GOP hopefuls remind Iowans they oppose Gay Rights

[Gadawg73]

Ah, I see said the blind man. You can discriminate on the basis of race, and not be a racist.

One reason that anti-miscegenation laws failed is that they applied ony to white people marrying non whites. That, even by your definition, makes them racist.

QW, racism is a BELIEF. A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particluar race.
Discrimination is AN ACT.
Laws are DISCRIMINATORY.
People are RACIST.
You can enforce laws and regulations.
You CAN NOT force and regulate BELIEFS.
You are a closet liberal.

I am not a closet anything. I am simply pointing out the how absurd you are in arguing that a law can discriminate but cannot be racist. Both of those are actually actions of people, not laws. You are attempting to parse a position that is absurd.

Laws simply exist. Affirmative action laws do not discriminate, yet applying them involves racist thinking. Get down off your hobby horse and admit that the only reason you are attempting to argue that laws discriminate, but are not racist, is that you do not want to admit that I am actually right. Get over it, it happens.

Affirmative action laws do not discriminate???
Explain that one maestro. You may want to think long and hard on that one old boy and reconsider your claims.
"Laws simply exist" QW. Brother, you are about as swift as a box of rocks. Hate to wake you up there but LAWS are IMPLEMENTED, ENFORCED AND ACTED ON. If you damn sure believe all they do is exist then I invite you to come to the courthouse, a place where I have polished my work for 31 years, and take a good look at how laws work on PEOPLE. Why the hell do you think that ALL laws are written BY CONGRESS AND ALL STATE LEGISLATURES as "Acts"? Well DUH.
Tell me what law there is on the books that can change someone from being a racist? There are none. Being a racist and believing in racism is a BELIEF.
NOT AN ACT.
People are racist. Laws discriminate. Know your vocabulary.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QW, racism is a BELIEF. A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particluar race.
Discrimination is AN ACT.
Laws are DISCRIMINATORY.
People are RACIST.
You can enforce laws and regulations.
You CAN NOT force and regulate BELIEFS.
You are a closet liberal.

I am not a closet anything. I am simply pointing out the how absurd you are in arguing that a law can discriminate but cannot be racist. Both of those are actually actions of people, not laws. You are attempting to parse a position that is absurd.

Laws simply exist. Affirmative action laws do not discriminate, yet applying them involves racist thinking. Get down off your hobby horse and admit that the only reason you are attempting to argue that laws discriminate, but are not racist, is that you do not want to admit that I am actually right. Get over it, it happens.

Affirmative action laws do not discriminate???
Explain that one maestro. You may want to think long and hard on that one old boy and reconsider your claims.
"Laws simply exist" QW. Brother, you are about as swift as a box of rocks. Hate to wake you up there but LAWS are IMPLEMENTED, ENFORCED AND ACTED ON. If you damn sure believe all they do is exist then I invite you to come to the courthouse, a place where I have polished my work for 31 years, and take a good look at how laws work on PEOPLE. Why the hell do you think that ALL laws are written BY CONGRESS AND ALL STATE LEGISLATURES as "Acts"? Well DUH.
Tell me what law there is on the books that can change someone from being a racist? There are none. Being a racist and believing in racism is a BELIEF.
NOT AN ACT.
People are racist. Laws discriminate. Know your vocabulary.

You do not understand sarcasm?

No wonder you are arguing about trivia.

 

[Gadawg73]

Ah, I see said the blind man. You can discriminate on the basis of race, and not be a racist.

One reason that anti-miscegenation laws failed is that they applied ony to white people marrying non whites. That, even by your definition, makes them racist.

QW, racism is a BELIEF. A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particluar race.
Discrimination is AN ACT.
Laws are DISCRIMINATORY.
People are RACIST.
You can enforce laws and regulations.
You CAN NOT force and regulate BELIEFS.
You are a closet liberal.

I am not a closet anything. I am simply pointing out the how absurd you are in arguing that a law can discriminate but cannot be racist. Both of those are actually actions of people, not laws. You are attempting to parse a position that is absurd.

Laws simply exist. Affirmative action laws do not discriminate, yet applying them involves racist thinking. Get down off your hobby horse and admit that the only reason you are attempting to argue that laws discriminate, but are not racist, is that you do not want to admit that I am actually right. Get over it, it happens.

This one is rich also:
"Affirmative action laws do not discriminate, yet applying them involves racist thinking" Quantum Windbag".
I love it! Windbag states that a law does not discriminate but when applied it does.
The government passes a law that does not discriminate but all of a sudden when the government applies that law they think like a racist.
It flies 10 feet over Windbag's head that THE LAW IS written by those as they intend to APPLY IT. That is how the law is ENFORCED. All ACTIONS, not beliefs like racism.
And that is why I OPPOSE ALL LAWS against same sex marriage because when applied they DISCRIMINATE.

 

[Seawytch]

No, I pointed out that you made the point that DOMA is the supreme law of the land. It has been around for years and, unless you can point out something that was done that that was not pursuant to the Constitution, it is automatically constitutional. You seem to think that it is impossible to pass an unconstitutional law while following the Constitution. I would love for you to explain that logic, if you can.

So, if a majority of our legislature decides to craft a law that prohibits Protestants from legally marrying, it is constitutional simply because they passed it?

Where did I say that? Why is everyone basing their argument for SSM on things that are not happening? Maybe I should post links to some good, well thought out, arguments for allowing consenting adults to marry that do not reduce the argument to sound bites.

You said it in the post above mine. "Unless you can point out something was not pursuant to the Constitution. DOMA clearly is not pursuant to the Constitution and is clearly not Constitutional (which is why it has been LOSING in court challenges).

 

[Seawytch]

What basis do we have to deny it to second cousins?

Some states don't. Some states even ALLOW 1st cousin marriages. (AK, AL, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, MD, MA, NJ, NM, NY, NC, RI, SC, TN,, VT, VA and Washington DC) State laws and cousin marriage | Cousin Marriage Resources

And if some cousins decide to get married in Alabama, their marriage is STILL recognized in Minnesota.

If cousins in those other states want to fight for THEIR marriages in THEIR states, nobody is stopping them. You see, when you challenge something, those defending it must come up with a societal harm that those marriages or relationships cause in order to deny them legal marriage.

Where is the overriding societal harm in allowing cousins or siblings to marry? What is the harm in allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry?

You are missing my point. Those laws were obviously designed to prevent inbreeding. In the days before we understood genetics the only thing we had to go with was familial relationships. Some states have actually moved into modern times and permit cousin marriages with genetic counseling. The people that argue that marriage was never about children obviously need to refine their arguments.

By the way, prevent birth defects that come from inbreeding and reinforcement of negative traits is an overwhelming societal concern. That is why laws that prevent a siblings or other close relatives from marrying will pass court scrutiny.

Who has said it was "never" about reproduction? It isn't NOW, today. And we NEVER prevented people from marrying who could not produce children so it is a ridiculous argument.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, if a majority of our legislature decides to craft a law that prohibits Protestants from legally marrying, it is constitutional simply because they passed it?

Where did I say that? Why is everyone basing their argument for SSM on things that are not happening? Maybe I should post links to some good, well thought out, arguments for allowing consenting adults to marry that do not reduce the argument to sound bites.

You said it in the post above mine. "Unless you can point out something was not pursuant to the Constitution. DOMA clearly is not pursuant to the Constitution and is clearly not Constitutional (which is why it has been LOSING in court challenges).

That is not what I said, I said "unless you can point out something that was done that that was not pursuant to the Constitution, it is automatically constitutional." I was discussing gekaap's statement that DOMA was not passed pursuant to the Constitution. That is an argument about the procedure used to pass the law, which is a completely separate issue form the actual affect of the law. If you want to say that a law was not passed pursuant to the Constitution you have to prove that Congress somehow passed it by that got around the Constitutional requirement for a majority vote. That did not happen, which makes DOMA automatically constitutional on those grounds.

Context adds a lot to a discussion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Some states don't. Some states even ALLOW 1st cousin marriages. (AK, AL, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, MD, MA, NJ, NM, NY, NC, RI, SC, TN,, VT, VA and Washington DC) State laws and cousin marriage | Cousin Marriage Resources

And if some cousins decide to get married in Alabama, their marriage is STILL recognized in Minnesota.

If cousins in those other states want to fight for THEIR marriages in THEIR states, nobody is stopping them. You see, when you challenge something, those defending it must come up with a societal harm that those marriages or relationships cause in order to deny them legal marriage.

Where is the overriding societal harm in allowing cousins or siblings to marry? What is the harm in allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry?

You are missing my point. Those laws were obviously designed to prevent inbreeding. In the days before we understood genetics the only thing we had to go with was familial relationships. Some states have actually moved into modern times and permit cousin marriages with genetic counseling. The people that argue that marriage was never about children obviously need to refine their arguments.

By the way, prevent birth defects that come from inbreeding and reinforcement of negative traits is an overwhelming societal concern. That is why laws that prevent a siblings or other close relatives from marrying will pass court scrutiny.

Who has said it was "never" about reproduction? It isn't NOW, today. And we NEVER prevented people from marrying who could not produce children so it is a ridiculous argument.

Some people have. One of them said so in this very thread. I was responding to them, not to your imagination.

 

[gekaap]

No, I pointed out that you made the point that DOMA is the supreme law of the land. It has been around for years and, unless you can point out something that was done that that was not pursuant to the Constitution, it is automatically constitutional. You seem to think that it is impossible to pass an unconstitutional law while following the Constitution. I would love for you to explain that logic, if you can.

Being "pursuant" to the constitution is not only about procedure. It is about adherence to constitutional requirements. Therefore, if DOMA violates constitutional rights, it is not in adherence to constitutional requirements, and thus is not pursuant to the constitution. This is because the constitution is supreme to federal statute. Thus, the the DOMA can only be among the supreme laws of the land, if it does not violate the constitution.

 

[Seawytch]

You are missing my point. Those laws were obviously designed to prevent inbreeding. In the days before we understood genetics the only thing we had to go with was familial relationships. Some states have actually moved into modern times and permit cousin marriages with genetic counseling. The people that argue that marriage was never about children obviously need to refine their arguments.

By the way, prevent birth defects that come from inbreeding and reinforcement of negative traits is an overwhelming societal concern. That is why laws that prevent a siblings or other close relatives from marrying will pass court scrutiny.

Who has said it was "never" about reproduction? It isn't NOW, today. And we NEVER prevented people from marrying who could not produce children so it is a ridiculous argument.

Some people have. One of them said so in this very thread. I was responding to them, not to your imagination.

Great. Now use your imagination and show that marriage has EVER been about procreation. When did the legal marriage laws of this country require reproduction?

 

[gekaap]

Oh, I'm sure there was some big brother is watching type of puritan law somewhere at some point that required a woman to pop out at least 2 babies in the first 5 years of marriage, otherwise the marriage became void and the husband had the option to sell the woman off into slavery to pay for debts.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Yet you of the extreme left are dedicated to destroying it..

Funny that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's the primary purpose for you.

No, it is the reason which societies promote and protect marriage.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Yet you of the extreme left are dedicated to destroying it..

Funny that.

You say the extreme left is dedicated to destroying marriage.....how so? Please explain what the left is doing that is "destroying marriage".

 

[bodecea]

That's the primary purpose for you.

No, it is the reason which societies promote and protect marriage.

Some societies promote child marriage.

Some societies promote multiple marriage.

Some societies promote arranged marriages.

Some societies promote marriage for money.

Some societies promote marriage for love.

Some societies promote marriage for cranking out babies.

Some societies promote marriage for the orderly passing down of property.

Which is it in the United States?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The right to marry has nothing to do with children and never has.

What an absurdly ignorant thing to claim.

The right to marry, and the reasons to marry, are two entirely different concepts.

If you were a bit brighter, and whole lot more educated, you would comprehend the distinction between your personal wants and the institutions which have developed to promote stable societies.

Sadly, you don't grasp these distinctions.

How many times did you vote for Obama?

 

[gekaap]

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

Yet you of the extreme left are dedicated to destroying it..

Funny that.

Neither am I of the extreme left, nor am I interested in destroying marriage. Gay marriage will not destroy marriage.

 

[gekaap]

No, it is the reason which societies promote and protect marriage.

Citation needed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Some societies promote child marriage.

...

Some societies promote multiple marriage.

Some societies promote arranged marriages.

Some societies promote marriage for money.

Some societies promote marriage for love.

Some societies promote marriage for cranking out babies.

Some societies promote marriage for the orderly passing down of property.

Which is it in the United States?

Do you have a point, or is this a "baffle with bullshit" exercise?

 

[bodecea]

Some societies promote child marriage.

...

Some societies promote multiple marriage.

Some societies promote arranged marriages.

Some societies promote marriage for money.

Some societies promote marriage for love.

Some societies promote marriage for cranking out babies.

Some societies promote marriage for the orderly passing down of property.

Which is it in the United States?

Do you have a point, or is this a "baffle with bullshit" exercise?

1. It is not bullshit.

2. Not meant to baffle...but if you are easily baffled, I can explain what you cannot understand. Which part would you like explained first?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Neither am I of the extreme left,

Really? What agenda point of the far left do you not support?

I've seen you post in favor of Obama's Fascist care and great deal of Bush hating threads.

nor am I interested in destroying marriage. Gay marriage will not destroy marriage.

It renders the concept meaningless.

Personally, I oppose government providing tax breaks or benefits to any marriage. Still, redefining marriage in order to gain a permanent voting bloc is both destructive and short sighted.

Look, our society is in shambles already, unwed births are already above 70% in blacks and above 30% in whites. Lack of familial stability is one of the greatest causes of poverty and crime. Yet you wish to further erode the function and foundation of the family.