Homosexual Marriage

[Starboy]

Quote by: Sasha I think the largest reason for the homosexual community to want marriage is because of the social recoginition that comes with it (most of the legal rights can already be gotten through common law relationships and if not, that can be changed) That social recognition must come from their communities and cannot be given by law, as much as it would make it simpler to do so.

Perhaps you should talk to some gays first to see exactly what they can do under the current unequal treatment. For one thing they can't get social security survivor benefits. There are still hospitals that will not recognize the partner as having the rights of a partner for making medical decisions. There are corporation that will not recognize a partner unless they are married (and for very good reasons). Why don't you go do your homework before you jump to such conclusions?

Starboy

[The_Lone_Liberal]

Quote by: SVMc How is denying gay couples the right to marriages not denying them equal citizenship rights?

One of us is missing the other's point. I have never once said gay couples should or should not be allowed or denied the rights accorded married couples. I have even gone so far as to say that anyone denied rights they shold have as a matter of citizenship are indeed being denied citizenship rights.

Quote by: SVMc How are these comparable with marriage rights? Granting the right to marriage means being able to access tax benefits for your spouse, legally being considered when there is no written will or prior arrangement in the case of injury, illness or death, access to custody claims should the relationship break down. In short marriage is a legal institution that grants couples certain rights within the law and society.

Again, I have addressed this. Give them the tax benefits, and all other legal benefits if you believe they are entitled to them. That is an issue other than whether or not they are married according to the defintion of marriage. You are right when you say marriage is an institution that grants couples certain rights. "White" was once a legal status that granted certain rights not accorded to blacks, but we did not correct that egregious citizenship denial by calling blacks, "white" -- and we would not have to fix any citizenship denial by calling unmarried people "married".

Quote by: SVMc Everyone has access to restrooms, no one is discriminated against access to restrooms, having access to restrooms is not a form of social recognition or legal recognition. Services that can be denied based on credit status are not fundamental services... the other two I can't even begin to fathom a parallel on any level.

Let's take 'em in reverse order. The bit about charging tolls to Yankee fans is a JOKE! (sheesh).. Veterans benefits are given to veterans, and not to non-Veterans -- just an example of legitimate "discrimination" based on category. You're right about credit service not being fundamental -- but then I have not said ANY services should be denied gay couples, let alone "fundamental". Lastly, I know of no community on this planet where "access to restrooms is not a form of social recognition or legal recognition." However, let's deal with your point here, for it is interesting:

Everyone has access to restrooms, but not the restroom of their choice. A man in the ladies room will not be allowed there socially or legally. Everyone has access to marriage -- no one says a gay man or woman cannot marry. A man cannot marry a man and he cannot use the ladies room. A woman cannot marry a woman and she cannot use the men's room. Again, I am not saying this is right or wrong ere, just that it the social reality.

Quote by: SVMc Black people were being discriminated against based on separate but equal legislation, which was not particularly "equal". At issue was not the definition of "black" or "white" but the separate but equal legislation that allowed some people access to services and physical locations and denied it to others based on a trait they could not control. Likewise, no one is saying that "homosexual" couples should be called "heterosexual" couples. What is at dispute is the access heterosexual couples have to the institutions of marriage that is denied to homosexual couples. Please explain.

That access may be in dispute with some people in some places -- but not in anything I have raised. I have again and again and again said that if they should have such access give it to them. Legislation has been proposed to give same-sex couples all the rights given to married couples -- and that is exactly the same solution that addressed the "separate but equal" issue giving non-white people all the rights given to white people. It did not happen by changing the color of black people to white, or by changing the defintion of "white" or "black."

You are correct in saying that "no one is saying that 'homosexual' couples should be called 'heterosexual' couples" -- but you are definitely calling for a change in the definition of "marriage". You even make a logical (but, of course, flawed) case for it:

Quote by: SVMc Again language is not a static thing, the definitions of language do not change by law or statue but by popular usage. If the majority of the population uses the term "marriage" to describe the legal state-sanctioned union of an adult couple consented to by both parties regardless of gender or sex... than that is the linguistic definition.... the legal definition is up to the state and the judicial system.

Once again, you are correct about language not being static. So, change it to what you want it to be! Our lawmakers can write laws defining terms as specifically or oddly as they'd like. The catch is that our courts are bound to interpret the laws in the language in which they are written, whether specifically defined internally, or in the context of understood meaning at the time of the writing. I have said there is leeway there -- many shades of gray in language and intent -- but that caveat is not broad enough to allow outright redefinition by the court. When all history, all evidence of public usage, and all legal precedence gives one clear definition as it does in the definition of marriage, and the court says it is something else -- then they are doing something for which they would jail others. If it is not due to delusion or intellectual incompetence -- neither of which is likely on the part of professional jurists -- then it is dishonesty, or in the court's own word: "perjury".

You are again absolutely right about the linguistic definition being based in how "the majority of the population uses the term". Check the polls. Check history. Nothing is going against my argument here.

By the way. Just to be clear. I have not argued against gay marriage here. I have not argued against changing the definition of marriage here.

All you Yankee fans -- to the back of the bus!

[The_Lone_Liberal]

Quote by: RickSp To start with, perjury is defined as lying under oath. You are claiming that a Supreme Court judge is committing a crime in the course of his or her duties which seems pretty inflammatory to me. As in most cases, judges in hearing and issuing rulings on specific cases never themselves testify, it is unclear to me how they could ever possibly commit perjury. Calling a judicial ruling where the judges are required to express their judgement, perjury is also a real stretch. That is why it seemed silly and a bit over the top. I understand how you might merely be using hyperbolic language but I hope you see the irony in ignoring the definition of one legal term while bemoaning the ignoring of a legal definition of another.

I made claims backed by reason with which you may agree or disagree. I even spelled out why, in the judicial function of interpretation, established language is material evidence of truthfulness. I also gave reasons for holding judges to the same standards of truthfulness of others in the court setting -- and I even listed the others who a judge would charge with perjury or evidence tampering, if they crossed those standards.

I find most interesting that you take me to task -- using loosely defined adjectives and adjective phrases like "silly," "inlammatory," -- and "over-the-top" -- all based on your perception of me violating a defintion -- that of "perjury". Your definition is technically correct, though I could argue that it is misapplied in the context and syntax of how I used it. The GREAT IRONY here, however, is that the sum, substance, alpha and omega of what I have said is that it is wrong for those specifically charged with interpretation of written laws to give a false definition to something that has one of the most clearly and consistently defined meanings in human history, let alone juris prudence.

Okay, don't call it perjury. Howzabout "fantasy", "delusion," "wishful thinking"? Take your pick. I'm easy (as well as silly, inlammatory, and over-the-top).

[SVMc]

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal By the way. Just to be clear. I have not argued against gay marriage here. I have not argued against changing the definition of marriage here.

Doesn't that amount to the same thing? Marriage is more than a word defined in a dictonary, or a common parlance term... if it is that simple then we can all have our own subjective definition of marriage and there would be no issue. However, marriage is also a legal term that allows couples who are united by the state in marriage legal rights and status denied to any other two people who are not legally married.

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal Again, I have addressed this. Give them the tax benefits, and all other legal benefits if you believe they are entitled to them. That is an issue other than whether or not they are married according to the defintion of marriage.

As Rick pointed out you seem to be delibertatly trying to avoid making a full argument against gay marriage, while at the same time employing all the standard arguments against gay marriage.

My understanding of your above quote is that you argue that gay couples should be extended all the civil benefits of marriage, but their union should not be called "marriage". In which case this sounds very much like the "civil union" argument.

If you are not arguing in favour of "civil unions" then please feel free to correct me.

Otherwise, my position on this has always been that the only way to fairly employ civil unions vs. marriages would be to change the definition of "marriage" to the status of a non-legally binding religious ceremony.... Any couple wishing the benefits of the legally state sanctioned marriage could obtain a "civil union".... therefore all couples homosexual and heterosexual could get "civil unions" equally.... religious groups could choose if they provide "marriages" to homosexual or heterosexual couple's based on their belief system and couples could choose if a "marriage" was important to them as a spiritual signfier.

Quote by: Sasha what is the need for the state to recognize marrages for anybody. Is your marriage worth more because it has state aproval, I hope not.

This point has been addressed closer to the begining of this thread (although I realize it is ownerous to read all 53 pages of the thread.... welcome btw).

The issue is not the state recognizing marriage.... but the state recognizing marriage for some consenting adult couples and not others, since the state provides benefits under the laws of marriage. Also common law does not provide all the same benefits of marriage... and while gay couples can enter into legal contracts to obtain some legal rights towards each other it is not a complete substitute for marriage... and still begs the question why should some citizens need to follow a different set of rules than others?

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal "White" was once a legal status that granted certain rights not accorded to blacks, but we did not correct that egregious citizenship denial by calling blacks, "white" -- and we would not have to fix any citizenship denial by calling unmarried people "married".

The argument is not to call "unmarried" people "married". The argument is that "married" is a status that grants legal rights to couples and as such the status of "married" should be open to all adult consenting couples that want to entre into that status.

"White" unlike "married" is a dual definition word in historical law. "White" was given a status that gave some citizens who were of the "white" status rights beyond other "black" citizens. From a status point of view the status of "white" was simply eliminated, making all citizens equal under the law. So, in a way "blacks" did become "white" in the sense of legal status, since "white" was synonomous with "full citizenship rights" when blacks were considered "full citizens" they became equivlent in the eyes of the law as "whites". Then from a legal standpoint "white" became irrelevant as a legal status.

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal Everyone has access to restrooms, but not the restroom of their choice. A man in the ladies room will not be allowed there socially or legally. Everyone has access to marriage -- no one says a gay man or woman cannot marry. A man cannot marry a man and he cannot use the ladies room. A woman cannot marry a woman and she cannot use the men's room. Again, I am not saying this is right or wrong ere, just that it the social reality.

The "restroom" argument is pretty much the weakest argument I have heard on this thread yet. First, it is not illegal to entre the restroom of the opposite gender. It is a social convention not to entre the restroom of the opposite gender. If you do enter the restroom of the opposite gender someone may complain to the managment of the facility, they may ask you to leave because you are distrubing the clients, people may yell at you... but you will not be arrested for that reason alone. Second, there are no tax breaks, personal priviledges, property rights or anything comparable that entering one restroom or the other will grant to any citizen.

Gay marriage is better compared to interracial marriage. At one time a black woman could not marry a white man... You could make the same argument that said black woman was not being denied her right to marriage since she could choose to marry another black man... and the white man was not being denied his right to marriage since he could marry a white woman.

Dictating access to who can marry who based on sexual orientation is the same form of discrimination as not allowing people to marry each other because of race, ethinicity, religion, hair colour, eye colour, height, weight.

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal When all history, all evidence of public usage, and all legal precedence gives one clear definition as it does in the definition of marriage, and the court says it is something else -- then they are doing something for which they would jail others.

Let's take these one at a time... All legal precedence indicates the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.... this is the problem we are trying to overcome. Saying that the root of the problem is a legitimate reason not to rectify the problem is not logical.

Even if I agree that all history sees marriage as between one man and one women, you have already acknowledge that language is not static and is subject to the changes in public usage.

Which leaves us with "all evidence of public usage" that is neatly sandwitched between the other two rather flimsy reasons. If there was no evidence in public usage of the word marriage being under dispute and there was consensus on the public usage of the term we would not be having this debate at all. The mere existance of the debate and more so the strong tension in the debate indicate that there is significant public interest and public usage of a new definition of marriage, as a legal relationship between two consenting adults regardless of sex or gender.

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal You are again absolutely right about the linguistic definition being based in how "the majority of the population uses the term".

I don't think you quite understood me, what I said was:

Quote by: SVMc If the majority of the population uses the term "marriage" to describe the legal state-sanctioned union of an adult couple consented to by both parties regardless of gender or sex... than that is the linguistic definition.... the legal definition is up to the state and the judicial system.

I am pointing out that linguistic and legal definitions of the word may differ. Law makers could change the meaning of the word marriage to mean a union between two consenting adults regardless of sex or gender... it would not automatically follow that the majority of the population would suddenly agree to the new definition. Likewise the majority of the population could hold the belief that a marriage should be a union between two consenting adults but the law makers still may not have changed the law at the point that the majority of the population holds that veiw.

Ergo, popular usage of a term has the impact to begin the change, to demand the change, to challenge the current definition. It is up to the law makers to determin if there is a legal necessity to change the legal definition of the term. Furthermore, if the current defintion is such that it discriminates against a segment of society in a way that the law makers determine to be unconstitutional... then the law makers are well within their jurisdiction to change the legal definition of the term without the majority of public consent being a factor.

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal Check the polls.

I did, last time I checked where I live gay marriage is supported.... and legal.

[SVMc]

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal Quote: Quote by: SVMc For my own reference can you post a source for this Massachusetts example, I'm not familiar with this case. With apologies -- I can't pin down the documentation off the top of my head. However, this is THE case that has made gay marriage a national issue. Extraordinarily well publicized as a matter of weekly -- if not daily -- newspaper coverage in this state's newspapers.

FYI if anyone is in the same boat as me http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/sa...rriage.ruling/

[Starboy]

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal I made claims backed by reason with which you may agree or disagree. I even spelled out why, in the judicial function of interpretation, established language is material evidence of truthfulness. I also gave reasons for holding judges to the same standards of truthfulness of others in the court setting -- and I even listed the others who a judge would charge with perjury or evidence tampering, if they crossed those standards.

Hey mister reasonable, you made claims about lying here:

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal No one has argued that the definition must not change, but that the Mass SJC lied about what the defintion is.

And were asked to back up that claim here:

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal Please point out in their ruling where they did that.

And apparently your ability to back up your claims has failed you, or maybe you were lying or possible you are stupid or maybe you are just a weasel.

Starboy

[The_Lone_Liberal]

I came in here and stepped in a hornet's nest of insult and name-calling -- and being buried in pontifications about things I never said. I have not once waivered from my original contentions. I have called no one on this forum any name of any sort, not have I implied any such thing.

Quote by: SVMc Doesn't that amount to the same thing? Marriage is more than a word defined in a dictonary, or a common parlance term... if it is that simple then we can all have our own subjective definition of marriage and there would be no issue. However, marriage is also a legal term that allows couples who are united by the state in marriage legal rights and status denied to any other two people who are not legally married. As Rick pointed out you seem to be delibertatly trying to avoid making a full argument against gay marriage, while at the same time employing all the standard arguments against gay marriage. My understanding of your above quote is that you argue that gay couples should be extended all the civil benefits of marriage, but their union should not be called "marriage". In which case this sounds very much like the "civil union" argument. If you are not arguing in favour of "civil unions" then please feel free to correct me.

Correct you? Again?? How many times do I have to say that I have offered no position here whatsoever on gay marriage or civil union??? Rick is absolutely right! I flat out refuse to make an argument against gay marriage because that would be changing the subject from the only thing I have posted here!! I have not only said and resaid exactly what I said in the first place, I have been forced to comeback and say what what it was that I did NOT say!

Quote by: SVMc Otherwise, my position on this has always been that the only way to fairly employ civil unions vs. marriages would be to change the definition of "marriage" to the status of a non-legally binding religious ceremony.... Any couple wishing the benefits of the legally state sanctioned marriage could obtain a "civil union".... therefore all couples homosexual and heterosexual could get "civil unions" equally.... religious groups could choose if they provide "marriages" to homosexual or heterosexual couple's based on their belief system and couples could choose if a "marriage" was important to them as a spiritual signfier.

Okay -- you say that " the only way to fairly employ civil unions vs. marriages would be to change the definition of 'marriage' to the status of a non-legally binding religious ceremony...." I don't know what that means... Maybe you left out some words.. It doesn't matter because I do not argue against changing definitions any way you want. We have a process for changing the definitions.... I have only argued that the courts have to tell the truth about what the definitions are...

I'm skipping stuff here that simply doesn't relate to my repeatedly stated position...

Quote by: SVMc The "restroom" argument is pretty much the weakest argument I have heard on this thread yet. First, it is not illegal to entre the restroom of the opposite gender. It is a social convention not to entre the restroom of the opposite gender. If you do enter the restroom of the opposite gender someone may complain to the managment of the facility, they may ask you to leave because you are distrubing the clients, people may yell at you... but you will not be arrested for that reason alone.

I don't know how to answer this other than to say I cannot imagine where you get your information. I've retyped this three times to not be harsh.... but please rethink this or talk to someone who knows something about restroom statutes..

The rest of your post has merit in places. Some good arguments to make about whether marriage should be re-defined or not. Write your Congressperson. Lawmakers can change the laws, including the definitions of terms any way they want within the limits of the constitution. But none of it is anything i have argued against.

Judicial interpretation too must be performed within the limits of the constitution -- said limits having no boundaries whatsoever if they can define any and all terms to mean anything they like. If they can redefine something as solidly established as the defintion of marriage being between a man and a woman, then they can redefine anything.

With apologies again, I am skipping ahead to what you say about that definition:

Quote by: SVMc ... Which leaves us with "all evidence of public usage" that is neatly sandwitched between the other two rather flimsy reasons. If there was no evidence in public usage of the word marriage being under dispute and there was consensus on the public usage of the term we would not be having this debate at all. The mere existance of the debate and more so the strong tension in the debate indicate that there is significant public interest and public usage of a new definition of marriage, as a legal relationship between two consenting adults regardless of sex or gender.

Again --- this is totally divorced from the reality. The debate exists because the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court over-rode its constitutional authority to tell the state legisature to rewrite the law, not just to give "fundamental" rights to gay couples but to acknowledge the court's re-invented definition.

It is that re-invention which I have opposed here -- and not one single other thing.
That's all folks.

[Starboy]

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal I came in here and stepped in a hornet's nest of insult and name-calling

I see. You feel perfectly justified in calling the judges liars but you don't like it when people accuse you of the same and now you are crying big crocodile tears because you got as good as you gave. Booooo hoooooo!

Also you have made the claim about the lying about the definition of marriage but you have yet to back that up with anything from the Judges themselves.

Starboy

[The_Lone_Liberal]

Nothing to do wqith the main subject here -- but I just noticed this line in SVMc's posts:

Capitalism is: Man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around.

Forgive me -- can't resist the opportunity to namedrop. As far as I know, the origin of this comment was in a conversation between Andre Veschinski, the USSR Ambassador to the U.S., and Werner Von Braun, Director of NASA -- back around 1960. This source is one I can quote, because Von Braun told me about it shortly afterwards. I was a college student at the time, picked as Von Braun's escort when he was speaking at my university.

[The_Lone_Liberal]

Quote by: Starboy I see. You feel perfectly justified in calling the judges liars but you don't like it when people accuse you of the same and now you are crying big crocodile tears because you got as good as you gave. Booooo hoooooo! Also you have made the claim about the lying about the definition of marriage but you have yet to back that up with anything from the Judges themselves. Starboy

Starboy, please note this from this forum's Posting Rules:

No personal insults or attacks will be tolerated in any of the main forums: Getting too personal, by insulting fellow users, only de-rails good arguments, and ruins the topics and the purpose of this site.

I have not once knowingly insulted any fellow user. I have indeed said that the Massachusetts SJC's re-invention of the historically established definition of marriage in support of its own political agenda was a lie. I said it, and I gave my reasons why -- the main reason being that they knew better and said it anyway.

Here's the substance of our dialogue since:

Starboy:
Why would it not bother you that the sacrament of marriage can be given to same sex couples but when the government gives recognition of their family it does bother you? It is just plain stupid.

The Lone Liberal:
With due respect, please note that my reply to you attributed to you only those things you actually said. You list things that "bother" me, declare them stupid, then introduce a whole series of new tails for me to start chasing, rather than stick with the issue.

Starboy:
It is not as if the definition of words has not changed in the past. You must argue why the definition must not change. An argument for the status quo for no other reason than definition is a stupid argument.

The Lone Liberal:
No one has argued that the definition must not change, but that the Mass SJC lied about what the defintion is. No one has argued for the status quo. You have twice managed to attribute things to me that I have not said, and then declared those things stupid each time. Please try to stay focused and civil

Starboy:
Nahh, you just like to be a weasel (add that to the list), rather then forthrightly stating your position because even you know it is a stupid position.

Starboy:
And apparently your ability to back up your claims has failed you, or maybe you were lying or possible you are stupid or maybe you are just a weasel.

May I refer you back to the posting rules?

[Starboy]

I am probably well on my way to being banned from Volconvo, but all I can say is that it is very dishonest to hide behind the rules when you are more than willing to trash the judges who are not posting here. If you want me to stop then stop using a double standard. If you demand civil discourse then give civil discourse. Otherwise expect as good as you give.

Starboy

[Sasha]

re Starboy #524

I think if you re-read my post (which you quoted) you will see that I recognized the possibility that common law as it stands now may not be equivalent to marriage, and if that was the case, it could be changed (probably without to much complaining from the right).

re SVMc #527

Sorry, I'm not into reading a book today :) (ie all 500+ posts)
Anyhow, I guess the point is that its just as easy to take the "right" away from everybody as it is to give it to everybody.

I would go on from this to say that its probably not so much a "right" as it is a government service and I do believe there is a distinction between the two. We don't all have a right to all government services, we can only recieve them if we qualify. ie veterans benifits, unemployment insurance etc.

In the same post you said
"Dictating access to who can marry who based on sexual orientation is the same form of discrimination as not allowing people to marry each other because of race, ethinicity, religion, hair colour, eye colour, height, weight."
It seems to me, with the exception of sexual orientation and religion all of these are inherent traits (granted some people will argue homosexuality is genetic as well) I was woundering what makes it justifyable to discriminate against a choice? evidently in these cases it isnt justifyable. At what point does that change? There must be some criteria that causes this shift.
Is this simply a matter of your fist hitting my nose? I don't think that is a sufficient answer, that criteria wont hold for veterans benifits or UI. Yet these are both services the government is justified in witholding to segments of the population.
This argument can be taken even further. Some Members of society are afforded disability benifits based on inherent factors, clearly not everybody is justified in getting these benifits. Again this leads us to conclude that the government has no obligation to provide services to all members of the population, without judgement of the individual. Therefore, even if you were to argue homosexuality is genetic, the government has no imidiate responsibility to provide access to marriage.

so breifly:
A: Why is marriage a "right" as opposed to a government service?
B: If it is a service why is it unacceptable to provide it only to male/female couples?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Sasha re Starboy #524 I think if you re-read my post (which you quoted) you will see that I recognized the possibility that common law as it stands now may not be equivalent to marriage, and if that was the case, it could be changed (probably without to much complaining from the right).

I saw that. Just pointing out to to you that gays have tried to do it withoug marriage. It doesn't work the same. I suggested that if you wanted to know more about it that you actually talk to some gays about it.

so breifly: A: Why is marriage a "right" as opposed to a government service? B: If it is a service why is it unacceptable to provide it only to male/female couples?

Quote by: U.S. Constitution Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

No where in the constitution is the power to determine who may or may not be married given to the government. The constitution also provides for equal treatment under the law so no state may pass laws that deny such treatment. So a person is a person, they are not male or female. Any law passed by the state regarding marriage cannot be interpreted to provide unequal treatment. So if a man can marry a woman then a woman must be able to marry a women and visa versa.

Also religious tradition is not an acceptable reason because of the first amendment and certainly historical tradition is not a reason because if that were so we would still be ruled by the English monarchy. Our form of government may seem like a common thing in this day and age but when it was formed it was even more radical than gay marriage.

Starboy

[The_Lone_Liberal]

Quote by: Starboy I am probably well on my way to being banned from Volconvo, but all I can say is that it is very dishonest to hide behind the rules when you are more than willing to trash the judges who are not posting here. If you want me to stop then stop using a double standard. If you demand civil discourse then give civil discourse. Otherwise expect as good as you give. Starboy

Please let me try to explain. I did indeed say what I think public officials did wrong. I have said to public officials right here in Massachusetts and to their faces what I believe they have done wrong -- and that includes the Chief Justice and three presidential candidates! And as a Massachusetts Democrat and even as a government official, I have paid a very severe price for that. You can believe that or not, but you do believe things about me and my motives that you cannot possibly know, for you have said those things here on this forum.

Public officials should obey the rules of their jobs when they do their jobs, and we should obey the rules of this forum when we are on this forum. I did not break the rules of this forum by insulting anyone here or calling anyone on this forum names -- and I have not said anything about any public official I would not stand publically or legally accountable for. I simply did not do that, and I respectfully and repeatedly asked that no one here do that to me. It is not hiding behind any rules to ask that people obey the rules when I obey them myself. To say I am at all dishonest about that is just to add another epithet to the name calling, and once again, without knowing a damn thing about me.

You don't have to know anything about me. Just respond to what I say, criticizing it if you will. but without unwarranted assumptions about my unspoken beliefs or motives, or projecting things on me I haven't said, or calling me names like "stupid", "liar", "weasel" and now, even in this last post, "dishonest".

Frankly, I just don't get why you don't get it. I am here to have some intellectual fun both learning and helping others learn. I get no fun in personal dis'ing others and certainly is no fun being on the receiving end of it.

[Starboy]

Quote by: The_Lone_Liberal Frankly, I just don't get why you don't get it. I am here to have some intellectual fun both learning and helping others learn. I get no fun in personal dis'ing others and certainly is no fun being on the receiving end of it.

Fine then. Go back and read your first post. You made a number of allegations. Now if intellectual fun and learning is what you are after then start posting source links and quotes to back them up otherwise you are no different then what you accuse me of.

Starboy

[Sasha]

Starboy:

Granted everyone is entitled to equal treatment, that doesnt mean the government must provide the same services to everybody.
You havent shown how marriage is a right as opposed to a service, and you haven't elaborated on why the government must then provide it to everybody when I have shown that there are many services that they do not need to provide to everybody.
Furthermore I never used religous freedom to argue against homosexual marriage, I only pointed out that it was different from the other equality rights as it was a right of choice as opposed to a freedom from discrimination based on how you were born.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Sasha Starboy: Granted everyone is entitled to equal treatment, that doesnt mean the government must provide the same services to everybody. You havent shown how marriage is a right as opposed to a service, and you haven't elaborated on why the government must then provide it to everybody when I have shown that there are many services that they do not need to provide to everybody.

Marriage is a right because it is reserved by the people as a right. Read the tenth amendment. As for the government providing a service, hey that is up to the people as to what services they want the government to provide. They all seem to want the government to issue marriage certificates or licenses, just like it issues birth and death certificates. The government is being used as a provider of important services for the public good as the public sees fit. If you don't want government to provide a service such as postal service or national highways or whatever then form a political movement to vote for the government to stop doing it.

And the funny thing about rights reserved by the people is that gays can already get married in churches that will marry them. What they can't get is the same certificate issued at the county clerk’s office that every hetero couple can get. I find that so ironic and hilarious. Apparently you are bent out of shape over the issuance of government paper work in a county clerk’s office.

Furthermore I never used religous freedom to argue against homosexual marriage, I only pointed out that it was different from the other equality rights as it was a right of choice as opposed to a freedom from discrimination based on how you were born.

Sorry, I do not understand what you are getting at here.

Starboy

[The_Lone_Liberal]

Quote by: Starboy Fine then. Go back and read your first post. You made a number of allegations. Now if intellectual fun and learning is what you are after then start posting source links and quotes to back them up otherwise you are no different then what you accuse me of. Starboy

Okay, happy to go back and read my first post. In fact, here it is in its entirety for all the world to read.