegenation laws were laws enacted to changed the definition of marriage. They were wrong. I'm not for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage but I'm also not for enacting laws to change the definition of marriage. Seems consistent to me.
  7. #247  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    You have been? I will make my point again.I can only guess about your motivation in pointing out the "abbaration" of homosexuality. I will assume it's not hate.
    I'm not getting into another silly debate with you about this. If I didn't make it clear enough for you earlier, I'll say it now--I'm only talking about laws.
  8. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #248  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    No, marriage has historically been defined as between one white man, and AT LEAST one white woman.
    Really!!!! You mean for all these years anyone who was not white could not marry. I have lots of folks who would like you to explain what that paper they have is all about then, it sure looks like a marriage license to me.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  9. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #249  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I'm just not sure when black men were prohibited from marrying black women.
    Or American Indians, or Latinos, or Asians. I must admit I was unaware that marriage was a white thing. I guess that is one way to keep us darkies down, massah.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  10. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #250  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Right, of course, on top of everything else their "unhealthy" "abbarent" behavior is deforming their brains as well. lol
    Educating yourself is a good thing, try it sometime. Yes, there is a scientific and medical debate concerning the nature vs nurture of homosexuality. Yes, the brain does continue to form/change as you age. The brain develops, grows, reaches the peak that we can attain then begins to deteriorate. Yes, this is physical as well as mental. High school science class at any level should help explain the process of development of the human body.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  11. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #251  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    The two subjects have nothing to do with each other. They don't belong in the same argument. You can have monogomous gays, just as you can have monogomous straights. Being gay doesn't cause, lead to, open the door to, have anything to do with, in any form or fashion; polygamy. Just another silly sidetrack.

    Cardio, are gay's discriminated against? If so, why?
    If we need to change the laws to allow homosexual couples to marry, redifine the definition of marriage, why shoud we exclude polygamist? I prefer not redefining marriage to include same sex couples, nor polygamist, but if one, it should be for both.

    No they are not discriminated against.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  12. #252  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I'm not getting into another silly debate with you about this. If I didn't make it clear enough for you earlier, I'll say it now--I'm only talking about laws.
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Then who's to say that we need to "learn" to accept aberrent behavior? Indeed, if you look at the number of homosexuals compared to the population, it is undoubtedly aberrent.
    This is what you said.
  13. #253  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    This is what you said.
    I'm sorry, was I not clear on my last post?
  14. #254  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Unless you're saying Gays are being treated like slaves then its a bad analogy.
    An analogy that you missed does not constitute a bad analogy.

    Your implication was that granting marriage certificates to straight couples while denying them to gay couples was not a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution, because the gay couples were free to choose a spouse of the opposite gender.

    My point is that it was the same argument used to defend anti-miscegenation laws in the 1960s. A black man is not denied equal protection under the law because he is free to choose a black wife.

    That is the analogy. Concentrate.

    Quote Originally Posted by LOVING v. VIRGINIA
    Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

    This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. 1 For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...vol=388&page=1
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I'm not sure if that's correct. Nonetheless, anti-miscegenation laws were laws enacted to changed the definition of marriage. They were wrong. I'm not for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage but I'm also not for enacting laws to change the definition of marriage. Seems consistent to me.
    No, as we all know, marriage laws are passed and changed by states and do not apply everywhere. It was the supreme court envoking the equal protection clause that struck down anti-miscegenation, as I said before.
  15. #255  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    No, marriage has historically been defined as between one white man, and AT LEAST one white woman.
    Given that the percent of the world's population that could be considered
    "white" is so small, you might want to revisit this assertion.
  16. #256  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Apart from during slavery, they werent. That's the point, it's called an analogy. ...
    Interesting tangent. Because while "marriage" was prohibited, the Africans still established monogamous, covenant relations for themselves. "Jumping the broom" is still included in some ceremonies in appreciation for the resolve of the once enslaved people.
  17. #257  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    An analogy that you missed does not constitute a bad analogy.

    Your implication was that granting marriage certificates to straight couples while denying them to gay couples was not a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution, because the gay couples were free to choose a spouse of the opposite gender.

    My point is that it was the same argument used to defend anti-miscegenation laws in the 1960s. A black man is not denied equal protection under the law because he is free to choose a black wife.
    And you asked in black men were being denied the right to marry black women. How does that apply? How is it a proper analogy? How is this pettiness even applicable to the debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    That is the analogy. Concentrate.
    More personal attacks, blaze?

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    No, as we all know, marriage laws are passed and changed by states and do not apply everywhere. It was the supreme court envoking the equal protection clause that struck down anti-miscegenation, as I said before.
    Again, my point is that the states passed laws to change the definition of marriage. The courts rightly struck them down--albeit a bit late. In this case the states are also trying to pass laws to redefine marriage.
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #258  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    No they are not discriminated against.
    How can you say that when you deny them the right to marry?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. #259  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    And you asked in black men were being denied the right to marry black women. How does that apply? How is it a proper analogy? How is this pettiness even applicable to the debate?
    Lol, the analogy is dead on. If black men were in fact denied the right to marry black women between say 1885 and 1967, then the analogy would not make sense. I am sorry if you don't get the point.

    Your implication was that granting marriage certificates to straight couples while denying them to gay couples was not a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution, because the gay couples were free to choose a spouse of the opposite gender.

    Your choice of wording was
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Is a homosexual man being denied the right to marry a woman?
    My response was
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze
    Was a black man being denied the right to marry a black woman?
    My point is that it was the same argument used to defend anti-miscegenation laws in the 1960s. A black man is not denied equal protection under the law because he is free to choose a black wife.

    Keep reading it, you will get it.
  20. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #260  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    How can you say that when you deny them the right to marry?
    They are not being denied the right to marry. They are being denied the ability to do something the courts have declared against the law of the land. If they said that they could not get a drivers license because they prefer to live with a same sex partner, or were denied employment, or medical care then yes, they would be discriminated against.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"

Posting Permissions