DOMA Struck Down

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>So, you can read the minds of every straight married couple, and know explicitly what
>harm has and has not been done.

Yep. Same way we read the minds of every same-race couple and knew explicitly that no harm was done by allowing interracial marriage. Even though conservatives whined about that, too.

So there is a homosexual RACE now?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[LyraM45 0]

turtlespeed

***

Quote

Every argument you raise can be countered by reversing the affected.

Except it can't, because in the reverse there are no affected.

Allowing gay marriage and calling it marriage has no effect whatsoever on straight marriage or what it is called.

So, you can read the minds of every straight married couple, and know explicitly what harm has and has not been done. Did you suddenly grow Kallend's clairvoyance/time machine?

Well, lets sample straight people here. What rights have you lost since gays have been allowed to marry? Or what kind of harm has come to you?

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[turtlespeed 226]

LyraM45

******

Quote

Every argument you raise can be countered by reversing the affected.

Except it can't, because in the reverse there are no affected.

Allowing gay marriage and calling it marriage has no effect whatsoever on straight marriage or what it is called.

So, you can read the minds of every straight married couple, and know explicitly what harm has and has not been done. Did you suddenly grow Kallend's clairvoyance/time machine?

Well, lets sample straight people here. What rights have you lost since gays have been allowed to marry? Or what kind of harm has come to you?

Harm is more than just a loss or gain of rights.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jakee 1,586]

turtlespeed

***

Quote

Every argument you raise can be countered by reversing the affected.

Except it can't, because in the reverse there are no affected.

Allowing gay marriage and calling it marriage has no effect whatsoever on straight marriage or what it is called.

So, you can read the minds of every straight married couple, and know explicitly what harm has and has not been done.

Calling gay marriage marriage causes no harm to any straight married couple or their marriage. They may do harm to themselves by obsessing over it, but that's really their problem, isn't it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,586]

turtlespeed

*********

Quote

Every argument you raise can be countered by reversing the affected.

Except it can't, because in the reverse there are no affected.

Allowing gay marriage and calling it marriage has no effect whatsoever on straight marriage or what it is called.

So, you can read the minds of every straight married couple, and know explicitly what harm has and has not been done. Did you suddenly grow Kallend's clairvoyance/time machine?

Well, lets sample straight people here. What rights have you lost since gays have been allowed to marry? Or what kind of harm has come to you?

Harm is more than just a loss or gain of rights.

So if straight people can be harmed by changing what other people's relationships can officially be called, how much greater must be the harm done to gay people by restricting what their own relationships can officially be called!

Why do you want to hurt gay people so much?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[LyraM45 0]

turtlespeed

*********

Quote

Every argument you raise can be countered by reversing the affected.

Except it can't, because in the reverse there are no affected.

Allowing gay marriage and calling it marriage has no effect whatsoever on straight marriage or what it is called.

So, you can read the minds of every straight married couple, and know explicitly what harm has and has not been done. Did you suddenly grow Kallend's clairvoyance/time machine?

Well, lets sample straight people here. What rights have you lost since gays have been allowed to marry? Or what kind of harm has come to you?

Harm is more than just a loss or gain of rights.

That's why I asked it as a separate question, so if you want to just address the harm part, I'll take only that answer from you if you want

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[turtlespeed 226]

jakee

******

Quote

Every argument you raise can be countered by reversing the affected.

Except it can't, because in the reverse there are no affected.

Allowing gay marriage and calling it marriage has no effect whatsoever on straight marriage or what it is called.

So, you can read the minds of every straight married couple, and know explicitly what harm has and has not been done.

Calling gay marriage marriage causes no harm to any straight married couple or their marriage. They may do harm to themselves by obsessing over it, but that's really their problem, isn't it?

I suppose that would depend on how much of their identity that they held with the definition, does it not?

Is there anything in your life that if the government changed against your will, that might cause you great distress?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 226]

LyraM45

Well, lets sample straight people here. What rights have you lost since gays have been allowed to marry?
I, personally haven't lost any rights, per say.

Or what kind of harm has come to you?

So it's all about me, huh?

I'll ask you the same question - Is there anything that you identify with that would cause you a great amount of pain and suffering if the government just decided to change against your will?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jakee 1,586]

turtlespeed

*********

Quote

Every argument you raise can be countered by reversing the affected.

Except it can't, because in the reverse there are no affected.

Allowing gay marriage and calling it marriage has no effect whatsoever on straight marriage or what it is called.

So, you can read the minds of every straight married couple, and know explicitly what harm has and has not been done.

Calling gay marriage marriage causes no harm to any straight married couple or their marriage. They may do harm to themselves by obsessing over it, but that's really their problem, isn't it?

I suppose that would depend on how much of their identity that they held with the definition, does it not?

Is there anything in your life that if the government changed against your will, that might cause you great distress?

The government is not changing anything in any straight, married person's life (In this case, anyway).

Is there anything in your life that if the government said you couldn't do it but some other people could, might cause you great distress?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,586]

turtlespeed

***

Well, lets sample straight people here. What rights have you lost since gays have been allowed to marry?
I, personally haven't lost any rights, per say.

Or what kind of harm has come to you?

So it's all about me, huh?

Those are the people you are siding with - "Fuck you being able to do what you want, it's all about how it makes me feel"

You might do well to remember that you don't have the right to not be offended.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

turtlespeed

Is there anything in your life that if the government changed against your will, that might cause you great distress?

rather than continue to jerk our chains, how about giving us a tangible suffering? In case you were unaware, you don't have constitutional protections against being distressed over bullshit. Freedom ain't free. Suck it up, cupcake.

Likewise, Jews have to tolerate that skinheads can march.
Cowards have to tolerate that their neighbors have guns.
And so on.

[jakee 1,586]

I was trying to be nice, but I'm glad you said it

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[LyraM45 0]

turtlespeed

***

Well, lets sample straight people here. What rights have you lost since gays have been allowed to marry?
I, personally haven't lost any rights, per say.

Or what kind of harm has come to you?

So it's all about me, huh?

I'll ask you the same question - Is there anything that you identify with that would cause you a great amount of pain and suffering if the government just decided to change against your will?

Well, no, but you just happen to be the first person in my sample. You said earlier we were trying to read peoples minds, so that's why I am asking the question here directly, and doing it first to you. I don't want to assume I know what people are thinking, like how you said earlier. Again, I ask, please tell me about the harm that has come to you because the government is recognizing gay marriages.

I'll be happy to also answer this (your) question if you can provide me a theoretical situation or example recently of something that has changed in the government, and I will let you know what rights I have lost or harm that has come to me because of it.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[turtlespeed 226]

kelpdiver

***
Is there anything in your life that if the government changed against your will, that might cause you great distress?

rather than continue to jerk our chains, how about giving us a tangible suffering? In case you were unaware, you don't have constitutional protections against being distressed over bullshit. Freedom ain't free. Suck it up, cupcake.

Likewise, Jews have to tolerate that skinheads can march.
Cowards have to tolerate that their neighbors have guns.
And so on.

Do the jews have the right to disagree with it?
How do you personally feel about the neo nazi skin heads

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 226]

LyraM45

******

Well, lets sample straight people here. What rights have you lost since gays have been allowed to marry?
I, personally haven't lost any rights, per say.

Or what kind of harm has come to you?

So it's all about me, huh?

I'll ask you the same question - Is there anything that you identify with that would cause you a great amount of pain and suffering if the government just decided to change against your will?

Well, no, but you just happen to be the first person in my sample. You said earlier we were trying to read peoples minds, so that's why I am asking the question here directly, and doing it first to you. I don't want to assume I know what people are thinking, like how you said earlier. Again, I ask, please tell me about the harm that has come to you because the government is recognizing gay marriages.

I'll be happy to also answer this (your) question if you can provide me a theoretical situation or example recently of something that has changed in the government, and I will let you know what rights I have lost or harm that has come to me because of it.

Why can't you answer the question as it was asked?
Why insert your own parameters.

To answer your question regarding me, I'm not saying that any direct harm came to me because of the decision, I am claiming that it could have hurt others.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,099]

>Is there anything that you identify with that would cause you a great amount
>of pain and suffering if the government just decided to change against your will?

Interesting argument. Thus, if selling handguns caused someone pain and suffering, that would be a valid reason to ban their sale.

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>Is there anything that you identify with that would cause you a great amount
>of pain and suffering if the government just decided to change against your will?

Interesting argument. Thus, if selling handguns caused someone pain and suffering, that would be a valid reason to ban their sale.

I suppose that can be brought to trial, sure.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[NewGuy2005 53]

ianmdrennan

“Anticipating the end of the world is humanity's oldest passtime”
~ David Mitchell

Blaming others for it may have come first!!

[LyraM45 0]

turtlespeed

*********

Well, lets sample straight people here. What rights have you lost since gays have been allowed to marry?
I, personally haven't lost any rights, per say.

Or what kind of harm has come to you?

So it's all about me, huh?

I'll ask you the same question - Is there anything that you identify with that would cause you a great amount of pain and suffering if the government just decided to change against your will?

Well, no, but you just happen to be the first person in my sample. You said earlier we were trying to read peoples minds, so that's why I am asking the question here directly, and doing it first to you. I don't want to assume I know what people are thinking, like how you said earlier. Again, I ask, please tell me about the harm that has come to you because the government is recognizing gay marriages.

I'll be happy to also answer this (your) question if you can provide me a theoretical situation or example recently of something that has changed in the government, and I will let you know what rights I have lost or harm that has come to me because of it.

Why can't you answer the question as it was asked?
Why insert your own parameters.

To answer your question regarding me, I'm not saying that any direct harm came to me because of the decision, I am claiming that it could have hurt others.

I'm trying, but in all honesty I can not think of an example that the government has done something, similar to this, that directly hurt me or taken rights away from me. Similarly, I'm having a hard time even thinking of a hypothetical situation that would allow me to answer the question, so this is why I asked you to shoot me one. I'm definitely not trying to avoid your question. I'll be happy to answer, but I just can't think of a situation (or a hypothetical one) where I feel like I've been harmed.

So, if you have not seen any direct harm but feel others could be harmed, how do you think they could be harmed? I'm not asking to pick on you or single you out, but I truly am interested in the answer since I don't know if they can be directly harmed.


ETA: I just saw bill's post with the gun example. I guess you could use that. Am I the biggest gun fan? Nope. Do I agree with all of the laws we have for them now that allow them to be readily available to anybody? Probably not. But that doesn't mean it has done me direct harm. My rights are just the same, my life goes on just the same, and the world keeps turning if people can own guns even though I don't like them. The only anguish I would be feeling in that situation is self induced stressed if I couldn't get over the fact that people are still allowed to own guns despite my disdain for them. There is no direct harm being done to me, it is not changing my life because others can exercise this right, and I have not had to make any changes in my life because of it either. Zero impacts.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>Is there anything that you identify with that would cause you a great amount
>of pain and suffering if the government just decided to change against your will?

Interesting argument. Thus, if selling handguns caused someone pain and suffering, that would be a valid reason to ban their sale.

ALSO . . .

The right to bear arms, or the second amendment, is actually IN the constitution, so . . . I would say that you are misguided in your analogy.

Marriage
In 2004, a lot of controversy began to swirl around the topic of marriage as homosexual marriage entered the news once again. In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ordered that the state must make accommodations for gay unions, bringing the issue into the public eye. Vermont created civil unions as a result. In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court went a step further, and ruled that the state must accommodate not just an institution equal to marriage, as civil union was designed to be, but that gay marriage itself must be offered in the state. Subsequently, mayors in New York and California began to offer gay marriage in their towns and cities, citing civil rights concerns. Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point. More information is available on the Marriage Topic Page.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[NorrinRadd 0]

skinnay

eat one bigots

Congrats to my American neighbours! Keep up the fight for freedom and equality! You rock!

Why drive myself crazy trying to be normal, when I am already at crazy?

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

The right to bear arms, or the second amendment, is actually IN the constitution, so . . . I would say that you are misguided in your analogy.

Well, of course there is no plain language "right to marry the same sex" amendment, but there are things that guarantee equal rights to citizens, no? And not only equal rights, but not separate but equal rights.

If we had to make plain language amendments like that regarding each and every equal rights issues, there would be a LOT of them I think!

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[turtlespeed 226]

LyraM45

************

Well, lets sample straight people here. What rights have you lost since gays have been allowed to marry?
I, personally haven't lost any rights, per say.

Or what kind of harm has come to you?

So it's all about me, huh?

I'll ask you the same question - Is there anything that you identify with that would cause you a great amount of pain and suffering if the government just decided to change against your will?

Well, no, but you just happen to be the first person in my sample. You said earlier we were trying to read peoples minds, so that's why I am asking the question here directly, and doing it first to you. I don't want to assume I know what people are thinking, like how you said earlier. Again, I ask, please tell me about the harm that has come to you because the government is recognizing gay marriages.

I'll be happy to also answer this (your) question if you can provide me a theoretical situation or example recently of something that has changed in the government, and I will let you know what rights I have lost or harm that has come to me because of it.

Why can't you answer the question as it was asked?
Why insert your own parameters.

To answer your question regarding me, I'm not saying that any direct harm came to me because of the decision, I am claiming that it could have hurt others.

I'm trying, but in all honesty I can not think of an example that the government has done something, similar to this, that directly hurt me or taken rights away from me. Similarly, I'm having a hard time even thinking of a hypothetical situation that would allow me to answer the question, so this is why I asked you to shoot me one. I'm definitely not trying to avoid your question. I'll be happy to answer, but I just can't think of a situation (or a hypothetical one) where I feel like I've been harmed.

So, if you have not seen any direct harm but feel others could be harmed, how do you think they could be harmed? I'm not asking to pick on you or single you out, but I truly am interested in the answer since I don't know if they can be directly harmed.

OK - Hypothetically, your hypothetical daughter is named "North". There are hundreds of years of very intense heritage and reason for why your hypothetical daughter is named "North". In fact, it is an integral base to your relationship with her and your Husband (He can be Hypothetical if you wish, too) But, the government decided that North can no longer mean what "North" meant before. It was argued that other people's wants are more important than yours. And you are told that it does you no harm.

Does that make a difference to you at that point?

Do you think that the Boy Scouts should be forced to allow girls to be members?
Do you think that the Girl Scouts should be forced to allow Boys?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,099]

>OK - Hypothetically, your hypothetical daughter is named "North". There are hundreds
>of years of very intense heritage and reason for why your hypothetical daughter is
>named "North". In fact, it is an integral base to your relationship with her and your
>Husband. But, the government decided
>that North can no longer mean what "North" meant before.

North can still be your daughter's name. It just now also means the direction towards the North Pole. How does that "destroy the sanctity" of her name?

[rehmwa 2]

LyraM45

, I ask, please tell me about the harm that has come to you because the government is recognizing gay marriages

it's not about harm or cost - striking it down is about equality of treatment - anyone that wants to pair up should be allowed to as long as there is such a category. There's always a cost - that's easy and saying there isn't a cost for every government decision is a bit silly.


Though I'd level the field by just plain deleting the gov from entire concept, not by adding even more people to what's unfair to singles.....


here's some math......

-Say we had a population of 100 people.

60 of them get to have cupcakes for dessert that the other 40 didn't.
so 100 people are paying for 60 cupcakes even though only 60 get them.
right there it's unfair

Now, we have 10 more that are in the group.
now we have to pay for 70 cupcakes instead of 60 - everybody pays a bit more for the extra 10 cupcakes
also - those 30 that still don't get cupcakes have to pay an even bigger share than before.
So, a bit more fair for the new 10
even more unfair for the remaining 30

Making the big group add the other 10 was the right thing to do for the 10. Though the "more right" thing to do for EVERYONE would have been to stop giving the original 60 people cupcakes that no one else was allowed at first. It would have pissed off the original 60, but they got favored treatment they shouldn't have anyway, so it was a good ride.





People should be able to pair up or not all they want and the government should pretty much ignore it completely. ]

"But,,, marriage is about kids" - Bull. To give benefits to a situation that might, maybe, possibly result in offspring, maybe, if they want to.....very indirect and inefficient.........If any person or couple, etc actually HAVE or adopt a kid, then let some very specific benefits accrue at that time. That's direct, that's tied to child raising. not some inferred arrangement

better yet, forget that too - if a couple people want kids - go for it. and stop making everyone pay for that too


there.....digressed enough?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants