RedBook
EscortsPremier Adult Entertainment Community Home | Ads | Message Board myredbok
Subject: "HJ: Gay marriage 2" Archived thread - Read only
 
  Previous Topic | Next Topic
printerPrinter Friendly view    
Conferences > Special Interest > Community Hall > Topic #34798
Reading Topic #34798

Jacket1 click here to view user rating
Charter Member
15571 posts, 17 feedbacks, 15 points
16-May-08, 03:41 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Jacket1 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
"HJ: Gay marriage 2"
 
   HJ, you responded as follows when I said that gay people should not be denied a fundamental human right:

>~Why should they lose one of the most fundamental human rights because you believe otherwise?~

>>Jacket, your propensity for making arguments that don't exist is showing itself again.

>>I never said that two people of the same sex should be denied loving one another. You cannot show that I did say that either. Please, put down the "straw man" and back away.

You misunderstood my position. I was not saying that gays should not be allowed to love each other. It never occurred to me that anyone, particularly you, would think that simply because there is no way to deny THAT right.

So to be clear, I was referring to what I consider a basic human right to form a bond of marriage recognized by society. You obviously don't feel that human right exists; I just wonder what you would think of someone who believes that the human right of interracial marriage doesn't exist.

  Alert Top

 
Conferences | Forums | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Duwop click here to view user rating
Charter Member
4156 posts, 20 feedbacks, 33 points
16-May-08, 03:58 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Duwop Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
1. "RE: HJ: Gay marriage 2"
In response to message #0
 
>You misunderstood my position.

Suprise, suprise.

>So to be clear, I was referring to what I consider a basic
>human right to form a bond of marriage recognized by
>society.

Really, so basic it's universally recognized around the world? As basic as sustenance and shelter? That's basic human rights, everything else is a bonus depending on the nations' surplus.

You are pre defining things which are not defined as you relate here. Typical. It's a different way to construct a straw man argument.

Your argument "*I* define XYZ as yellow, despite what others may define it as; as you don't beleive in yellow (as *I* define it), what about green?"

  Alert Top

Jacket1 click here to view user rating
Charter Member
15571 posts, 17 feedbacks, 15 points
16-May-08, 09:21 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Jacket1 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
7. "RE: HJ: Gay marriage 2"
In response to message #1
 
   I hardly depend on the rest of the world to teach me human rights. In some parts of the world they consider it normal to flog a woman who has been raped, so you can look around the world for your moral beacon but I'll stick closer to home.

  Alert Top

lurking4ever click here to view user rating
Member since 26-Mar-05
794 posts, 7 feedbacks, 13 points
16-May-08, 04:39 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to lurking4ever Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
4. "RE: HJ: Gay marriage 2"
In response to message #0
 
   "that gay people should not be denied a fundamental human right"


Jacket if you drop the "human" your point is better served.

"Political Dictionary: human rights


Human rights are a special sort of inalienable moral entitlement. They attach to all persons equally, by virtue of their humanity, irrespective of race, nationality, or membership of any particular social group. They specify the minimum conditions for human dignity and a tolerable life.

The first generation of civil and political rights restricts what others (including the state) may do, for example, life, liberty, and freedom from torture. A second generation of social and economic rights requires active provision, such as by imposing an obligation on government. Some analysts call them ideals, often constrained in practice by inadequate resources. A third generation concerns such rights as peace, development, and humanitarian assistance. While many of the claims attach to individuals some belong to collectivities, such as the right to national self-determination.

Rights have been catalogued by the United Nations in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)—a General Assembly resolution that is not legally binding—and elsewhere. Other accounts are present in many countries' constitutions and regional organizations of states including Europe.

Statements about human rights are normative and prescriptive. Critics reject the idea of universality, or allege particular accounts are ideological or culture-specific, as in the claim from Singapore's leadership that ‘Asian values’ offer a more appropriate account of rights to some East Asian societies. Some commentators argue that even human rights may be violated for reasons of state or public emergency. Human rights claims challenge state sovereignty and power. But increasingly respect for rights contributes to a state's international legitimacy and reputation, and increasingly external pressures are brought to bear on governments that abuse basic human rights."

Fundamental rights seem to be abetter fit:


"Some rights generally recognized as fundamental are:

Right to life
Right to marry
Right to procreate
Right to raise children free from unnecessary governmental interference
Right to freedom of association
Right to freedom of expression
Right to equality of treatment before the law (fair legal procedures)
Right to freedom of thought
Right to religious belief
Right to choose when and where to acquire formal education
Right to pursue happiness
Right to vote
Right to Freedom of contract"


Nihil possumus contra veritatem

  Alert Top

Jacket1 click here to view user rating
Charter Member
15571 posts, 17 feedbacks, 15 points
16-May-08, 09:24 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Jacket1 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
8. "RE: HJ: Gay marriage 2"
In response to message #4
 
   I don't think a woman and a woman, or a man and a man, who love each other will be interested in your over-intellectualizing it. I think they will be more interested in speaking their simple vows. Or at least until they start divorcing, too.

  Alert Top

kallell click here to view user rating
Charter Member
3325 posts, 29 feedbacks, 40 points
16-May-08, 07:22 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to kallell Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
6. "My response to the locked part"
In response to message #0
 
I believe marriage is a business contract, much , if not exactly like the contract used in forming a corperation.

Sinc I do not think in terms of a belief system I miss read the meaning in this lines.

"I believe a marriage is a union between a man and a woman."
I substitued the word belief for think.

If you read it like this (as I did) I think a marriage is a partnership a man ana a woman, but I support gay couples being able to share benefits the same as a married couple.


My thought was , hmm it looks like a marriage , sounds like a marriage and acts like a marrige, but don't call it a marriage.

and go even further and use what I think a Marriage is..

hmm it looks like a corperation , sounds like a corperation and acts like a corperation, but don't call it a corperation.


Well you can see why I would say it is just silly to not call it a marriage.

It has nothing to to with calling a belief system silly.


------
Truth, Justice and the American Way

  Alert Top

Jacket1 click here to view user rating
Charter Member
15571 posts, 17 feedbacks, 15 points
16-May-08, 09:26 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Jacket1 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
9. "RE: My response to the locked part"
In response to message #6
 
   What you're not getting is that it's less important what you or I think than in what they think for themselves. This world would be a better place if people stopped thinking for other people and started thinking for themselves.

  Alert Top

kallell click here to view user rating
Charter Member
3325 posts, 29 feedbacks, 40 points
16-May-08, 09:41 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to kallell Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
10. "RE: My response to the locked part"
In response to message #9
 
I totaly get that, I should have put a link but since you directed the thread to HJ I was actually responding to http://forum.myredbook.com/dcforum2/DCForumID14/34789.html#21
the part he and I had a misunderstanding.

In fact as far as letting people think and decide for themselfs I might go further than you "The only thing that I find interesting is that there are no arguments for gay marriage that can't be made for childless incestual or for plural marriage. That doesn't mean I favor infertile incestual marriage; I don't. Inconsistent? Yes."

I say if relatves want to enter the contract of marriage then there should be no law stopping it.

My only criteria for the participants in he contract is that they are compitent adult humans, just like any other binding contract.


------
Truth, Justice and the American Way

  Alert Top

Jacket1 click here to view user rating
Charter Member
15571 posts, 17 feedbacks, 15 points
17-May-08, 01:52 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to Jacket1 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
12. "RE: My response to the locked part"
In response to message #10
 
   >My only criteria for the participants in he contract is that they are compitent adult humans, just like any other binding contract.

A binding contract can exist between an adult and a child.

  Alert Top

kallell click here to view user rating
Charter Member
3325 posts, 29 feedbacks, 40 points
17-May-08, 02:11 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to kallell Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
13. "RE: My response to the locked part"
In response to message #12
 
What the Fuck??

I thought you were smarter but you are just the right wing version of longdong.


------
Truth, Justice and the American Way

  Alert Top

Jacket1 click here to view user rating
Charter Member
15571 posts, 17 feedbacks, 15 points
17-May-08, 08:18 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to Jacket1 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
14. "RE: My response to the locked part"
In response to message #13
 
   You are unaware that a binding contract can exist between an adult and child?

It would be best if you stayed away from discussions that involves the law. At the very least, you would help yourself if you were open to learning something now and then.

  Alert Top

kallell click here to view user rating
Charter Member
3325 posts, 29 feedbacks, 40 points
17-May-08, 08:57 AM (PST)
Click to send private message to kallell Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
15. "RE: My response to the locked part"
In response to message #14
 

OK, fine, I do not know that a child can enter a binding contract such as the formation of a corperation.

But if they can that is far from my point and you are trying to argue just to argue , hence the longdong comment.

You said:
"What you're not getting is that it's less important what you or I think than in what they think for themselves. This world would be a better place if people stopped thinking for other people and started thinking for themselves."

But I was countering that I do get it, I have a very live and let live philosophy.

Let people of the same sex marry, let any adults marry. I did add the child qualifier, so what are we discussing ?

------
Truth, Justice and the American Way

  Alert Top

Jacket1 click here to view user rating
Charter Member
15571 posts, 17 feedbacks, 15 points
17-May-08, 12:09 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Jacket1 Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
16. "RE: My response to the locked part"
In response to message #15
 
   I had a different binding contract in mind than incorporation, but as you say that is another matter. I was extending your point that the only criterion for marriage should be the ability to enter into a legal contract. But before you consider yourself more enlightened than the rest of us, consider that you too place a restriction on marriage: adults. Indeed, the emancipation age varies by state and country.

How about a mother and son bearing children -- would you make that legally permissible? If not, then there's another restriction you're placing on two legally competent adults (though not one necessarily related to marriage).

  Alert Top

kallell click here to view user rating
Charter Member
3325 posts, 29 feedbacks, 40 points
17-May-08, 02:10 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to kallell Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
17. "RE: My response to the locked part"
In response to message #16
 
"But before you consider yourself more enlightened than the rest of us"
I don't.

"consider that you too place a restriction on marriage: adults."
I place 4 restrictions on marriage consenting, competent adult humans.

"How about a mother and son bearing children -- would you make that legally permissible?"
I many states sex between a mother and son is illegal ( do oppose laws that govern what consenting, competent adult humans having sex ) but I know of no state that it is not legally permissable for a person to bear a child, no state has a manditory abortion law.

For example: rape is illegal, as well it should be (note consenting) but there is no law that prevents a rape victom from bearing a child.

I see marriage as a corperate contract and it should neither require nor deny sex and it should neither require nor deny breeding.
------
Truth, Justice and the American Way

  Alert Top

oralio click here to view user rating
Member since 1-Dec-03
16345 posts, 57 feedbacks, 87 points
17-May-08, 05:24 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to oralio Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
18. "When exactly did interracial marriage become a right?"
In response to message #0
 
LAST EDITED ON 17-May-08 AT 05:24 PM (PST)
 
My question is --

Where was the california consitution in the 20th century when it was illegal for chinese and filipino males to marry? Or marry outside their race?

As late as the 30s, if not the 1940s.


Be the change
you wish to see

  Alert Top

atticus_finchmoderator click here to view user rating
Charter Member
12242 posts, 34 feedbacks, 53 points
17-May-08, 05:34 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to atticus_finch Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
19. "RE: When exactly did interracial marriage become a right?"
In response to message #18
 
   What's your point?

Finch.

  Alert Top

oralio click here to view user rating
Member since 1-Dec-03
16345 posts, 57 feedbacks, 87 points
17-May-08, 06:39 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to oralio Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
20. "RE: When exactly did interracial marriage become a right?"
In response to message #19
 
LAST EDITED ON 17-May-08 AT 06:47 PM (PST)
 
Read the question.

Then change your enema bag. Your current one is obviously clogged.

Be the change
you wish to see

  Alert Top

atticus_finchmoderator click here to view user rating
Charter Member
12242 posts, 34 feedbacks, 53 points
17-May-08, 07:11 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to atticus_finch Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
23. "RE: When exactly did interracial marriage become a right?"
In response to message #20
 
   what the fuck is your problem? It's a fair question. Can you answer it or not?

Finch.

  Alert Top

kalem click here to view user rating
Member since 1-May-05
8158 posts, 29 feedbacks, 44 points
17-May-08, 06:39 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to kalem Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
21. "RE: When exactly did interracial marriage become a right?"
In response to message #19
 
   It's very obvious what his point is and it's a good one:

California had anti-miscegenation state laws against Asians, Filipinos and blacks from 1850 until the 1948 CA Supreme Court case Perez vs Sharp when they were held to violate the 14th Amdt.
(You could consider this as progressive, in that California was 20 years ahead of other US states (Loving v. Virginia, 1967), or backwards, in that many states of the US were behind international norms in ever having passed such laws; although the proportion of immigration to 19th-C CA was unique.)
But it would be interesting to read of any challenges prior to 1948 to the CA laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws#Anti-miscegenation_laws_repealed_1948-1967

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp

California Civil Code Section 60: “All marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race, or mulattoes are illegal and void”
Section 69, which stated that "... no license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white person with a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race".

  Alert Top

oralio click here to view user rating
Member since 1-Dec-03
16345 posts, 57 feedbacks, 87 points
17-May-08, 06:43 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to oralio Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
22. "RE: When exactly did interracial marriage become a right?"
In response to message #21
 
You GO, K.

And AF, you go fuck yourself.

Be the change
you wish to see

  Alert Top

Duwop click here to view user rating
Charter Member
4156 posts, 20 feedbacks, 33 points
17-May-08, 07:16 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to Duwop Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
24. "RE: When exactly did interracial marriage become a right?"
In response to message #22
 
>You GO, K.
>
>And AF, you go fuck yourself.
>

Dude, ever hear of proportion? His question was vague, not worthy of this response. Save it for when they do!

  Alert Top

atticus_finchmoderator click here to view user rating
Charter Member
12242 posts, 34 feedbacks, 53 points
17-May-08, 07:28 PM (PST)
Click to send private message to atticus_finch Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
25. "RE: When exactly did interracial marriage become a right?"
In response to message #22
 
   "And AF, you go fuck yourself."

Wow, having a little meltdown are we?

I asked about your point, genius, because in fact it is not self-evident that anti-miscegenation statutes are the same thing as refusing to recognize same-sex marriage.

California declared those statutes unconstitutional in 1948, some years before the U.S. Supreme Court followed suit in Loving v. Virginia. Both the California case and the federal case were cited heavily in the recent same sex marriage cases.

But there is an important difference between the two issues. In the race based cases there was only one plausible purpose behind the statutes and that was racial oppression. In the same sex marriage cases, on the other hand, that is not the case. Obviously, anti-gay people happen to be among those who oppose same-sex marriage, but there are other reasons to oppose same-sex marriage that have nothing to do with oppression of gay people. In fact, many people who support civil union statutes oppose a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. They believe that the state has the right to preserve traditional notions of marriage and they believe that tradition is important. You, in your infinite wisdom, may not agree with them on that point, but that doesn't make them homophobic.

Now, since you are the pompous ass always crying about reasonable discussion, it seems to me that you ought to have been able to respond to a simple and reasonable question without acting like the hypocritical ass that you obviously are. Whatever change it is that you think your are "being," you self-righteous jerk, I want no part of it.

Finch.

  Alert Top

Conferences | Forums | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

  ©2008 myRedBook S.A. reviews | metasearch   |   top | help | faq | links | terms of use