 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
I didn't say they'd actively want to see anyone dead, but only that if someone died, they would try to profit from it.  And it was an obvious joke, so what's your problem? |
The phrasing wasn't particularly humorous. I've no doubt there are people who wouldn't mind seeing gays or whatever burned to death or strapped to fences and beaten and such, and I never accused BK of being one of them. Strawman.
quote:
Yeah you do. You have a problem with everyone that disagrees with homosexuality and even some that don't. I can understand that it's a touchy subject for you, but that doesn't give you the right to make ridiculous accusations. You aren't the only person Ben thinks is going to hell, after all. |
Notice how nothing here so far has been a religious discussion, it's about secular concerns. So wherein is my complaint about people having religious objections?
I don't mind people having objections to homosexuality, I mind when they start trying to foisting those objctions on others, particularly when they start dictating that gay couples should be treated as second-class couples. That's what the entire argument is about!
quote:
Really? I think most people are sex addicts of some degree or another. It's also true that people can wean themselves off it should they want to. What's so weird about that? |
So gays are sex addicts? again. This is surprisingly stupid coming from you. We're not talking about sex addicts here, we're talking about loving couples who want to get married.
quote:
Religious people feel like the victims here. |
Lovely that. But since gays have been the ones who have been systematically harrassed, beaten, killed and such for decades--and still are being so by religious folk in other parts of the world--forgive me if I seem a little amused by this sense of "victimization." Religious types still have the vast bulk of the power in this country. I don't think their having to make room for others warrants victimization status.
Besides, gays ARE religious, especially the ones wanting to get married, and there are many religious organizations that support gays and want to marry them legally. So it's not a cut-and-dried religion vs. non-religion issue.
quote:
And presumably masochists would be insulted at some of the things people say about them - or pigeon fanciers, or any other bunch of people. |
Hmm, typical fundie comparisons of gays to sexual fetishists and bestiality...nice. 
The bottom line is that BK and I and others have hashed through this issue a hundred times. He's consistently thrown up strawmen and arguments borne from prejudice, however "politely" he states them. Even though he's been called on why they are bigoted, but continues to use them. For all your separation of him and PA, he has sidled next to PA willingly over these issues. I've never seen him once call PA on his nonsense, have you? I, for one, am just growing tired of his schtick.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Boris. That same logic was said by the folks in the South with respect to slavery. Only you could find their arguments in the constitution before the 14th amendment. |
Huh? That's not quite the same logic. Slavery was legal, it was the North who wanted to get rid of it. This isn't remotely the same circumstance.
quote:
You won't like this argument, because this renders you incapable of preventing any county from banning gay marriage, should they disagree. |
Not if it's in conflict with the state constitution. The whole point is that SF believes the ban violates the state constitution, and their civil disobedience is a means of bringing that issue to the forefront in preface of a challenge to the law. Now these couples will be involved in a direct challenge in the courts for their rights.
If a state law was passed approving gay marrriage based on the state's constitution, then counties would not have an recourse to refuse to do them. If CA adopted an ammendment to ban gay marriages, then SF wouldn't have any ability to do them, either.
quote:
I shall remember this point, next time you whinge about Ohio. Or any of the so-called mini-DOMAs. |
Wherein did I "whinge" about Ohio not having the legal ability to set such a law? Nowhere, Mr. Strawman. I don't agree with the law and think the further restrictions on benefits is of dubious legality, but I never said they had no legal right to make such a ban.
quote:
Secondly, if marriage is the domain of the states, then it does matter whether or not the state supports the law. To say otherwise, is to strip the state from the authority to marry people, and to hand that decision to mayors. |
In this case the state's ability to limit the marriages to men and women sans constitutional ammendment is of dubious legality, give their own constitutional non-discrimination clause. That's why SF is challenging it. A state can't issue any law it wants, about marriage or not, if the law violates their constitution or the U.S. constitution.
quote:
You will no longer be able to argue that it should be the law of the land, but rather, the law of cities, with each city to determine as they see fit.
A stunning concession, Boris, that this is not about human rights, but rather about government authority. |
And, as seen above, this is a remarkably incorrect interpretation of the argument. F for comprehension.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-02-2004 12:59
|