Polycarp-
I think it is plainly obvious I am nto a hate monger. I simply dont like the [bold tactics and antics[/bold] of some groups. If they dont win at the polls, they dont win. Law is changed for the heterosexuals just like it is for the homosexuals, a vote. They arent doing a good job of convincing me that they arent militant and [bold]loud[/bold]. I dont like that, thats all.
So balls back in play now for others to play with.
Esprix
The USSC ruled in Zablocki (434 US 374 (1978)) that no state restriction of the “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life” is sustainable under the 14th Amendment unless the state can show the restriction is narrowly drawn to serve a compelling state interest, and that a state law which places a “direct legal obstacle in the path of persons desiring to get married” denies these persons equal protection unless the law is “supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.” In Turner (482 US 78 (1987) the Court unanimously found a “constitutionally protected marital relationship” without respect to ability to procreate. And in Loving (388 US 1 (1967)) the Court found the freedom to marry “fundamental.” Taken together these various cases argue pretty persuasively for classifying the right to marry as “inalienable.”
Ex-bloody-ACTly.
Added to lighten the mood:
Read this puppy 
http://www.theonion.com/onion3605/cram_in_my_anus.html
its worth the laughs
I’m going to regret this.
KEN BEACON, FUCK OFF AND GO AWAY!
-andros-
Andros-
Clue me in as to who that would be? Like is that a posters name or a real name?
I found it in a search.
Its Phaedrus, but who is he now? Is it Esprix or is it Otto? or was I right that they are the same person?
Some of us think YOU are Phaedrus, dumb-ass.
AS for ad hominem attacks, THIS IS THE BBQ PIT, YOU IDIOT!! This is the place for ad hominem comments and criticisms, numbskull. Stuff like that is forbidden in Great Debates and all the other forums, but it’s PERMITTED HERE! If you can’t stand the heat, get outta here!
Good grief, you are dense! I recently read a story in the paper that says incompetent people don’t know they are incompetent.
And:
Brother, does that sound like you and Rousseau!
The article appeared in the New York Times, written by Erica Goode. The findings were made by Dr. David A. Dunning of Cornell, a professor of psychology, along with graduate student Justin Kruger.
I’ve given you enough information to look for the article on the web yourself, if you can manage it.
>< DARWIN >
__L___L
Hey Jab, fuck you with your mothers plastic dick, used to substitute for the scum that is your father.
Now who am I?
no.
no.
I am all the kids who used to chase you off the play ground, and told you we didnt want you for a friend,and told you that we basically dont like people like you, you
asshole.
(Moderators Note: He brought it upon himself did he not? and I wasnt a jerk, even now, just giving him the treatment he wanted, as he said, it is the pit.)
CalifBoomer:
BAD BOOMER! Go stand in the corner!
Yet I have not heard anyone dispute the veracity of that statement. It must be true.
And what’s more, the homosexual contingent brought the problem on themselves.
Here’s how:
When the lethal and communicable nature of aids first became known, health authorities
failed to take reasonable steps to isolate the disease. Reasonable steps would have
included quarantine for those afflicted. Why? Because in the pervasive politically correct
environment of the late 20th century, homosexuals had bemome a protected class. No
public health official in his right mind would even think of grabbing one of these sick
deviants off the street for quarantine. The histrionics would have been deafening. How did
this happen? Even back then, they had discovered the power of victimization. They had
begun to equate themselves with women, negros and any other oppressed minority they
could identify. Never mind that their deviancy, by definition, is one of behavior
rather than the geneticcondition experienced by those whose plight they exploited.
They did this through sheer repitition of the same whining ‘gay rights’ dialogue
Otto/Esprix regurgitates ad nauseum. If you hear it enough times, it must be true, right?
At the same time, they succeeded in ‘dumbing down’ deviancy. **Otto/Esprix:**You
don’t like the words ‘sodomite’ or ‘fellator’ do you? Of course not. Those words describe
your proclivities, don’t they? And you don’t really want anyone to think about the real
truth? So you call yourselves ‘gay’.
Is all this off-topic (SSM)? I think rather it goes right to the core of the issue. There has
been much discussion in here regarding the rulings of the Supreme Court, the intent of the
Constitution and the vagaries and posturing of state and local legislatures. I submit that
laws are reactive to, and reflective of, the culture. Before one can change the law, one
must first change the culture. Homosexual activists have known this all along.
You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!
And you have a real nice day, too, Marvin.
>< DARWIN >
__L___L
And by the way, Jab, I’m sick of looking at your fucking darwin sig–
No, no, no. The “fucking darwin sig” has one fish mounted on another. Jab uses the plain Darwin sig.
Tom~
Well, since all the people who “agreed” with me on this thread are coming apart at the seams, it looks like the cheese stands alone here. First off:
jab sez:
You know, I forget which thread I pissed you off in, but I’m detecting a little hostility here. What was that you called me on the last page: “Bambi?” And now I’m “supremely confident” in my ability to do something that I do “badly?” Well, if you can tell me exactly where I have appeared boastful on this list, go ahead. And if you want to compare noggins, we can do that too. But for now I’m gonna just tell you to fuck yourself.
On to business.
Homophobia. Interesting, this is what Law & Order was about tonight (in part). Interesting. Actually, Marvin, the DSM-IV only contains a specific entry for one phobia (it’s defined twice–with history of anxiety and without). The rest are covered by the “Specific Phobia” heading:
Hmmm…this doesn’t apply to most people to which the “homophobe” tag is applied today.
Could be…“symptoms of anxiety” is sort of a gray area I guess.
Since the “homophobe” label is applied to just about anyone who is opposed to homosexuality (morally or otherwise), I think it’s safe to say that this one doesn’t fit.
“Avoids” sounds right. Unless they like to seek gays out and dispense some vigilante justice.
Unless the person is repressing something, I don’t think this one applies. I suppose there are some people to which all these criteria can be applied, and they probably can rightly be called homophobic. But I think we can all agree that this term is greatly misused today, most often in an effort to discredit someone.
andros: Sorry again. I don’t know what gave me the idea that you posted those links. I guess I was blinded by my righteous rage, or some shit like that.
Polycarp: I scoured the Internet for quite a while looking for the name of the case in which the “honest mistake” ruling was first made. I forget the names, but I remember that it had to do with the police having a warrant for one apartment, and entering another by mistake. Naturally, they found evidence of a crime, and a big donnybrook ensued. If I’m wrong about this, it means that someone whose academic opinion I trust in these situations has lied to me (or he was misinformed–probably not the case).
So those traits cannot be changed? I believe that homosexuality is a learned behavior, just like heterosexuality is. I’m not suggesting that it’s consciously learned and chosen, but that it is acquired during the earlier developmental stages. Certainly, some people may have genetic predispositions, and those for the most part are written in stone, but they are only predispositions. Sexuality, just like nearly everything else about personality, is put in place in early development. So I suppose that “choice” isn’t the right word, but “born with it” isn’t correct either.
This has something to do with churches paying taxes, I’m not sure precisely what. Expound.
No, I’m saying that they’re book reviews, not scientific reports. I’m also pointing out potential flaws in the research–this is a far cry from “dismissing out of hand.”
Right, except that I think you’re still missing the point. The Supreme Court Justices cannot decide tomorrow that they want gay marriages in every state of the Union, and then command it to be so. That’s not what happened with school integration, either.
No, I see this as reacting to a current hot issue, and reacting in the way in which the majority of the constituents desire.
I certainly am not. I believe I have made this clear.
This is another debate entirely. Yes, I agree that AA was a good and neccessary idea when it was originally implemented. Nowadays it is nothing more than a crutch for minorities and a hindrance to white males. We no longer live in times where it is nearly impossible for a black man, or a woman, to get a job or go to college. I do not deny that there are probably a few business owners out there who would not hire a person based on their gender, race, creed, etc. And I think that legislation prohibiting such discrimination should stay in place, and if there is abundant evidence of such a violation, then proper sanctions should be enforced. But affirmative action, as I see it, is the definition of discrimination.
So are you suggesting that companies make it easier for them?
[quote]
when straight people couple up, they
get several hundred rights as determine
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by jab1:
… the skills required for competence are often the same skills necessary to recognize competence… people who do things badly are usually supremely confident of their abilities – more confident, in fact, than people who do things well.
Well, I don’t know if that’s quite a description of Rousseau (although recent developments have caused me to question his reasonings), but it sure do sound like Marvin/Boomer/Diamond. He can’t even understand the sarcasm of The Onion, for God’s sake.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
The statement is false on its face. Since the onset of the AIDS, eleven states and innumerable cities have passed laws forbidding disrcimination based on sexual orientation. The percentage of people who believe in full equality for people without regard to sexual orientation is at an all-time high. Two state supreme courts have ruled that all the benefits of marriage must be extended to same-sex partners. Were AIDS “mitigating” the struggle for equal rights, then there would be a demonstrable trend of increasing defeats. Instead there is a demonstrable trend of increasing victories. Happy now?
Is anyone suggesting this? Why no! What is being suggested is that, when a case reaches the USSC, the Court can rule all state statutes prohibiting SSM unconstitutional and lo, it shall be so all across the land.
[quoteAnd, by the way, Boomer’s second to last post (2/16-10:12 EST) has parts that I very much agree with.[/quote]
Knock me over with a feather.
Still waiting for you, or anyone else for that matter, to explain how legalized same-sex marriage is harmful to individuals, communities or the nation…
Alright, already, enough with the fucking dissertation on the etymology of the word “homophobia” - we all agree it’s technically a misnomer, but its common usage(s) as defined by Merriam-Webster (ie, fear, aversion, disgust or discrimination, as mentioned in my previous post on the word) is accepted, used as racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism are used. Get over it, use another term (orientationism?), I really don’t give a fuck.
As I’ve said repeatedly, the medical and psychological experts agree it is a complex combination of both and cannot be changed. Oh, wait, sorry - you don’t care what the experts think. I think this is now officially a dead issue.
Religion is a choice. They get “special rights.” Yet they are the ones that most vehemently act to deny “special” (read: equal) rights to gay people. I’m not saying its you, but it seems rather hypocritical to me.
Well then it ought to be quite simple for you to point out these flawed scientific and anthropological research data, since the overwhelming majority of such research has found that homosexuality occurs naturally in the wild among most, if not all higher primates. Please, cite me some examples of this erroneous research.
If gay marriages are granted in Vermont, the SC can uphold the inevitable challenge in court that they are legal. Furthermore, the SC can then declare the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional and strike it down. Change will soon follow. This is what happened with school integration, and the last time I checked, integration is alive and well in every state.
I honestly see your point that a representative must vote his constituency, but I still maintain that sometimes a representative should vote what is right rather than what is popular, and discrimination is not right.
Then why are you for discrimination?
Have you, yourself, ever been denied a job because of racial quotas? Do you see this as the only problem blacks and women face in the US today? Yes, AA has some serious problems, but is it time to do away with it completely? Is racism and sexism (and, in turn, homophobia/heterosexism/whateveryouwanttocallit) completely gone in this country?
Absolutely! First of all, if the government legalized SSM’s, the company would have considerably less work to do - the little piece of paper from City Hall would suffice, as it would any other legitimized couple. Second of all, spousal benefits are good business, particularly in today’s job market - a relatively inexpensive benefit can pay back to the company in better-qualified employees looking to get hired, less turnover, more company loyalty, better working conditions, and generally happier employees - having worked in HR myself, any HR expert will tell you that.
Hardly hyperbole - at the request of Senator Henry Hyde, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, in response to the passage of DOMA in September 1996, the General Accounting Office in January 1997 identified 1,049 “federal laws in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status” (OGC-97-16). I don’t need to list all of them, but the GAO categorized them as follows:
That ought to give you some idea as to how much a person’s entire life that is changed by that little piece of paper, not just what happens in the bedroom.
Looking at the raw data, they said:
[quote]
no conclusions can be drawn, from our identification of a law as one in which marital status is a factor, concerning the effect of the law on married peopl
In a rather well-written post, Rousseau said:
This is your belief, not a fact. Not that I’m challenging your right to have that or any other belief not contrary to proven fact. Just making the issue clear.
There is evidence suggesting that there is a gene complex leading to homosexuality (and that rather ironic recent finding that homosexuals tend to have larger penises, on average, than heterosexuals, which would also imply a genetic linkage). There is also a little evidence supporting your view.
The point to me is, whether it is a genetic, inborn trait or one conditioned prior to the age of decision, it is not a choice, and (with vanishingly few if any exceptions) not able to be changed. I have yet to see one documented report of a Kinsey-6 (no heterosexual desires) person being turned by any therapy whatsoever into a well-oriented heterosexual. (Obviously, it’s possible to condition someone into repression – happens all the time. And a bisexual can be conditioned to suppress his homosexual desires in favor of his heterosexual ones, with varying degrees of success.)
I run these comments at you because you brought up your belief in contradistinction to the year 2000 “received wisdom” that it is inborn, and must have had a reason for doing so.
I have no doubt that if you are correct, a child raised differently would have a much smaller chance of becoming homosexual. If you consider it as something to be avoided, then getting proof of your contention and identifying what are the causative factors would enable informed parents to minimize the chances.
That doesn’t do a single thing to benefit those who already are homosexually oriented. And it doesn’t reflect in the slightest on the arguments made for gay rights.
Where are you going with this idea?
Let me point out that both Rousseau and Otto are wrong on the gay marriage (and school integration) issue.
To wit: The U.S. Supreme Court rules on the cases that come before it. If a law is challenged as being against the Constitution (e.g., violating rights protected thereunder), then the case is dismissed as being pursued under an illegal (because unconstitutional) law. This affects directly only the person(s) involved in the case that came before the court.
But it sets a precedent binding on every court in the nation, because it is the Supreme Court of the United States. They are obliged to render a decision in conformity to its decisions whenever a case with strong parallels comes before them. So if Arkansas passes a law that allows teachers to lead willing students in a nondenominational prayer, and the USSC says that is in violation of the freedom of religion clause, the similar law that Kansas passed is going to get thrown out for the same reason, if it makes it to the court. Since judges very much dislike getting reversed by the USSC, the Kansas judge hearing the case challenging that law throws it out, basing his decision on the USSC Arkansas case.
So if the USSC found that laws prohibiting gays from marrying each other were illegal on constitutional grounds (and the Loving v. Virginia precedent would seem to validate that), then all 50 states would have to recognize such marriages. Precedent requires it.
Brown v. Board of Education did exactly this. The only reason it took nearly 20 years to get school integration nationally accomplished was that Hugo Black and one or two others recognized the major problem requiring immediate integration would cause in the South of the time, and allowed “all deliberate speed” – a phrase that was thrown out in later integration decisions.
Correct. Legislatures are supposed to reflect the views of the majority of their constituents, insofar as such are legal.
However, I’d be inclined to bet that that “majority” will not be one much longer, if it still is. Poll this board, and you’ll find a majority in favor of allowing gay marriages. Poll most major urban areas, and it’ll be about 50:50 if not leaning towards allowing them. Poll many rural areas, and a minority will favor allowing them with a majority opposed. Poll the nation, and it’s approaching 50:50 now. I’d bet there are at least two or three states with favorable majorities.
And the point is that legislators are supposed to pass laws their constituents want that are legal. It doesn’t matter if 80% of Mississippians want school prayer; it’s unconstitutional. The only option the Mississippi legislature has is to pass a resolution calling on their Senators and Congressmen to introduce a constitutional amendment permitting it.
Otto wrote:
Here’s a link to what the LDS prophets teach concerning the family and the consequences for its disintegration:
I’m waiting for it, too, Otto. I think the debate has been, and will be for quite some time, so mired down in visceral and strong feelings on the subject that we will have to be patient for the answer.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.