Supreme Court takes two gay marriage cases...

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Supreme Court takes two gay marriage cases...

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    Different but equal by biology.



    Revealing, in more ways that one.

     


    You understand, don't you, that the above quote could be used to justify sending black people to a different water fountain?

     

     

     

     

    The reason for separating the sexes in sports is that the difference in sex actually has an effect on the sport. There's a reason to do it. So that men playing rugby don't break the women playing rugby in half.

    It takes a hell of a lot more work for a woman to reach the same muscle mass as an athletic man, and usually takes steroids.

    There's noting about being gay that has an effect on marriage.

    There is no rational basis for denying them the same right as anyone else.

     

     

    There's only bigotry, whether its religious bigotry or not.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So right to the biology point and you ignore:

    Are you interested in rights or what its called?

    So are same but differently labeled rest rooms discriminatory?

     

    My only issue with marriage equality is that I'm a traditionalist; but I want to ensure the rights transcend what its called which is why I was an early supporter of civil unions.


    My biology comment was clearly tied to the gender of the person, but then you knew that.

    So what about equal opportunity for women in sport, your position actually seems to support a position that based on physical differences women should not be fire fighters, police officers nor hold any other traditional occupation that requires physical strength.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Supreme Court takes two gay marriage cases...

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "My biology comment was clearly tied to the gender of the person"

    Which means absolutely zero, for the reason I gave:

    Biology also determines skin color. If "biology" provided a justification to discriminate against people, then it would provide a reason to discriminate against black people.

    Do you think the government should discriminate against black people?

    (This really isn't hard. You just have to come to grips with the fact that you are insisting that there is zero harm or discrimination in sending gay people to a different water fountain).

     

     

     

     

    "My only issue with marriage equality is that I'm a traditionalist"

    "Tradition" is a poor veil for bigotry. The "tradition" you so lovingly cling to was born from judeo-christian doctrine written in times when women were property and gay people were to be tortured to death.

     

     

     

     

    "So what about equal opportunity for women in sport, your position actually seems to support a position that based on physical differences women should not be fire fighters, police officers nor hold any other traditional occupation that requires physical strength."

    If you want to smear me you might pretend that. I'm not sure how you would honestly draw that conclusion, seeing as I said repeatedly that if women can meet the same physical standards as men, they should be able to take combat roles in the army.




    [/QUOTE]

    You know I was referring to gender.  Even though I grew up in a Mass town that was 99% white, I hold no prejudices towards others.  When I moved to the south in the 70's I was shocked by so many oldtimers prejudices against blacks.  My neighbors at the first home I owned were a great black family.  Being an engineer I've worked with engineers of all races; it gets a little dicey at times when a Pakastani and Indian are in the room at the same time but we all think like engineers; logic trumps feelings.

    Your water bubbler scenario is just that a fabricated scenario.  Equal access to bubblers and everyplace else is the law of the land.  

    Jeudeo-christain doctrine is what gave the world humanity and democracy.  Yeah acceptance of those that were different took awhile; the world is a work in progress.  That still doesn't mean I need to change the definition of marriage but I sure want to provide committed same gender couples the benefits of marriage, because after all the fight is about equal rights isn't it?

    As you said, "There is no rational basis for denying them the same right as anyone else."  This is just about rights isn't it, or does success requiring upending the traditional definition of mariage.  Should we change the marriage application for to be traditional marriage and nontraditional marriage?  If the bigotted and evil Jeudeo-christain doctrine gave us the definition of marriage why would those that feel wronged by it want it?  I'm 100% for equal rights.

    You went into your abstract discussion on sports all on your own I was just drawing a corallary to your position as stated.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Supreme Court takes two gay marriage cases...

    In response to NO MO O's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NO MO O's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    No you're right.. the Bible does.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Men - not god - wrote the bible.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    They recorded Gods word and acts.

    unless you think it is pure fiction recorded for entertainment.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not sure about fiction, since some might be historically derived.

    But it's still man-made and man-written.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Supreme Court takes two gay marriage cases...

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    You won't get anywhere with this crowd.  Their hearts are hardened to the word of god.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's where you couldn't be more wrong.

    I just have different, more expansive ideas about what those words are and what they mean and from whence they come.

    Seemingly unlike you and some others, I prefer not to have them dictated to me without questioning their veracity...or consistency...or wrapped in man-made dogma.

     

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Supreme Court takes two gay marriage cases...

    In response to NO MO O's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Each to his own. It is a source of strength for me. Can't expect the same for anyone else.

    Seems like a states rights thingie.

    [/QUOTE]

    If so, then DOMA should be a goner.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Supreme Court takes two gay marriage cases...

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    You won't get anywhere with this crowd.  Their hearts are hardened to the word of god.



    lol.

     


    What a very righteous man you are. I hope saying that filled you with warm fuzzies.


    What my heart is hardened to are men's words about what the word of God supposedly is.


    Whether or not a God exists isn't a question resolved by logic. Being a man of logic and evidence, I can neither accept or deny the existence of an entity, the definition of which puts itself beyond proof or disproof.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Exhibit "A".

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Supreme Court takes two gay marriage cases...

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NO MO O's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NO MO O's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    No you're right.. the Bible does.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Men - not god - wrote the bible.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    They recorded Gods word and acts.

    unless you think it is pure fiction recorded for entertainment.

    [/QUOTE]

    Not sure about fiction, since some might be historically derived.

    But it's still man-made and man-written.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Thank god that god has the final word on this, any your uneducated opinion is dust.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Supreme Court takes two gay marriage cases...

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Should all the heteros recuse themselves as well?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    It's not about heteros, is it?

    I'm just asking legally. I thought there was a similar circumstance in CA.

    For this topic I appropriately ignore morally.

    [/QUOTE]

    Of course it is about heteros too.  A whole bunch of them don't want to share their status on this issue because they see gays as inferior in some way and not deserving equal rights.

    What you are talking about is bias and that cuts both ways when it comes to minority rights. 

    And no, you don't exclude people on such legal matters based only on broad categories.  You need some demonstration of actual bias, not theoretical prejudice.  

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Supreme Court takes two gay marriage cases...

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Seems a gay justice has a greater vested interest.

    [/QUOTE]


    Based on your criteria you would have virtually no judges available to hear cases.  No Black can hear an affirmative action case.  No religious person can hear an Establishment Clause case. No victim can ever hear a criminal case. 

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Supreme Court takes two gay marriage cases...

    In response to NO MO O's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Seems a gay justice has a greater vested interest.

    [/QUOTE]


    Based on your criteria you would have virtually no judges available to hear cases.  No Black can hear an affirmative action case.  No religious person can hear an Establishment Clause case. No victim can ever hear a criminal case. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I didn't establish any criterion nor offer any opine.

    I just asked questions.

    Did you get off your meds ... again Rubie ?

    Bet you would have been named the 'Hangin Judge"

    [/QUOTE]

    Sure.  You are just asking questions.  Only gays are prejudiced.  That's hilarious coming from a guy who is open about his prejudice against gay people.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from dcr400m. Show dcr400m's posts

    Re: Supreme Court takes two gay marriage cases...

    In response to NO MO O's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Scientist discover what makes someone gay. epi-genetic not genetic.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/12/11/scientists-may-have-finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay

    Scientists may have finally solved the puzzle of what makes a person gay, and how it is passed from parents to their children.

    A group of scientists suggested Tuesday that homosexuals get that trait from their opposite-sex parents: A lesbian will almost always get the trait from her father, while a gay man will get the trait from his mother.

    The hereditary link of homosexuality has long been established, but scientists knew it was not a strictly genetic link, because there are many pairs of identical twins who have differing sexualities. Scientists from the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis say homosexuality seems to have an epigenetic, not a genetic link.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Interesting.  But whether it is a biological trait or a learned behavior doesn't much matter.  Equality should be available either way.

    [/QUOTE]

    Mans flawed science and logic wins over Gods design. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Belief is wonderful (religion) but unless God is planning to testify - no tangible proof - swing and a miss

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from dcr400m. Show dcr400m's posts

    Re: Supreme Court takes two gay marriage cases...

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If the government would get out of the marriage business completely we wouldn't be here.  My marriage is a Sacrament, and I couldn't care less if The State recognizes it

    [/QUOTE]

    Rarely do we see agreement but your marriage is fine - gay marriage is fine - whats wrong is trying to legislate it - 14th amendment should be clear on this - marriage is civil - but thans to freedom of religion - people can make a marriage sacrament based on their own beliefs - so why not gay people? If government forced churches, i would object strongly but no one wants that...gays don't as well 

     

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     

Share