scitsofreaky Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Just recently I entered into a "discussion" (or at least that's what I will call it) about same-sex marriage("ssm" from now on because I'm lazy). Some one said something about homosexuals changing the law so that they could get married. I challeneged this point based on what I seem to keep hearing about states (recently Maryland if I am not mistaken) where the state supreme courts are finding that it is unconstitutional to prevent ssm. He along with someone else obviously disagreed, so I asked both of them to give specific examples, which I have now widdled down to just one example. A simple request, right? Apparently not. From one of them I keep getting a message similar to this one: Scitso - Again, if the law DOES ALLOW IT, then homosexuals would not be trying to have the law changed, so that they could marry. It's very simple to understandI've gotten something like three responses like this, citing no specific examples. And the worst part is the attitude, acting like I am the idiot when I'm not the one who doesn't seem to understand what specific examples means.But it is the other one that really boils my water. Here is his original response before I even asked him to give specific examples: scitsofreaky You've got to be kidding, right? Homophobes- ( as you call them) trying to change the law? It was never legal for homosexuals to marry, so obviously they are the ones trying to change the law, not the other way around...As far as I am concerned, he is all but begging me to ask him for examples, which I do. As an aside, I did call them homophobes, and I explained why: the only reason somebody would so fiercely fight something that doesn't affect them is because they fear it, hence I used phobia. He response:You asked if I had any proof to support my claim? Get outa town, you're kidding, right? What do you think Rosie O'donnel was having a cow over? She was having a cow because the laws have stated that marriage is between a man and a woman, if that isn't proof enough, perhaps you should ask any homosexual who is seeking to marry, they'll tell you straight up the laws on marriage.Basically, he wants me to do his work for him, which I point out. I tell him that if he isn't willing to do his own work there is no reason to continue. And he has the audacity to actually claim victory:It's only over because I just proved it, you know it's true and you don't want to face the truth. I don't have to prove anything actually. if you are not aware of why homosexuals want to change the age old law, then the burden of "proof" is on you. Not going to argue w/ you, that's for sure. have a wonderful life. Wow, I almost missed the shifting of the burden of proof the first time I read it because I was blinded by rage when I read, "It's only over because I just proved it." What? How in hell did you prove anything? An assertion is not proof! An anecdote is not proof! Not only is there no proof anywhere, he completely failed to answer my challenge. I went into this discussion looking to find out the facts, I mean, how hard would it be for them to find evidence to support their claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 What do you expect? Rational discourse from fundies? Opposing any and all rights for homosexuals is one of the few ways Xians can vent the hatred in their souls, fostered by their religion, on their favorite scapegoats. Of course they're trying to change the law; if a law is detrimental, then clearly the objective becomes to change it. Big fat duh! Fundies have to resort to trying to criminalize homosexuals for just wanting to have their marriages recognized, because doing so would further nudge the state away from the church, and God forbid that should happen. If homosexual marriage became wholly legalized and supported, that would make Xianity weaker and undermine their position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 So what, exactly, is he getting on about? That established laws shouldn't be changed, because the fact that they're established laws somehow makes them the "right way" to do things? That kind of attitude worked real well in the fights to end slavery, recognize civil liberties, grant womens' sufferage, etc. Seriously, I just don't understand his position here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Fundies have to resort to trying to criminalize homosexuals for just wanting to have their marriages recognized, because doing so would further nudge the state away from the church, and God forbid that should happen. If homosexual marriage became wholly legalized and supported, that would make Xianity weaker and undermine their position. Christianity is already weakening because prejudice is no longer socially acceptable, and people are questioning church doctrine because they are getting to know others who aren't just like them & realizing that they're not evil. Fundy religion is doomed because of the information age and globalization. However, I think we'll start to see a rise in religious-related terrorism because fundmentalists of all religions feel threatened by change, and the world is changing even faster with each passing day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eponymic Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 That kind of attitude worked real well in the fights to end slavery, recognize civil liberties, grant womens' sufferage, etc. Seriously, I just don't understand his position here. I know. Gotta love that logic eh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted February 3, 2006 Author Share Posted February 3, 2006 Of course they're trying to change the law; if a law is detrimental, then clearly the objective becomes to change it. Big fat duh! That is actually what the disagreement is, whether or not it is the homosexuals (and those that support them) are the ones that are trying to change the law. I know about that Marriage protection act, or whatever it was called, that Clinton signed, but that doesn't seem to have much actual authority for whatever reason. I have only heard of laws/amendmants being discussed that would outlaw ssm marriage, which leads me to the obvious conclusion that in many states (including my own state, CO) it is actually legal. So I asked these two for any evidence that would show that it is in fact illegal. Hell, I just asked for one example, and they didn't even give me the Clinton one. So what, exactly, is he getting on about? That established laws shouldn't be changed, because the fact that they're established laws somehow makes them the "right way" to do things? That kind of attitude worked real well in the fights to end slavery, recognize civil liberties, grant womens' sufferage, etc. Seriously, I just don't understand his position here. The "discussion" here is whether or not current laws allow for ssm or not. I refuse to debate whether ssm should be legal or not because there is just no point in having that discussion with a fundy. One part I forgot to point out, and most probably missed is that the second person actually says "age old law." The earliest anything I found was 1995 in Utah. Wow, yeah, 11 years is "age old." I can't for the life of me think of any law pertaining to homosexuality that is "age old," not even in The Babble. It couldn't literally be age old because that wouldn't have been an issue in the Garden of Eden because there was no one to be homosexual with. (I do find it interesting how God doesn't give Adam any rules about sex, not even with animals...) I honestly went into this expecting to be proven wrong, now I'm starting to think maybe I am right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 The "discussion" here is whether or not current laws allow for ssm or not. I refuse to debate whether ssm should be legal or not because there is just no point in having that discussion with a fundy. I see. You know, I'd never thought of that before, but you've got a damn good point. If everyone is rushing to make laws outlawing same-sex marriage now, than by implication there was no such precedent on the books in the past. Really kinda' kills the argument before it can even get off the ground when you think about it. Homosexual marriage has been allowed by law in this country for well over 200 years now, and not only has the U.S. not seen a decline into ruin, but it's actually risen to be the greatest and only wold superpower. That's fuckin' hilarious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted February 4, 2006 Author Share Posted February 4, 2006 I does kill it, doesn't it? And along the same lines, the newest response is classic: Scitso - Since America was founded , and the Constitution was written, there has never been a law for homosexuals to marry.Before this discussion I thought this kid was somewhat smart, but that thought has been thoroughly trampled. I can't believe his argument was actually that there is no law allowing it. WTF? Since when do laws tell us what we can do? Did I miss that memo? But since I did enter this trying to learn, I ask that if any of you are able, please give me just one specific example of a law that outlawed same-sex marriage and hasn't been overturned by some sort of court. Edit: Oh, and if anyone cares enough to read the discussion, just look at the comments in my latest entry here. It is a comment battle, so they jump around. And the person that declared victory has apparently deleted everything I have said on his blog. Good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Well, just about any xeno/homophobic law passed in Utah is likely to be upheld by the courts, at least on the local level and providing it doesn't clash with an LDS precident. I love this state, I just wish I could deport all the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-COG Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 So, (speaking as an ignorant single person), what is the age old law of marriage? Marriage, as we know it today, isn't really that old, is it? Conservative types like to think it's all been set in stone, but wasn't common-law marriage the norm at one time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Broke Free Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Well, just about any xeno/homophobic law passed in Utah is likely to be upheld by the courts, at least on the local level and providing it doesn't clash with an LDS precident. I love this state, I just wish I could deport all the people. Agreed. If there truly were a god he would have led Brigham Young and his flock of dolts to North Dakota and left beautiful Utah for the sane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted February 4, 2006 Author Share Posted February 4, 2006 Wow, there is a shocker, it appears Utah was the first to make sure that marriage could only be between a man and a woman. And it appears that didn't happen until the mid '90s. So I guess they were right, it is an "age old law" :rollseyes: Does anybody else no of any other states and when the laws/amendments were passed? Surprisingly CO still hasn't passed anything outlawing ssm, but don't worry, they're working on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsmoke Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Agreed. If there truly were a god he would have led Brigham Young and his flock of dolts to North Dakota and left beautiful Utah for the sane. Hehe, that's funny, see, because my Mom was born and raised in North Dakota. Does anybody else no of any other states and when the laws/amendments were passed? Surprisingly CO still hasn't passed anything outlawing ssm, but don't worry, they're working on it. To my knowledge, Utah led the pack by two or three full circuits of the track on this issue. Our laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman were working full-time and supporting a family when similar proposals elsewhere were still in diapers. Honestly, I'll be rather surprised if the neo-cons in Colorado can push similar legislation through. For all that we're geographical neighbors, CO seems to have a much more tolerant and liberal socio-political climate. I can't vouch for the validity of the claim, but Denver is often cited as one of the most liberal cities in the nation. Then again, Utah is home to both the most conservative and one of most liberal cities in the nation according to a survey done several months ago, so I don't know as that's any indication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted February 5, 2006 Author Share Posted February 5, 2006 Denver has been liberal for quite some time now (at least to my knowledge). But for what seems like an eternity the majority of the state has been conservative. But this seems to be changing, the 40 year reign of the conservatives in the state house and senate ended last elections. This may be the reason that no such legislation has been passed, and one can only hope that this will continue. Only time will tell. One great thing that someone put on my blog was that ssm is legal in Kentucky. It only makes sense, I mean why shouldn't you be able to marry your cousin even if he/she is the same sex as you. (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted February 5, 2006 Author Share Posted February 5, 2006 OMG, I think I am dealing with a complete moron. Here is his specific example to prove that ssm is already illegal (all emphasis is mine): Amber Davis, Cavalier Daily Associate EditorAt the end of the year, a new amendment might appear in the 230-year-old Virginia State Constitution's Bill of Rights, redefining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. According to the Washington Post, an amendment intending to ban same-sex marriage in Virginia has been passed in the House of Delegates and approved in the Senate by a vote of 28 to 11. Whether the proposal has the potential to become a constitutional law will depend on the percentage of statewide support the amendment garners during an upcoming referendum in November. Although Virginia law currently does not recognize civil unions as legal marriages, proponents of the proposal claim that a constitutional amendment would ensure that all levels of government adhere to the amendments provisions, the Post reported. The genius is proving my position for me. I love finding out I'm right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts