Re: Is Homosexuality Genetic? Ask the Ancient Greeks
Info Junkie
post. I “snipped” sections to reduced the bandwidth.
On Jan 2, 9:33 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 8:14 am, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 31, 11:23 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
As Mr Rosenbluth did…
> {snipping old stuff}
> > ROTFLMHO. So the purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is just “to
> > enforce some court rulings”, eh? More importantly, later in your
> > post you admit the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends the intent of
> > equal protections found in Amendment XIV into the areas of private
> > business under the Commerce Clause. It was done so because it would be
> > “unconstitutional” extend the Equal Protection Clause of Amendment XIV
> > into the private areas of commerce.
>
> > >But, the latter has nothing to do
> > > with whom the state must offer civil marriage to, which is where the
> > > family leave and health care benefits for many private employers
> > > derive from.
>
> > Really? So IYO, “family leave and health care benefits for many
> > private employers (are) “derived from” whom the state must offer civil
> > marriages to?” According to one source, “State mandates generally do
> > not apply to the health plans offered by large employers, due to the
> > preemption clause of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.”
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States)
>
> > The source of your assertion is…not posted.
>
> > Wrt the equal protections under discussion, i.e., Amendment IXV and
> > the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
> > You should really follow the context under discussion Mr Rosenbluth,
> > as I referred to the Equal Protection Clause portion of Amendment XIV,
> > whereas under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you would
> > find:
>
> > (A to Q1) “ …under Title VII, employers must not discriminate on the
> > basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin when they
> > provide family or medical leave. “
>
> > 6.Q: What employers are covered by the FMLA…and Title VII?
> > A: The FMLA covers private employers with 50 or more employees...”
> > (http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/fmlaada.html)
>
> > Whereas the Equal Protection Clause per Amendment XIV has NO authority
> > to delve into PRIVATE businesses.
“snip”
> > IOW, my comment is accurate. In our previous discussions on this
> > subject you tried to dismiss this fact...seems you’ve been reading up
> > and now more closely agree with my opinions on this issue, eh? LOL
>
> > >Neither has anything to do with whom the state must offer
> > > civil marriage to.
>
> > …and yet I proven the relationship of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to
> > marriage…and you’ve admitted “ENDA is very close to an extension of
> > the Civil Rights Act of 1964 …(and) In particular when it comes to
> > marriage, it is no different. “ ITM, states are free to implement
> > whatever if the will of the majority per DOMA, as long as it doesn’t
> > violate the guidelines of strict scrutiny...a point homosexuals wish
> > to be resolved by judfcial fiat.
>
“snip”
>
> Classes named in the Civil Rights Act of 1964: race, color, religion,
> sex, national origin
>
> <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/2000e-2.html>
>
> Suspect and quasi-suspect classes:
>
> Race and national origin (Korematsu - 1944, pre-dating the Act).
> <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/
> USSC_CR_0323_0214_ZO.html>
>
> Alienage (Takahashi - 1948, pre-dating the Act and not covered by the
> Act).
> <http://supreme.justia.com/us/334/410/case.html>
>
> Sex (quasi-suspect, Boren - 1976)
> <http://supreme.justia.com/us/429/190/case.html>
>
> Illegitimacy (quasi-suspect, Trimble - 1977, not covered by the Act).
> <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/
> USSC_CR_0430_0762_ZO.html>
Thanks. However, I don’t see where you listed religion or women (not
gender) for Amendment IXV.
> > (On a side note; I find no powers under Article III of the US
> > Constitution, stated or implied, that delegates power to the Judicial
> > Branch for legislating the creation of people into classes)
>
> > ITM, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is merely a means to implement Equal
> > Protection Clause into the world of private businesses. Should ENDA
> > pass, this *Civil Rights Act…for homosexuals* would be just an
> > extension of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Should homosexuals be
> > allowed to marry (probably by judicial fiat), the ramifications would
> > permeate the guidelines of both the CRA of 1964 and ENDA. Just as
> > proven the relationship of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to marriage,
> > should ENDA pass, “when it comes to marriage, it is no different”.
>
> > Just curious; Is there a court case that found Title VII of the Civil
> > Rights Act of 1964 that was being violated that did NOT apply to
> > members of a “suspect or quasi-suspect “ class as defined by Amendment
> > XI?
>
> All gender-related Title VII violations between 1964 and 1976 were on
> a non-suspect classification.
You’re claiming NO Title VII cases related to members of a suspect
classification have occurred since 1964? No cases about gender-related
Title VII violations after 1976?
“The Supreme Court has never suggested that Congress cannot rely on
the Supreme Court's recognition of such suspect or quasi-suspect
classes in enacting legislation to deter violations of their
constitutional rights.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/5th/9930242cv0.html
That would include the Civil Rights Act of 1964, eh? LOL
“snip”
> > Now Mr Rosenbluth, you’re trying to just limit our discussion to a
> > fallacy, i.e. "whom the state must offer civil marriage to"
>
> That's the topic of this debate. You tangentially extended the
> discussion by correctly noting that the Civil Rights Act of 1964
> precludes private employers from not hiring people who are in an
> interacial marriage (no controversy there).
Mr Rosenbluth, you really should go back and re-read what has been
written. The discussion was the criteria of a civil right being based
upon whatever the state deems is in the best interests of society.
Marriage is but ONE civil right.
The discussion in these threads included the fallacious promotion by
pro-homosexual advocates like yourself that have claimed marriage
between races was once “unfair”, since corrected based on “Equal
Protection”. That discussion included the fallacious claim by pro-
homosexual advocates that homosexuals should be able to marry because
they should be considered on par with blacks and women. …just like
those in Loving v Virginia. The Lawrence case was brought up, as was
Romer…yet neither of these cases had anything to do with marriage or
marriage criteria.
I raised the issue wrt the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of those
fallacious claims by pro-homosexuals advocates like you, regarding
civil rights…not JUST civil marriage. I even proved my point using
your own posts. I even showed how marriage was used in ruling against
interracial marriage, as occurred in Loving v Virginia, but under
Title IIV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964…extending the civil rights
issues into private business…of which marriage is but ONE civil right.
>But do you agree that
> when it comes to whether there is a federal requirement that the state
> offers civil mariage to interracial couples (assuming the state offers
> it to same-race couples - I make no assumption about the feds require
> marriage in the first place), the Civil Rights Act of 1964 plays no
> part.
No I do not agree, as you base your comment by falsely suggesting a
federal requirement upon the states. However, there is no federal
requirement about what a state may offer as criteria for civil
marriages within their state.
What a state may offer regarding the criteria for all civil rights
within state may be found in the majority of its citizenry. Regarding
the civil right of marriage between homosexuals (or federal
recognition of the same) may be seen in the Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA). The only federal requirement to a state is that state’s
criteria for ANY civil law, including marriage, is to not violate the
guidelines of strict scrutiny, of which requires immutability…a point
not applicable to marriages between homosexuals whom base their
assertions on their “feelings”.
The second false assertion is linked to the first, i.e., there is no
federal requirement about what a state may offer as criteria for civil
marriages within their state., making your false assertion about the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 irrelevant.
You began with false assertions, resulting in your flawed conclusion
based solely on sophistry.
“snip”
> > As proven to have been purported even by you Mr Rosenbluth, the claims
> > of civil rights violations by pro-homosexuals are not limited to
> > marriage laws….and such false assertions by pro-homosexual advocates
> > have been based on issues that involve BOTH Amendment XIV and the
> > Civil Rights Act of 1964. To date, those assertions have been shown as
> > the farce that they are regarding any alleged equal protections,
> > homosexuals and civil rights laws.
>
> This discussion is about marriage, not other issues, and only you
> interjected the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
False. The discussion included other alleged violations of “rights”
as claimed by pro-homosexual advocates in this and other threads.
Just for you, I’ve posted a couple of examples from your posts that
include issues referring to BOTH Amendment XIV and the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.
Which poster points out the “mix-n’-match” fallacies posted by pro-
homosexuals advocates is what‘s irrelevant Mr Rosenbluth, and your
continual attempt at a poisoning-the-well fallacy doesn’t change that.
> > While nothing I have posted has been intentionally false, and maybe,
> > just maybe “Only (I) have brought up the Civil Rights Act of 1964” is
> > because I'm the only one paying attention to the pro-homosexual
> > rhetoric and sophistry in these threads, eh? By your responses, it
> > seems your eyes have been opened a bit as well, eh? Glad I could help
> > Mr Rosenbluth.
>
> Your tangential observation noted above adds nothing to this
> discussion.
The only “tangential observation” that “adds nothing to this
discussion”, is the sentence above this one. You posted the fallacy, I
responded to it.
> I think you believed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 played a role
> in determining whether the state must offer marriage to interracial
> couples. Hopefully, I've opened your eyes to the fact that it does
> not.
I made no claim to such a false assertion Mr Rosenbluth. You made
the claim of “whom the state must offer civil marriage to, which is
where the family leave and health care benefits for many private
employers derive from.” I refuted your claim with evidence, noting you
did not provide evidence to back your assertion…and you still haven’t
done so.
ITM, apparently you've "missed-the-boat" on a major portion of the
discussion Mr Rosenbluth. I’ve proven the Civil Rights Act of 1964
was (IMO) Congress’ (unconstitutional) application of the Equal
Protection Clause (Amendment XIV) as they rammed it down-the-throat of
private businesses. Apparently you agree for when asked, “…which item
(s) under Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution refer to the
Equal Protection Clause?”…you replied “None do”. …yet the very basis
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to extend said equal protections
into the private business sector regarding "family leave and health
care benefits"...
As proven to have been purported even by you Mr Rosenbluth, the claims
of civil rights violations by pro-homosexuals are not limited to civil
marriage laws….and such false assertions by pro-homosexual advocates
have been based on issues that involve BOTH Amendment XIV and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. To date, those assertions have been shown as
the farce that they are regarding any alleged violation of equal
protections to homosexuals per Amendment XIV and civil rights
laws….marriage included.
Regarding JUST the civil right of marriage, I’ve also shown that
claiming discrimination by disallowing interracial marriages was ruled
as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (link
provided)…just like it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause
in Loving v Virginia. As you already admitted, Equal Protection
discrimination via Loving is also a false claim for pro-homosexual
advocates to base their false assertions, so too would be the false
assertion to apply the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
When you can show which federal law tells a state the criteria it
“must offer marriage to interracial couples”, or for ANY marriage, we
can continue. Until then, your fallacies (and sophistry) are not
conducive to your argument. What you’ve “opened (my) eyes” to Mr
Rosenbluth, is your continual refusal to admit your errors, resorting
to more sophistry and fallacies.
Lars Eighner
<cecd3024-3f21-4278...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented Info Junkie broadcast on alt.atheism:
> What a state may offer regarding the criteria for all civil rights
> within state may be found in the majority of its citizenry. Regarding
> the civil right of marriage between homosexuals (or federal
> recognition of the same) may be seen in the Defense of Marriage Act
> (DOMA). The only federal requirement to a state is that state?s
> criteria for ANY civil law, including marriage, is to not violate the
> guidelines of strict scrutiny, of which requires immutability?a point
> not applicable to marriages between homosexuals whom base their
> assertions on their ?feelings?.
Yet, religion is not "immutable" and is entirely based on "feelings."
More to the point, marriage laws discriminate on the basis of *sex*, which
is a near immutable as criteria. No marriage law prevents homosexuals from
marrying, so it is immaterial whether sexuality is immutable. A gay may
marry a lesbian, so clearly sexuality is not the issue. But when no man may
marry any other man, the law discriminates according to sex, not sexuality.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 32
781.4 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
Warbama: An LBJ for the Twenty-First century. No hope. No change.
Josh
> Again NG readers (except Mr Rosenbluth), I apologize for the long
>
> On Jan 2, 9:33 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 8:14 am, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 31, 11:23 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> {snipping old stuff}
>
>>> ROTFLMHO. So the purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is just �to
>>> enforce some court rulings�, eh? More importantly, later in your
>>> post you admit the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends the intent of
>>> equal protections found in Amendment XIV into the areas of private
>>> business under the Commerce Clause. It was done so because it would be
>>> into the private areas of commerce.
>>>> But, the latter has nothing to do
>>>> with whom the state must offer civil marriage to, which is where the
>>>> family leave and health care benefits for many private employers
>>>> derive from.
>>> private employers (are) �derived from� whom the state must offer civil
>>> marriages to?� According to one source, �State mandates generally do
>>> not apply to the health plans offered by large employers, due to the
>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States)
>>> The source of your assertion is�not posted.
>>> Wrt the equal protections under discussion, i.e., Amendment IXV and
>>> the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
>>> You should really follow the context under discussion Mr Rosenbluth,
>>> as I referred to the Equal Protection Clause portion of Amendment XIV,
>>> whereas under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you would
>>> find:
>>> basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin when they
>>> 6.Q: What employers are covered by the FMLA�and Title VII?
>>> A: The FMLA covers private employers with 50 or more employees...�
>>> (http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/fmlaada.html)
>>> Whereas the Equal Protection Clause per Amendment XIV has NO authority
>>> to delve into PRIVATE businesses.
>
>
>>> IOW, my comment is accurate. In our previous discussions on this
>>> and now more closely agree with my opinions on this issue, eh? LOL
>>>> Neither has anything to do with whom the state must offer
>>>> civil marriage to.
>>> marriage�and you�ve admitted �ENDA is very close to an extension of
>>> the Civil Rights Act of 1964 �(and) In particular when it comes to
>>> marriage, it is no different. � ITM, states are free to implement
>>> whatever if the will of the majority per DOMA, as long as it doesn�t
>>> violate the guidelines of strict scrutiny...a point homosexuals wish
>>> to be resolved by judfcial fiat.
>
>> Classes named in the Civil Rights Act of 1964: race, color, religion,
>> sex, national origin
>>
>> <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/2000e-2.html>
>>
>> Suspect and quasi-suspect classes:
>>
>> Race and national origin (Korematsu - 1944, pre-dating the Act).
>> <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/
>> USSC_CR_0323_0214_ZO.html>
>>
>> Alienage (Takahashi - 1948, pre-dating the Act and not covered by the
>> Act).
>> <http://supreme.justia.com/us/334/410/case.html>
>>
>> Sex (quasi-suspect, Boren - 1976)
>> <http://supreme.justia.com/us/429/190/case.html>
>>
>> Illegitimacy (quasi-suspect, Trimble - 1977, not covered by the Act).
>> <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/
>> USSC_CR_0430_0762_ZO.html>
>
> gender) for Amendment IXV.
Any classification by gender is quasi-suspect, women included.
I can't find a specific case which declared religion as suspect, but
every link from a Google search on "suspect classifications" mentions
religion in the same breadth as race and national origin. I suspect
that is because religion was thought of as a race when the Fourteenth
was passed as noted in Teflia:
<http://supreme.justia.com/us/481/615/case.html>
>>> (On a side note; I find no powers under Article III of the US
>>> Constitution, stated or implied, that delegates power to the Judicial
>>> Branch for legislating the creation of people into classes)
>>> ITM, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is merely a means to implement Equal
>>> Protection Clause into the world of private businesses. Should ENDA
>>> pass, this *Civil Rights Act�for homosexuals* would be just an
>>> extension of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Should homosexuals be
>>> allowed to marry (probably by judicial fiat), the ramifications would
>>> permeate the guidelines of both the CRA of 1964 and ENDA. Just as
>>> proven the relationship of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to marriage,
>>> should ENDA pass, �when it comes to marriage, it is no different�.
>>> Just curious; Is there a court case that found Title VII of the Civil
>>> Rights Act of 1964 that was being violated that did NOT apply to
>>> members of a �suspect or quasi-suspect � class as defined by Amendment
>>> XI?
>> All gender-related Title VII violations between 1964 and 1976 were on
>> a non-suspect classification.
>
> You�re claiming NO Title VII cases related to members of a suspect
> classification have occurred since 1964? No cases about gender-related
> Title VII violations after 1976?
No. You asked if there were cases in which a non-suspect,
non-quasi-suspect class brought a case under Title VII. Between 1964
and 1976 every gender claim under Title VII was for a non-suspect,
non-quasi-suspect class.
> �The Supreme Court has never suggested that Congress cannot rely on
> the Supreme Court's recognition of such suspect or quasi-suspect
> classes in enacting legislation to deter violations of their
> constitutional rights.�
>
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/5th/9930242cv0.html
>
> That would include the Civil Rights Act of 1964, eh? LOL
>
> �snip�
>
>>> Now Mr Rosenbluth, you�re trying to just limit our discussion to a
>>> fallacy, i.e. "whom the state must offer civil marriage to"
>> That's the topic of this debate. You tangentially extended the
>> discussion by correctly noting that the Civil Rights Act of 1964
>> precludes private employers from not hiring people who are in an
>> interacial marriage (no controversy there).
>
> Mr Rosenbluth, you really should go back and re-read what has been
> written. The discussion was the criteria of a civil right being based
> upon whatever the state deems is in the best interests of society.
> Marriage is but ONE civil right.
>
> The discussion in these threads included the fallacious promotion by
> pro-homosexual advocates like yourself that have claimed marriage
> between races was once �unfair�, since corrected based on �Equal
> Protection�. That discussion included the fallacious claim by pro-
> homosexual advocates that homosexuals should be able to marry because
> they should be considered on par with blacks and women. �just like
> those in Loving v Virginia. The Lawrence case was brought up, as was
> Romer�yet neither of these cases had anything to do with marriage or
> marriage criteria.
>
> I raised the issue wrt the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of those
> fallacious claims by pro-homosexuals advocates like you, regarding
> civil rights�not JUST civil marriage. I even proved my point using
> your own posts. I even showed how marriage was used in ruling against
> interracial marriage, as occurred in Loving v Virginia, but under
> Title IIV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964�extending the civil rights
> issues into private business�of which marriage is but ONE civil right.
>
>> But do you agree that
>> when it comes to whether there is a federal requirement that the state
>> offers civil mariage to interracial couples (assuming the state offers
>> it to same-race couples - I make no assumption about the feds require
>> marriage in the first place), the Civil Rights Act of 1964 plays no
>> part.
>
> No I do not agree, as you base your comment by falsely suggesting a
> federal requirement upon the states. However, there is no federal
> requirement about what a state may offer as criteria for civil
> marriages within their state.
There is a federal requirement that the state must offer interracial
marriages if the state offers same-race marriages.
> What a state may offer regarding the criteria for all civil rights
> within state may be found in the majority of its citizenry. Regarding
> the civil right of marriage between homosexuals (or federal
> recognition of the same) may be seen in the Defense of Marriage Act
> (DOMA). The only federal requirement to a state is that state�s
> criteria for ANY civil law, including marriage, is to not violate the
> guidelines of strict scrutiny, of which requires immutability�a point
> not applicable to marriages between homosexuals whom base their
> assertions on their �feelings�.
>
> The second false assertion is linked to the first, i.e., there is no
> federal requirement about what a state may offer as criteria for civil
> marriages within their state., making your false assertion about the
> Civil Rights Act of 1964 irrelevant.
>
> You began with false assertions, resulting in your flawed conclusion
> based solely on sophistry.
>
> �snip�
>
>>> As proven to have been purported even by you Mr Rosenbluth, the claims
>>> of civil rights violations by pro-homosexuals are not limited to
>>> marriage laws�.and such false assertions by pro-homosexual advocates
>>> have been based on issues that involve BOTH Amendment XIV and the
>>> Civil Rights Act of 1964. To date, those assertions have been shown as
>>> the farce that they are regarding any alleged equal protections,
>>> homosexuals and civil rights laws.
>> This discussion is about marriage, not other issues, and only you
>> interjected the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
>
> False. The discussion included other alleged violations of �rights�
> as claimed by pro-homosexual advocates in this and other threads.
> Just for you, I�ve posted a couple of examples from your posts that
> include issues referring to BOTH Amendment XIV and the Civil Rights
> Act of 1964.
>
> Which poster points out the �mix-n�-match� fallacies posted by pro-
> homosexuals advocates is what�s irrelevant Mr Rosenbluth, and your
> continual attempt at a poisoning-the-well fallacy doesn�t change that.
>
>>> While nothing I have posted has been intentionally false, and maybe,
>>> just maybe �Only (I) have brought up the Civil Rights Act of 1964� is
>>> because I'm the only one paying attention to the pro-homosexual
>>> rhetoric and sophistry in these threads, eh? By your responses, it
>>> seems your eyes have been opened a bit as well, eh? Glad I could help
>>> Mr Rosenbluth.
>> Your tangential observation noted above adds nothing to this
>> discussion.
>
> The only �tangential observation� that �adds nothing to this
> discussion�, is the sentence above this one. You posted the fallacy, I
> responded to it.
>
>> I think you believed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 played a role
>> in determining whether the state must offer marriage to interracial
>> couples. Hopefully, I've opened your eyes to the fact that it does
>> not.
>
> I made no claim to such a false assertion Mr Rosenbluth. You made
> the claim of �whom the state must offer civil marriage to, which is
> where the family leave and health care benefits for many private
> employers derive from.� I refuted your claim with evidence, noting you
> did not provide evidence to back your assertion�and you still haven�t
> done so.
>
> ITM, apparently you've "missed-the-boat" on a major portion of the
> discussion Mr Rosenbluth. I�ve proven the Civil Rights Act of 1964
> was (IMO) Congress� (unconstitutional) application of the Equal
> Protection Clause (Amendment XIV) as they rammed it down-the-throat of
> private businesses. Apparently you agree for when asked, ��which item
> (s) under Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution refer to the
> Equal Protection Clause?��you replied �None do�. �yet the very basis
> of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to extend said equal protections
> into the private business sector regarding "family leave and health
> care benefits"...
>
> As proven to have been purported even by you Mr Rosenbluth, the claims
> of civil rights violations by pro-homosexuals are not limited to civil
> marriage laws�.and such false assertions by pro-homosexual advocates
> have been based on issues that involve BOTH Amendment XIV and the
> Civil Rights Act of 1964. To date, those assertions have been shown as
> the farce that they are regarding any alleged violation of equal
> protections to homosexuals per Amendment XIV and civil rights
> laws�.marriage included.
What claim of gay civil rights on the basis of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 have been made in this thread or elsewhere?
> Regarding JUST the civil right of marriage, I�ve also shown that
> claiming discrimination by disallowing interracial marriages was ruled
> as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (link
> provided)�
Your link showed that an employer cannot refuse to hire someone who is
in an interracial marriage. That's not the same as "disallowing
interracial marriage".
> just like it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause
> in Loving v Virginia. As you already admitted, Equal Protection
> discrimination via Loving is also a false claim for pro-homosexual
> advocates to base their false assertions
Just a few days ago, I said: "I didn't say the Equal Protection case
was moot. Cases since Baker (Zablocki, Turner, Romer, Lawrence) have
kept the issue alive." You are free to disagree, but stop lying about
*my* views on Equal Protection.
> so too would be the false
> assertion to apply the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
What assertion, made by whom?
> When you can show which federal law tells a state the criteria it
> �must offer marriage to interracial couples�, or for ANY marriage, we
> can continue. Until then, your fallacies (and sophistry) are not
> conducive to your argument. What you�ve �opened (my) eyes� to Mr
> Rosenbluth, is your continual refusal to admit your errors, resorting
> to more sophistry and fallacies.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
> In our last episode,
> <cecd3024-3f21-4278...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, the
> lovely and talented Info Junkie broadcast on alt.atheism:
>
>> What a state may offer regarding the criteria for all civil rights
>> within state may be found in the majority of its citizenry. Regarding
>> the civil right of marriage between homosexuals (or federal
>> recognition of the same) may be seen in the Defense of Marriage Act
>> (DOMA). The only federal requirement to a state is that state?s
>> criteria for ANY civil law, including marriage, is to not violate the
>> guidelines of strict scrutiny, of which requires immutability?a point
>> not applicable to marriages between homosexuals whom base their
>> assertions on their ?feelings?.
>
> Yet, religion is not "immutable" and is entirely based on "feelings."
>
> More to the point, marriage laws discriminate on the basis of *sex*,
which
> is a near immutable as criteria. No marriage law prevents
homosexuals from
> marrying, so it is immaterial whether sexuality is immutable. A gay may
> marry a lesbian, so clearly sexuality is not the issue. But when no
man may
> marry any other man, the law discriminates according to sex, not
sexuality.
We have disagreed on this before - no need to rehash. But ironically,
your argument makes sense if we accept Info's assumption that sexuality
is mutable. That is if I were a woman instead not a man, I would be
able to marry a man - and hence sex discrimination (*)
Josh Rosenbluth
This argument does not hold if sexuality is immutable because if I were
a woman, but still gay, I'd have no interest in marrying a man anymore.
anonymous
>
> Info Junkie wrote:
> > Again NG readers (except Mr Rosenbluth), I apologize for the long
> >
> > On Jan 2, 9:33 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Jan 2, 8:14 am, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Dec 31, 11:23 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> {snipping old stuff}
> >
> >>> ROTFLMHO. So the purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is just “to
> >>> post you admit the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends the intent of
> >>> equal protections found in Amendment XIV into the areas of private
> >>> business under the Commerce Clause. It was done so because it would be
> >>> into the private areas of commerce.
> >>>> But, the latter has nothing to do
> >>>> with whom the state must offer civil marriage to, which is where the
> >>>> family leave and health care benefits for many private employers
> >>>> derive from.
> >>> private employers (are) “derived from” whom the state must offer civil
> >>> not apply to the health plans offered by large employers, due to the
> >>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States)
> >>> The source of your assertion is…not posted.
> >>> Wrt the equal protections under discussion, i.e., Amendment IXV and
> >>> the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
> >>> You should really follow the context under discussion Mr Rosenbluth,
> >>> as I referred to the Equal Protection Clause portion of Amendment XIV,
> >>> whereas under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you would
> >>> find:
> >>> basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin when they
> >>> 6.Q: What employers are covered by the FMLA…and Title VII?
> >>> A: The FMLA covers private employers with 50 or more employees...”
> >>> (http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/fmlaada.html)
> >>> Whereas the Equal Protection Clause per Amendment XIV has NO authority
> >>> to delve into PRIVATE businesses.
> >
> >
> >>> IOW, my comment is accurate. In our previous discussions on this
> >>> and now more closely agree with my opinions on this issue, eh? LOL
> >>>> Neither has anything to do with whom the state must offer
> >>>> civil marriage to.
> >>> the Civil Rights Act of 1964 …(and) In particular when it comes to
> >>> marriage, it is no different. “ ITM, states are free to implement
> >>> whatever if the will of the majority per DOMA, as long as it doesn’t
> >>> violate the guidelines of strict scrutiny...a point homosexuals wish
> >>> to be resolved by judfcial fiat.
> >
> >> Classes named in the Civil Rights Act of 1964: race, color, religion,
> >> sex, national origin
> >>
> >> <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/2000e-2.html>
> >>
> >> Suspect and quasi-suspect classes:
> >>
> >> Race and national origin (Korematsu - 1944, pre-dating the Act).
> >> <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/
> >> USSC_CR_0323_0214_ZO.html>
> >>
> >> Alienage (Takahashi - 1948, pre-dating the Act and not covered by the
> >> Act).
> >> <http://supreme.justia.com/us/334/410/case.html>
> >>
> >> Sex (quasi-suspect, Boren - 1976)
> >> <http://supreme.justia.com/us/429/190/case.html>
> >>
> >> Illegitimacy (quasi-suspect, Trimble - 1977, not covered by the Act).
> >> <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/
> >> USSC_CR_0430_0762_ZO.html>
> >
> > gender) for Amendment IXV.
>
> Any classification by gender is quasi-suspect, women included.
>
> I can't find a specific case which declared religion as suspect, but
> every link from a Google search on "suspect classifications" mentions
> religion in the same breadth as race and national origin. I suspect
> that is because religion was thought of as a race when the Fourteenth
> was passed as noted in Teflia:
>
> <http://supreme.justia.com/us/481/615/case.html>
>
> >>> (On a side note; I find no powers under Article III of the US
> >>> Constitution, stated or implied, that delegates power to the Judicial
> >>> Branch for legislating the creation of people into classes)
> >>> ITM, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is merely a means to implement Equal
> >>> Protection Clause into the world of private businesses. Should ENDA
> >>> extension of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Should homosexuals be
> >>> allowed to marry (probably by judicial fiat), the ramifications would
> >>> permeate the guidelines of both the CRA of 1964 and ENDA. Just as
> >>> proven the relationship of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to marriage,
> >>> Just curious; Is there a court case that found Title VII of the Civil
> >>> Rights Act of 1964 that was being violated that did NOT apply to
> >>> XI?
> >> All gender-related Title VII violations between 1964 and 1976 were on
> >> a non-suspect classification.
> >
> > classification have occurred since 1964? No cases about gender-related
> > Title VII violations after 1976?
>
> No. You asked if there were cases in which a non-suspect,
> non-quasi-suspect class brought a case under Title VII. Between 1964
> and 1976 every gender claim under Title VII was for a non-suspect,
> non-quasi-suspect class.
>
> > the Supreme Court's recognition of such suspect or quasi-suspect
> > classes in enacting legislation to deter violations of their
> >
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/5th/9930242cv0.html
> >
> > That would include the Civil Rights Act of 1964, eh? LOL
> >
> >
> >>> Now Mr Rosenbluth, you’re trying to just limit our discussion to a
> >>> fallacy, i.e. "whom the state must offer civil marriage to"
> >> That's the topic of this debate. You tangentially extended the
> >> discussion by correctly noting that the Civil Rights Act of 1964
> >> precludes private employers from not hiring people who are in an
> >> interacial marriage (no controversy there).
> >
> > Mr Rosenbluth, you really should go back and re-read what has been
> > written. The discussion was the criteria of a civil right being based
> > upon whatever the state deems is in the best interests of society.
> > Marriage is but ONE civil right.
> >
> > The discussion in these threads included the fallacious promotion by
> > pro-homosexual advocates like yourself that have claimed marriage
> > Protection”. That discussion included the fallacious claim by pro-
> > homosexual advocates that homosexuals should be able to marry because
> > those in Loving v Virginia. The Lawrence case was brought up, as was
> > marriage criteria.
> >
> > I raised the issue wrt the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of those
> > fallacious claims by pro-homosexuals advocates like you, regarding
> > your own posts. I even showed how marriage was used in ruling against
> > interracial marriage, as occurred in Loving v Virginia, but under
> > issues into private business…of which marriage is but ONE civil right.
> >
> >> But do you agree that
> >> when it comes to whether there is a federal requirement that the state
> >> offers civil mariage to interracial couples (assuming the state offers
> >> it to same-race couples - I make no assumption about the feds require
> >> marriage in the first place), the Civil Rights Act of 1964 plays no
> >> part.
> >
> > No I do not agree, as you base your comment by falsely suggesting a
> > federal requirement upon the states. However, there is no federal
> > requirement about what a state may offer as criteria for civil
> > marriages within their state.
>
> There is a federal requirement that the state must offer interracial
> marriages if the state offers same-race marriages.
>
> > What a state may offer regarding the criteria for all civil rights
> > within state may be found in the majority of its citizenry. Regarding
> > the civil right of marriage between homosexuals (or federal
> > recognition of the same) may be seen in the Defense of Marriage Act
> > criteria for ANY civil law, including marriage, is to not violate the
> > not applicable to marriages between homosexuals whom base their
> >
> > The second false assertion is linked to the first, i.e., there is no
> > federal requirement about what a state may offer as criteria for civil
> > marriages within their state., making your false assertion about the
> > Civil Rights Act of 1964 irrelevant.
> >
> > You began with false assertions, resulting in your flawed conclusion
> > based solely on sophistry.
> >
> >
> >>> As proven to have been purported even by you Mr Rosenbluth, the claims
> >>> of civil rights violations by pro-homosexuals are not limited to
> >>> have been based on issues that involve BOTH Amendment XIV and the
> >>> Civil Rights Act of 1964. To date, those assertions have been shown as
> >>> the farce that they are regarding any alleged equal protections,
> >>> homosexuals and civil rights laws.
> >> This discussion is about marriage, not other issues, and only you
> >> interjected the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> >
> > as claimed by pro-homosexual advocates in this and other threads.
> > include issues referring to BOTH Amendment XIV and the Civil Rights
> > Act of 1964.
> >
> > homosexuals advocates is what‘s irrelevant Mr Rosenbluth, and your
> > continual attempt at a poisoning-the-well fallacy doesn’t change that.
> >
> >>> While nothing I have posted has been intentionally false, and maybe,
> >>> because I'm the only one paying attention to the pro-homosexual
> >>> rhetoric and sophistry in these threads, eh? By your responses, it
> >>> seems your eyes have been opened a bit as well, eh? Glad I could help
> >>> Mr Rosenbluth.
> >> Your tangential observation noted above adds nothing to this
> >> discussion.
> >
> > responded to it.
> >
> >> I think you believed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 played a role
> >> in determining whether the state must offer marriage to interracial
> >> couples. Hopefully, I've opened your eyes to the fact that it does
> >> not.
> >
> > I made no claim to such a false assertion Mr Rosenbluth. You made
> > where the family leave and health care benefits for many private
> > done so.
> >
> > ITM, apparently you've "missed-the-boat" on a major portion of the
> > was (IMO) Congress’ (unconstitutional) application of the Equal
> > Protection Clause (Amendment XIV) as they rammed it down-the-throat of
> > (s) under Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution refer to the
> > of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to extend said equal protections
> > into the private business sector regarding "family leave and health
> > care benefits"...
> >
> > As proven to have been purported even by you Mr Rosenbluth, the claims
> > of civil rights violations by pro-homosexuals are not limited to civil
> > have been based on issues that involve BOTH Amendment XIV and the
> > Civil Rights Act of 1964. To date, those assertions have been shown as
> > the farce that they are regarding any alleged violation of equal
> > protections to homosexuals per Amendment XIV and civil rights
>
> What claim of gay civil rights on the basis of the Civil Rights Act of
> 1964 have been made in this thread or elsewhere?
>
> > claiming discrimination by disallowing interracial marriages was ruled
> > as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (link
>
> Your link showed that an employer cannot refuse to hire someone who is
> in an interracial marriage. That's not the same as "disallowing
> interracial marriage".
>
> > just like it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause
> > in Loving v Virginia. As you already admitted, Equal Protection
> > discrimination via Loving is also a false claim for pro-homosexual
> > advocates to base their false assertions
>
> Just a few days ago, I said: "I didn't say the Equal Protection case
> was moot. Cases since Baker (Zablocki, Turner, Romer, Lawrence) have
> kept the issue alive." You are free to disagree, but stop lying about
> *my* views on Equal Protection.
>
> > so too would be the false
> > assertion to apply the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
>
> What assertion, made by whom?
>
> > When you can show which federal law tells a state the criteria it
> > can continue. Until then, your fallacies (and sophistry) are not
> > Rosenbluth, is your continual refusal to admit your errors, resorting
> > to more sophistry and fallacies.
>
> Josh Rosenbluth
A time will come when the economics of denying homosexuals the right of
marriage will be too expensive and the law will change. Probhibition
and slavey changed.
Info Junkie
> lovely and talented Info Junkie broadcast on alt.atheism:
>
> > What a state may offer regarding the criteria for all civil rights
> > within state may be found in the majority of its citizenry. Regarding
> > the civil right of marriage between homosexuals (or federal
> > recognition of the same) may be seen in the Defense of Marriage Act
> > (DOMA). The only federal requirement to a state is that state?s
> > criteria for ANY civil law, including marriage, is to not violate the
> > guidelines of strict scrutiny, of which requires immutability?a point
> > not applicable to marriages between homosexuals whom base their
> > assertions on their ?feelings?.
>
> Yet, religion is not "immutable" and is entirely based on "feelings."
Nor are all religions are considered "immutable", nor covered by
Amendment XIV or the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
"IMMUTABLE. What cannot be removed, what is unchangeable. The laws of
God being perfect, are immutable, but no human law can be so
considered.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United
States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856."
(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/)
> More to the point, marriage laws discriminate on the basis of *sex*, which
> is a near immutable as criteria.
Marriage laws, like all civil laws, are based on the potential benefit
to the majority of society, not to indulge the selfish desires of a
few individuals,.
>No marriage law prevents homosexuals from
> marrying, so it is immaterial whether sexuality is immutable.
Using your false logic (TMK), it not illegal to marry your dog to your
cat...but nowhere is there a law that requires the majority of society
to accept nor provide government beneits to such a union.
You may want to check out the laws in your state, as DOMA rules.
>A gay may
> marry a lesbian, so clearly sexuality is not the issue. But when no man may
> marry any other man, the law discriminates according to sex, not sexuality.
Barring violation of laws that target members based on their being
members of a "suspect classification", all civil laws have criteria
that must be met to fulfill the legal obligations for recognition by
the state.
Again, marriage laws, like all civil laws, are based on the potential
benefit to the majority of society, not to indulge the selfish desires
of a few selfish individuals.
Lars Eighner
<68724a0a-4a15-4b9e...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented Info Junkie broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
> On Jan 3, 9:42�am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>> More to the point, marriage laws discriminate on the basis of *sex*,
>> which is a near immutable as criteria. �
> Marriage laws, like all civil laws, are based on the potential benefit
> to the majority of society, not to indulge the selfish desires of a
> few individuals,.
Laws may not discriminate unless the state can show a compeling reason to do
so. Society must offer the equal protections of the law to everyone in
spite of the prejudices of the majority.
>>No marriage law prevents homosexuals from
>> marrying, so it is immaterial whether sexuality is immutable. �
> Using your false logic (TMK), it not illegal to marry your dog to your
> cat...
No. It is not legal to marry a cat to a dog, but that is not sex
discrimination.
> but nowhere is there a law that requires the majority of society
> to accept nor provide government beneits to such a union.
That is right because the equal protections of the law is extended only to
persons, not to cats and dogs.
> You may want to check out the laws in your state, as DOMA rules.
And there was a wall in Berlin once. The will to liberty and equal before
the law can be delayed, but not thwarted.
>> A gay may marry a lesbian, so clearly sexuality is not the issue. �But
>> when no man may marry any other man, the law discriminates according to
>> sex, not sexuality.
> Barring violation of laws that target members based on their being
> members of a "suspect classification",
Which is what sex is.
> all civil laws have criteria that must be met to fulfill the legal
> obligations for recognition by the state.
> Again, marriage laws, like all civil laws, are based on the potential
> benefit to the majority of society, not to indulge the selfish desires
> of a few selfish individuals.
Again, since the state cannot demonstrate a compeling reason to deny equal
protection, the irrational prejudices of even a majority of society cannot
justify the discrimination.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 37
902.1 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
Poetic Justice
> In our last episode,
> <68724a0a-4a15-4b9e...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, the
> lovely and talented Info Junkie broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
>
>> On Jan 3, 9:42 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>
>>> More to the point, marriage laws discriminate on the basis of *sex*,
>>> which is a near immutable as criteria.
>
>> Marriage laws, like all civil laws, are based on the potential benefit
>> to the majority of society, not to indulge the selfish desires of a
>> few individuals,.
>
> Laws may not discriminate unless the state can show a compeling reason to do
> so. Society must offer the equal protections of the law to everyone in
> spite of the prejudices of the majority.
You don't understand Social Justice.
You don't understand affirmative action and the right of the government
to give some people benefits and deny them to others. They do it on
race and sex all the time.
*Saving the children is a compelling reason* .
Which people are you suggesting deserve "equal protection"? The Mormons
or the bisexuals that want to marry their partner(s) and get benefits?
The 10 Gays that want a group marriage, do they get equal protection?
The guy that wants to marry his Goat?
The woman that wants to marry her students?
The Necrophilia who wants to marry their dead partner?
Just how equal do you want to take this?
WangoTango
dog...com says...
> On 1/8/2010 10:27 AM, Lars Eighner wrote:
> > In our last episode,
> > <68724a0a-4a15-4b9e...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, the
> > lovely and talented Info Junkie broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
> >
> >> On Jan 3, 9:42 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> More to the point, marriage laws discriminate on the basis of *sex*,
> >>> which is a near immutable as criteria.
> >
> >> Marriage laws, like all civil laws, are based on the potential benefit
> >> to the majority of society, not to indulge the selfish desires of a
> >> few individuals,.
> >
> > Laws may not discriminate unless the state can show a compeling reason to do
> > so. Society must offer the equal protections of the law to everyone in
> > spite of the prejudices of the majority.
>
>
> You don't understand Social Justice.
>
> You don't understand affirmative action and the right of the government
> to give some people benefits and deny them to others. They do it on
> race and sex all the time.
Doesn't make it right.
>
> *Saving the children is a compelling reason* .
>
> Which people are you suggesting deserve "equal protection"? The Mormons
> or the bisexuals that want to marry their partner(s) and get benefits?
Sure, why not?
>
> The 10 Gays that want a group marriage, do they get equal protection?
Why not?
It is no different than polygamy, and there is no valid reason that
should be illegal. As long as all the parties are of age and they
consent.
>
> The guy that wants to marry his Goat?
A goat can not consent.....
>
> The woman that wants to marry her students?
Huh?
Are they of age?
What do you mean by student?
>
> The Necrophilia who wants to marry their dead partner?
A dead body can not consent to anything....
>
> Just how equal do you want to take this?
Well, apparently we aren't being fair to all those straw men you hoisted
up there.
Info Junkie
I suspect you may have misunderstood my position wrt "sexuality", or
that I poorly communicated my view. I see those touting homosexuality
as their "sexual preference", i.e. mutable, whereas sexuality wrt
"gender" is immutable.
"How do you tell the difference between male chromosomes and female
chromosomes? Pull down their genes!" (http://www.geocities.com/
abhinith/riddles.htm)
Info Junkie
> In our last episode,
> <68724a0a-4a15-4b9e-90e1-dd65978f4...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, the
> lovely and talented Info Junkie broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
>
> > On Jan 3, 9:42 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
> >> More to the point, marriage laws discriminate on the basis of *sex*,
> >> which is a near immutable as criteria.
> > Marriage laws, like all civil laws, are based on the potential benefit
> > to the majority of society, not to indulge the selfish desires of a
> > few individuals,.
>
> Laws may not discriminate unless the state can show a compeling reason to do
> so. Society must offer the equal protections of the law to everyone in
> spite of the prejudices of the majority.
False. State laws may indeed discriminate. Unless recognized as a
member of a "suspect classification" or similer need to enforce strict
scrutiny rules, the state is not obligated to prove it's
reasoning...the burden of proof is left to the petitioner.
> >>No marriage law prevents homosexuals from
> >> marrying, so it is immaterial whether sexuality is immutable.
> > Using your false logic (TMK), it not illegal to marry your dog to your
> > cat...
>
> No. It is not legal to marry a cat to a dog, but that is not sex
> discrimination.
Where is the law showing "(i)t is not legal to marry a cat to a dog"?
You've also made an unsubstantiated assertion about the gender of the
cat and dog.
> > but nowhere is there a law that requires the majority of society
> > to accept nor provide government beneits to such a union.
>
> That is right because the equal protections of the law is extended only to
> persons, not to cats and dogs.
You want equal results, not equal protections, and yet:
“The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact
or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same” -Justice
Frankfurter (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/
amendment14/19.html)
> > You may want to check out the laws in your state, as DOMA rules.
>
> And there was a wall in Berlin once. The will to liberty and equal before
> the law can be delayed, but not thwarted.
I was there when the wall Berlin existed. It has no relevance to
marriage between homosexual nor the US Constitution, ergo, your
fallacies of distraction are not condusive to your argument.
> >> A gay may marry a lesbian, so clearly sexuality is not the issue. But
> >> when no man may marry any other man, the law discriminates according to
> >> sex, not sexuality.
> > Barring violation of laws that target members based on their being
> > members of a "suspect classification",
>
> Which is what sex is.
Really...according to whom? Cite your source that homosexuals are
members of a suspect classification.
> > all civil laws have criteria that must be met to fulfill the legal
> > obligations for recognition by the state.
> > Again, marriage laws, like all civil laws, are based on the potential
> > benefit to the majority of society, not to indulge the selfish desires
> > of a few selfish individuals.
>
> Again, since the state cannot demonstrate a compeling reason to deny equal
> protection, the irrational prejudices of even a majority of society cannot
> justify the discrimination.
Again, false. Unless members of a suspect classification are going to
court over an alleged discrimination case, rational basis rules and
it's not up to the state to prove a compelling reason. Claiming
discrimination over and over doesn't make it any alleged
discrimination factual...only annoying.
Marriage laws, like all civil laws, are based on the potential benefit
to the majority of society, not to indulge the selfish desires of a
few selfish individuals.
Lars Eighner
<fd5dea0a-37be-4573...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, the
lovely and talented Info Junkie broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
> On Jan 8, 10:27�am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>> In our last episode,
>> <68724a0a-4a15-4b9e-90e1-dd65978f4...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, the
>> lovely and talented Info Junkie broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
>>
>> > On Jan 3, 9:42�am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>> >> More to the point, marriage laws discriminate on the basis of *sex*,
>> >> which is a near immutable as criteria. ��
>> > Marriage laws, like all civil laws, are based on the potential benefit
>> > to the majority of society, not to indulge the selfish desires of a
>> > few individuals,.
>>
>> Laws may not discriminate unless the state can show a compeling reason to do
>> so. �Society must offer the equal protections of the law to everyone in
>> spite of the prejudices of the majority.
> False. State laws may indeed discriminate. Unless recognized as a
> member of a "suspect classification" or similer need to enforce strict
> scrutiny rules, the state is not obligated to prove it's
> reasoning...the burden of proof is left to the petitioner.
Marriage laws discriminate by sex. It is already well established that sex
is a suspect classification.
>> >>No marriage law prevents homosexuals from
>> >> marrying, so it is immaterial whether sexuality is immutable. �
>> > Using your false logic (TMK), it not illegal to marry your dog to your
>> > cat...
>>
>> No. �It is not legal to marry a cat to a dog, but that is not sex
>> discrimination.
> Where is the law showing "(i)t is not legal to marry a cat to a dog"?
> You've also made an unsubstantiated assertion about the gender of the
> cat and dog.
No. It is not legal for a cat to marry a dog regardless of their sexes.
>> > but nowhere is there a law that requires the majority of society
>> > to accept nor provide government beneits to such a union.
>>
>> That is right because the equal protections of the law is extended only to
>> persons, not to cats and dogs.
> You want equal results, not equal protections, and yet:
> ?The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact
> or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same? -Justice
> Frankfurter (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/
> amendment14/19.html)
There is nothing in fact different between same-sex marriage and
opposite-sex marriage.
>> > You may want to check out the laws in your state, as DOMA rules.
>>
>> And there was a wall in Berlin once. �The will to liberty and equal before
>> the law can be delayed, but not thwarted.
> I was there when the wall Berlin existed. It has no relevance to
> marriage between homosexual nor the US Constitution, ergo, your
> fallacies of distraction are not condusive to your argument.
The denial of equality before the law is exactly the same. The suppression
of a fundamental human right is exactly the same. The oppression is exactly
the same whether you call it Marxism or Christianity.
>> >> A gay may marry a lesbian, so clearly sexuality is not the issue. ��But
>> >> when no man may marry any other man, the law discriminates according to
>> >> sex, not sexuality.
>> > Barring violation of laws that target members based on their being
>> > members of a "suspect classification",
>>
>> Which is what sex is.
> Really...according to whom? Cite your source that homosexuals are
> members of a suspect classification.
I did not claim that. Marriage laws discriminate by sex, not by sexuality.
Sex has long be recognized as a suspect classification.
>> > all civil laws have criteria that must be met to fulfill the legal
>> > obligations for recognition by the state.
>> > Again, marriage laws, like all civil laws, are based on the potential
>> > benefit to the majority of society, not to indulge the selfish desires
>> > of a few selfish individuals.
>>
>> Again, since the state cannot demonstrate a compeling reason to deny equal
>> protection, the irrational prejudices of even a majority of society cannot
>> justify the discrimination.
> Again, false. Unless members of a suspect classification are going to
> court over an alleged discrimination case, rational basis rules and
> it's not up to the state to prove a compelling reason. Claiming
> discrimination over and over doesn't make it any alleged
> discrimination factual...only annoying.
Marriage laws discriminate by sex. If they did not, words like "man" and
"woman" could be replaced by "person," and "husband" and "wife" could be
replaced by "spouse."
> Marriage laws, like all civil laws, are based on the potential benefit
> to the majority of society, not to indulge the selfish desires of a
> few selfish individuals.
The prejudices and whims of even a majority cannot be allowed to defeat
liberty and equality before the law.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 37
908.5 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
Josh Rosenbluth
> > a woman, but still gay, I'd have no interest in marrying a man anymore.
>
> I suspect you may have misunderstood my position wrt "sexuality", or
> that I poorly communicated my view. I see those touting homosexuality
> as their "sexual preference", i.e. mutable, whereas sexuality wrt
> "gender" is immutable.
I can't even parse this statement.
It is my understanding that you think that if a person is sexually
attracted only to people of the same sex, they can change and become
attracted to people of the opposite sex.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
> On Jan 8, 10:27 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>
>
> > >> A gay may marry a lesbian, so clearly sexuality is not the issue. But
> > >> when no man may marry any other man, the law discriminates according to
> > >> sex, not sexuality.
> > > Barring violation of laws that target members based on their being
> > > members of a "suspect classification",
>
> > Which is what sex is.
>
> Really...according to whom? Cite your source that homosexuals are
> members of a suspect classification.
He said sex, as in gender - which is a quasi-suspect classification.
Josh Rosenbluth
Ray Fischer
>On 1/8/2010 10:27 AM, Lars Eighner wrote:
>> In our last episode,
>> <68724a0a-4a15-4b9e...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, the
>> lovely and talented Info Junkie broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
>>
>>> On Jan 3, 9:42 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> More to the point, marriage laws discriminate on the basis of *sex*,
>>>> which is a near immutable as criteria.
>>
>>> Marriage laws, like all civil laws, are based on the potential benefit
>>> to the majority of society, not to indulge the selfish desires of a
>>> few individuals,.
>>
>> Laws may not discriminate unless the state can show a compeling reason to do
>> so. Society must offer the equal protections of the law to everyone in
>> spite of the prejudices of the majority.
>
>You don't understand Social Justice.
The excuse of the bigot.
>You don't understand affirmative action and the right of the government
You don't understand.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Info Junkie
While I may have misread his point of sex vs sexuality, I referred to
a "suspect classification:" to which he replied, "which is what sex
is"...which is incorrect...or are you claiming two wrongs make him
right?
Josh
The only thing he got wrong is that sex is a quasi-suspect
classification, not a suspect classification.
Josh Rosenbluth
Info Junkie
> Info Junkie wrote:
>
> > Again NG readers (except Mr Rosenbluth), I apologize for the long
> >
> > On Jan 2, 9:33 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Jan 2, 8:14 am, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Dec 31, 11:23 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> {snipping old stuff}
> >
> >>> ROTFLMHO. So the purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is just “to
> >>> post you admit the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends the intent of
> >>> equal protections found in Amendment XIV into the areas of private
> >>> business under the Commerce Clause. It was done so because it would be
> >>> into the private areas of commerce.
> >>>> But, the latter has nothing to do
> >>>> with whom the state must offer civil marriage to, which is where the
> >>>> family leave and health care benefits for many private employers
> >>>> derive from.
> >>> private employers (are) “derived from” whom the state must offer civil
> >>> not apply to the health plans offered by large employers, due to the
> >>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States)
> >>> The source of your assertion is…not posted.
> >>> Wrt the equal protections under discussion, i.e., Amendment IXV and
> >>> the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
> >>> You should really follow the context under discussion Mr Rosenbluth,
> >>> as I referred to the Equal Protection Clause portion of Amendment XIV,
> >>> whereas under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you would
> >>> find:
> >>> basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin when they
> >>> 6.Q: What employers are covered by the FMLA…and Title VII?
> >>> A: The FMLA covers private employers with 50 or more employees...”
> >>> (http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/fmlaada.html)
> >>> Whereas the Equal Protection Clause per Amendment XIV has NO authority
> >>> to delve into PRIVATE businesses.
> >
> >
> >>> IOW, my comment is accurate. In our previous discussions on this
> >>> and now more closely agree with my opinions on this issue, eh? LOL
> >>>> Neither has anything to do with whom the state must offer
> >>>> civil marriage to.
> >>> the Civil Rights Act of 1964 …(and) In particular when it comes to
> >>> marriage, it is no different. “ ITM, states are free to implement
> >>> whatever if the will of the majority per DOMA, as long as it doesn’t
> >>> violate the guidelines of strict scrutiny...a point homosexuals wish
> >>> to be resolved by judfcial fiat.
> >
> >> Classes named in the Civil Rights Act of 1964: race, color, religion,
> >> sex, national origin
> >>
> >> <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/2000e-2.html>
> >>
> >> Suspect and quasi-suspect classes:
> >>
> >> Race and national origin (Korematsu - 1944, pre-dating the Act).
> >> <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/
> >> USSC_CR_0323_0214_ZO.html>
> >>
> >> Alienage (Takahashi - 1948, pre-dating the Act and not covered by the
> >> Act).
> >> <http://supreme.justia.com/us/334/410/case.html>
> >>
> >> Sex (quasi-suspect, Boren - 1976)
> >> <http://supreme.justia.com/us/429/190/case.html>
> >>
> >> Illegitimacy (quasi-suspect, Trimble - 1977, not covered by the Act).
> >> <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/
> >> USSC_CR_0430_0762_ZO.html>
> >
> > gender) for Amendment IXV.
>
> Any classification by gender is quasi-suspect, women included.
Understood.
> I can't find a specific case which declared religion as suspect, but
> every link from a Google search on "suspect classifications" mentions
> religion in the same breadth as race and national origin. I suspect
> that is because religion was thought of as a race when the Fourteenth
> was passed as noted in Teflia:
>
> <http://supreme.justia.com/us/481/615/case.html>
This may be so...
> >>> (On a side note; I find no powers under Article III of the US
> >>> Constitution, stated or implied, that delegates power to the Judicial
> >>> Branch for legislating the creation of people into classes)
> >>> ITM, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is merely a means to implement Equal
> >>> Protection Clause into the world of private businesses. Should ENDA
> >>> pass, this *Civil Rights Act…for homosexuals* would be just an
> >>> extension of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Should homosexuals be
> >>> allowed to marry (probably by judicial fiat), the ramifications would
> >>> permeate the guidelines of both the CRA of 1964 and ENDA. Just as
> >>> proven the relationship of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to marriage,
> >>> should ENDA pass, “when it comes to marriage, it is no different”.
> >>> Just curious; Is there a court case that found Title VII of the Civil
> >>> Rights Act of 1964 that was being violated that did NOT apply to
> >>> members of a “suspect or quasi-suspect “ class as defined by Amendment
> >>> XI?
> >> All gender-related Title VII violations between 1964 and 1976 were on
> >> a non-suspect classification.
> >
> > You’re claiming NO Title VII cases related to members of a suspect
> > classification have occurred since 1964? No cases about gender-related
> > Title VII violations after 1976?
>
> No. You asked if there were cases in which a non-suspect,
> non-quasi-suspect class brought a case under Title VII. Between 1964
> and 1976 every gender claim under Title VII was for a non-suspect,
> non-quasi-suspect class.
Understood. I SHOULD have asked; Is there a court case comprised of
members of a “suspect or quasi-suspect“ class (as defined by Amendment
XI) that was ruled to have been violated by Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964?
> > “The Supreme Court has never suggested that Congress cannot rely on
> > the Supreme Court's recognition of such suspect or quasi-suspect
> > classes in enacting legislation to deter violations of their
> > constitutional rights.”
> >http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/d...
> >
> > That would include the Civil Rights Act of 1964, eh? LOL
> >
> > “snip”
> >
> >>> Now Mr Rosenbluth, you’re trying to just limit our discussion to a
> >>> fallacy, i.e. "whom the state must offer civil marriage to"
> >> That's the topic of this debate. You tangentially extended the
> >> discussion by correctly noting that the Civil Rights Act of 1964
> >> precludes private employers from not hiring people who are in an
> >> interacial marriage (no controversy there).
> >
> > Mr Rosenbluth, you really should go back and re-read what has been
> > written. The discussion was the criteria of a civil right being based
> > upon whatever the state deems is in the best interests of society.
> > Marriage is but ONE civil right.
> >
> > The discussion in these threads included the fallacious promotion by
> > pro-homosexual advocates like yourself that have claimed marriage
> > between races was once “unfair”, since corrected based on “Equal
> > Protection”. That discussion included the fallacious claim by pro-
> > homosexual advocates that homosexuals should be able to marry because
> > they should be considered on par with blacks and women. …just like
> > those in Loving v Virginia. The Lawrence case was brought up, as was
> > Romer…yet neither of these cases had anything to do with marriage or
> > marriage criteria.
> >
> > I raised the issue wrt the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of those
> > fallacious claims by pro-homosexuals advocates like you, regarding
> > civil rights…not JUST civil marriage. I even proved my point using
> > your own posts. I even showed how marriage was used in ruling against
> > interracial marriage, as occurred in Loving v Virginia, but under
> > Title IIV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964…extending the civil rights
> > issues into private business…of which marriage is but ONE civil right.
> >
> >> But do you agree that
> >> when it comes to whether there is a federal requirement that the state
> >> offers civil mariage to interracial couples (assuming the state offers
> >> it to same-race couples - I make no assumption about the feds require
> >> marriage in the first place), the Civil Rights Act of 1964 plays no
> >> part.
> >
> > No I do not agree, as you base your comment by falsely suggesting a
> > federal requirement upon the states. However, there is no federal
> > requirement about what a state may offer as criteria for civil
> > marriages within their state.
>
> There is a federal requirement that the state must offer interracial
> marriages if the state offers same-race marriages.
There is no federal requirement about what a state may offer as
criteria for civil marriages within their state. The federal
government may only provide the guideline that state(s) do not exclude
members of a suspect classification nor target all of the civil rights
of a group of citizens with common interests without justification.
IF it’s perceived the state does not meet that guideline, then it
would go to Court where the state would defend its’ position. Until
such a ruling of that case, there is NO federal requirement about what
a state may offer as criteria for civil marriages within their state.
> > What a state may offer regarding the criteria for all civil rights
> > within state may be found in the majority of its citizenry. Regarding
> > the civil right of marriage between homosexuals (or federal
> > recognition of the same) may be seen in the Defense of Marriage Act
> > (DOMA). The only federal requirement to a state is that state’s
> > criteria for ANY civil law, including marriage, is to not violate the
> > guidelines of strict scrutiny, of which requires immutability…a point
> > not applicable to marriages between homosexuals whom base their
> > assertions on their “feelings”.
> >
> > The second false assertion is linked to the first, i.e., there is no
> > federal requirement about what a state may offer as criteria for civil
> > marriages within their state., making your false assertion about the
> > Civil Rights Act of 1964 irrelevant.
> >
> > You began with false assertions, resulting in your flawed conclusion
> > based solely on sophistry.
> >
> > “snip”
> >
> >>> As proven to have been purported even by you Mr Rosenbluth, the claims
> >>> of civil rights violations by pro-homosexuals are not limited to
> >>> marriage laws….and such false assertions by pro-homosexual advocates
> >>> have been based on issues that involve BOTH Amendment XIV and the
> >>> Civil Rights Act of 1964. To date, those assertions have been shown as
> >>> the farce that they are regarding any alleged equal protections,
> >>> homosexuals and civil rights laws.
> >> This discussion is about marriage, not other issues, and only you
> >> interjected the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> >
> > False. The discussion included other alleged violations of “rights”
> > as claimed by pro-homosexual advocates in this and other threads.
> > Just for you, I’ve posted a couple of examples from your posts that
> > include issues referring to BOTH Amendment XIV and the Civil Rights
> > Act of 1964.
> >
> > Which poster points out the “mix-n’-match” fallacies posted by pro-
> > homosexuals advocates is what‘s irrelevant Mr Rosenbluth, and your
> > continual attempt at a poisoning-the-well fallacy doesn’t change that.
> >
> >>> While nothing I have posted has been intentionally false, and maybe,
> >>> just maybe “Only (I) have brought up the Civil Rights Act of 1964” is
> >>> because I'm the only one paying attention to the pro-homosexual
> >>> rhetoric and sophistry in these threads, eh? By your responses, it
> >>> seems your eyes have been opened a bit as well, eh? Glad I could help
> >>> Mr Rosenbluth.
> >> Your tangential observation noted above adds nothing to this
> >> discussion.
> >
> > The only “tangential observation” that “adds nothing to this
> > discussion”, is the sentence above this one. You posted the fallacy, I
> > responded to it.
> >
> >> I think you believed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 played a role
> >> in determining whether the state must offer marriage to interracial
> >> couples. Hopefully, I've opened your eyes to the fact that it does
> >> not.
> >
> > I made no claim to such a false assertion Mr Rosenbluth. You made
> > the claim of “whom the state must offer civil marriage to, which is
> > where the family leave and health care benefits for many private
> > employers derive from.” I refuted your claim with evidence, noting you
> > did not provide evidence to back your assertion…and you still haven’t
> > done so.
> >
> > ITM, apparently you've "missed-the-boat" on a major portion of the
> > discussion Mr Rosenbluth. I’ve proven the Civil Rights Act of 1964
> > was (IMO) Congress’ (unconstitutional) application of the Equal
> > Protection Clause (Amendment XIV) as they rammed it down-the-throat of
> > private businesses. Apparently you agree for when asked, “…which item
> > (s) under Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution refer to the
> > Equal Protection Clause?”…you replied “None do”. …yet the very basis
> > of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to extend said equal protections
> > into the private business sector regarding "family leave and health
> > care benefits"...
> >
> > As proven to have been purported even by you Mr Rosenbluth, the claims
> > of civil rights violations by pro-homosexuals are not limited to civil
> > marriage laws….and such false assertions by pro-homosexual advocates
> > have been based on issues that involve BOTH Amendment XIV and the
> > Civil Rights Act of 1964. To date, those assertions have been shown as
> > the farce that they are regarding any alleged violation of equal
> > protections to homosexuals per Amendment XIV and civil rights
> > laws….marriage included.
>
> What claim of gay civil rights on the basis of the Civil Rights Act of
> 1964 have been made in this thread or elsewhere?
I pointed out two examples using your own posts Mr Rosenbluth. Equal
protection via Amendment XIV has no bearing on such concerns as
“family leave and health care benefits" if offered by private
businesses. If Amendment XIV has no bearing on civil rights in the
private sector, what legal recourse remains?
> > Regarding JUST the civil right of marriage, I’ve also shown that
> > claiming discrimination by disallowing interracial marriages was ruled
> > as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (link
> > provided)…
>
> Your link showed that an employer cannot refuse to hire someone who is
> in an interracial marriage. That's not the same as "disallowing
> interracial marriage".
ROTFLMHO...now you’ve moved onto semantics? Tell us Mr Rosenbluth ,
which part of Amendment XIV covers a private business where an
“employer cannot refuse to hire someone who is in an interracial
marriage”?
> > just like it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause
> > in Loving v Virginia. As you already admitted, Equal Protection
> > discrimination via Loving is also a false claim for pro-homosexual
> > advocates to base their false assertions
>
> Just a few days ago, I said: "I didn't say the Equal Protection case
> was moot. Cases since Baker (Zablocki, Turner, Romer, Lawrence) have
> kept the issue alive." You are free to disagree, but stop lying about
> *my* views on Equal Protection.
Claiming I lied is the lie Mr Rosenbluth. I cited YOU Mr Rosenbluth;
“No court has ever cited Loving as relevant precedent for establishing
same-sex marriage as a right. SCOTUS rejected Loving for that purpose
in Baker.”
Message-ID: y62dnbDml8KObqTV...@comcast.com
When pointed out, “(pro-homosexual advocates’) …claims about
discrimination continue as being on par with blacks and women, even
using Loving v. Virginia as their example’, YOU posted, “I corrected
to Enos Penvy in this very thread”.
Using Loving v. Virginia as a claim for pro-homosexual advocates to
claim the Equal Protection Clause via Amendment XIV is moot, and even
then, Baker would need to be reversed, eh?
Regarding OTHER cases: We’ve discussed this before Mr Rosenbluth, and
I pointed out your case(s) concerned one-man-one-woman and was
irrelevant to claims for marriage between homosexuals/discrimination
(Zablocki/Turner). That Lawrence was about privacy and was irrelevant
to claims for marriage between homosexuals/discrimination, and where a
state (IMNSHO - unconstitutionally) tried to implement legislation for
violating all civil rights of a targeted group of people. The group
happened to be homosexuals, but the issue was not about homosexual
marriages (Romer).
None of these cases met the Equal Protection Clause of Amendment XIV
(as defined by Loving) and were irrelevant to marriage between
homosexual/discrimination…making them moot and pro-homosexual
advocates (IMHO) as grasping-at-straws.
> > so too would be the false
> > assertion to apply the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
>
> What assertion, made by whom?
Where in the following two examples would anything EXCEPT the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 apply?
“…21 states have employment anti-discrimination statutes covering
sexuality”.
Message-ID: <ab37c797-156c-4af9-9cdc-
a2c817...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
“…race and sex are not the same thing, but they are both described
under the various Civil Rights Acts and Court Findings as being equal
under the law in the ways they are discriminated against and the
banning and equal treatment under the Law.” Message-ID: 470971aa-
dc1c-4453-ba4...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
"According to the United States Government Accountability Office
(GAO), there are 1,138[1] statutory provisions in which marital status
is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges."
Message-ID: 95439952-4aae-4e9d-9314-
c7dbfb...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
“(homosexuals) …won't be covered by his lover's health insurance in
many cases, won't be allowed to take medical and family leave in many
cases if his lover is ill or dies….”
Message-ID: 1170438259.431988.246...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
(Affirmative action was then in the discussion)
“Civil right allows for one race sex or ethnicity to be given benefits
that another is exempted from..... that's why I can't get affirmative
action credits for benefits.” Message-ID: fiN0n.2504$5m.
2...@newsfe12.iad
To which you didn’t disagree with the position, but merely limited it
to “Social Justice”.
Message-ID: hi0lts$fhf$1...@josh.motzarella.org
FWIW, where in Amendment XIV are affirmative action issues
implemented?
Since “No court has ever cited Loving as relevant precedent for
establishing same-sex marriage as a right”*, and “…five years after it
decided Loving (the Court), determined that that case did not support
an argument by same-sex couples that precluding them from marrying
violated the Fourteenth Amendment”**. One may logically conclude that
whenever a claim of “discrimination” is made regarding the rejection
of marriage between homosexuals, it is a false assertion and all that
remains is an attempt to apply alleged civil rights violations based
on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
* Message-ID: <y62dnbDml8KObqTV...@comcast.com>
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
Other example (only pointing out one other pro-homosexual advocate’s
position):
New Jersey – January 2010: “Several lawmakers, including Richard
Codey, sought to win over support by putting the new definition of
marriage on a par with the civil rights movement”. http://www.sunlituplands.org/
You see Mr Rosenbluth, when one reads through all of the rhetoric,
fallacies & sophistry from pro-homosexuals advocates such as yourself,
it comes down to their philosophy of “smoke and mirrors”. Claim
discrimination over and over as an alleged violation of “rights”, when
in fact their claims have no more legal weight than nudists, chain
gang, biker and knitting club members.
The only REAL difference between those groups and pro-homosexual
groups Mr Rosenbluth is based on “feelings”, political power and
money. Pro-homosexual advocates want laws based on “feelings” to
meet their personal selfish desires and are willing to go to any
lengths, especially rules by judicial fiat, to get their way. Pro-
homosexual advocates are better funded and more politically powerful
than the nudists, chain gang, biker and knitting club members.
From a legal perspective, like you (and others) have played a “mix-n’-
match” game of fallacies using Amendment XIV and the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. As in this post, I’ve proven this time and again with
evidence, validating my comment on the “smoke and mirrors” philosophy
of pro-homosexual advocates.
To wit:
In lieu of a direct challenge to the well-established societal norms
(historical US customs and traditions) pro-homosexual advocates
instead attempt to steer away from the gay lifestyle in general by
narrowing (or limiting) the discussion to individual topics such as re-
defining "marriage" and "rights" and try to cite their various
"interpretations" of what one or two court cases have ruled.
When such this diversionary tactic fails, some same sex marriage
proponents will invariably attack their opponents through a variety of
fallacies that include religion, slavery, or interracial marriages.
These diversions are to merely avoid the most glaring legal issue that
same sex marriage proponents wish to ignore, and which I've previously
pointed out:
That a minority of people would expect, by demand, intimidation or
stealth, to attempt and change the very foundations that make up the
majority of "society", based on a "feeling" that this group should be
placed on the same level in society, not on genetic or physical
differences, but on their "feelings", they may see a backlash against
this hypocrisy. This is evident by the majority of voters that have
demanded their State Constitutions be amended to reflect marriage be
defined between "one man and one woman".
By failing to convince the majority, the proponents of the gay
lifestyle have opted to challenge society, not directly (they'd lose
as shown by the (now 42) states that have voted on a state
constitutional ban against homosexuals marrying), but by challenging
the laws-on-the-books through the court system in an attempt to have
their beliefs adjudicated as a bona fide minority status at the same
level as blacks and/or women based on Article XIV.
> > When you can show which federal law tells a state the criteria it
> > “must offer marriage to interracial couples”, or for ANY marriage, we
> > can continue. Until then, your fallacies (and sophistry) are not
> > conducive to your argument. What you’ve “opened (my) eyes” to Mr
> > Rosenbluth, is your continual refusal to admit your errors, resorting
> > to more sophistry and fallacies.
Based on your non-answer to my request, it would seem you cannot show
a federal law tells a state the criteria it
“must offer marriage to interracial couples”, or for ANY marriage”,
ergo, your assertion is considered false.
Info Junkie
Which is what I pointed out.
Josh Rosenbluth
> On Jan 4, 7:07 pm, Josh <u...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > Info Junkie wrote:
{snipping old stuff}
Yes. For example since race is both a suspect classification and
protected by the Act, there have been many cases of racial
discimination under the Act.
> > >> But do you agree that
> > >> when it comes to whether there is a federal requirement that the state
> > >> offers civil mariage to interracial couples (assuming the state offers
> > >> it to same-race couples - I make no assumption about the feds require
> > >> marriage in the first place), the Civil Rights Act of 1964 plays no
> > >> part.
>
> > > No I do not agree, as you base your comment by falsely suggesting a
> > > federal requirement upon the states. However, there is no federal
> > > requirement about what a state may offer as criteria for civil
> > > marriages within their state.
>
> > There is a federal requirement that the state must offer interracial
> > marriages if the state offers same-race marriages.
>
> There is no federal requirement about what a state may offer as
> criteria for civil marriages within their state. The federal
> government may only provide the guideline that state(s) do not exclude
> members of a suspect classification nor target all of the civil rights
> of a group of citizens with common interests without justification.
>
> IF it’s perceived the state does not meet that guideline, then it
> would go to Court where the state would defend its’ position. Until
> such a ruling of that case, there is NO federal requirement about what
> a state may offer as criteria for civil marriages within their state.
Until such a ruling? You act like Loving didn't happen. I repeat:
there is a federal requirement that the state must offer interracial
marriages if the state offers same-race marriages.
> > >> I think you believed that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 played a role
Fistly, I said the 14th has bearing if an employer voluntary offers
benefits to all married people, and the 14th is used to require the
states to offer same-sex couples marriage. You countered, but what if
the employer refuses to hire someone who is in a same-sex marriage?
The answer is, there is no recourse under the Civil Rights Act of
1964, and no one said there is.
> > > Regarding JUST the civil right of marriage, I’ve also shown that
> > > claiming discrimination by disallowing interracial marriages was ruled
> > > as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (link
> > > provided)…
>
> > Your link showed that an employer cannot refuse to hire someone who is
> > in an interracial marriage. That's not the same as "disallowing
> > interracial marriage".
>
> ROTFLMHO...now you’ve moved onto semantics? Tell us Mr Rosenbluth ,
> which part of Amendment XIV covers a private business where an
> “employer cannot refuse to hire someone who is in an interracial
> marriage”?
>
> > > just like it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause
> > > in Loving v Virginia. As you already admitted, Equal Protection
> > > discrimination via Loving is also a false claim for pro-homosexual
> > > advocates to base their false assertions
>
> > Just a few days ago, I said: "I didn't say the Equal Protection case
> > was moot. Cases since Baker (Zablocki, Turner, Romer, Lawrence) have
> > kept the issue alive." You are free to disagree, but stop lying about
> > *my* views on Equal Protection.
>
> Claiming I lied is the lie Mr Rosenbluth. I cited YOU Mr Rosenbluth;
> “No court has ever cited Loving as relevant precedent for establishing
> same-sex marriage as a right. SCOTUS rejected Loving for that purpose
> in Baker.”
> Message-ID: y62dnbDml8KObqTVnZ2dnUVZ_hadn...@comcast.com
> a2c8177f6...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
Those are state statutes, nothing about the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> “…race and sex are not the same thing, but they are both described
> under the various Civil Rights Acts and Court Findings as being equal
> under the law in the ways they are discriminated against and the
> banning and equal treatment under the Law.” Message-ID: 470971aa-
> dc1c-4453-ba46-4b92f1e5c...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
Nothing there about a claim on sexuality.
> "According to the United States Government Accountability Office
> (GAO), there are 1,138[1] statutory provisions in which marital status
> is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges."
> Message-ID: 95439952-4aae-4e9d-9314-
> c7dbfbbbc...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
That's about the 14th Amendment.
> “(homosexuals) …won't be covered by his lover's health insurance in
> many cases, won't be allowed to take medical and family leave in many
> cases if his lover is ill or dies….”
> Message-ID: 1170438259.431988.246...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
That's about the 14th (as explained above).
> (Affirmative action was then in the discussion)
> “Civil right allows for one race sex or ethnicity to be given benefits
> that another is exempted from..... that's why I can't get affirmative
> action credits for benefits.” Message-ID: fiN0n.2504$5m.
> 2...@newsfe12.iad
>
> To which you didn’t disagree with the position, but merely limited it
> to “Social Justice”.
> Message-ID: hi0lts$fh...@josh.motzarella.org
That's about the 14th Amendment.
> FWIW, where in Amendment XIV are affirmative action issues
> implemented?
All racial classifications, including affirmative action which
disfavors whites, trigger strict scrutiny. In some cases, but not in
others, the Court has ruled the state meets strict scrutiny when it
offers affirmative action.
> Since “No court has ever cited Loving as relevant precedent for
> establishing same-sex marriage as a right”*, and “…five years after it
> decided Loving (the Court), determined that that case did not support
> an argument by same-sex couples that precluding them from marrying
> violated the Fourteenth Amendment”**. One may logically conclude that
> whenever a claim of “discrimination” is made regarding the rejection
> of marriage between homosexuals, it is a false assertion and all that
> remains is an attempt to apply alleged civil rights violations based
> on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> * Message-ID: <y62dnbDml8KObqTVnZ2dnUVZ_hadn...@comcast.com>
> **http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
That's your conclusion, and one which is not logical. I continue to
believe same-sex marriage is mandated by th 14th - it's got nothing to
do woth the Civil Rights Act.
> Other example (only pointing out one other pro-homosexual advocate’s
> position):
> New Jersey – January 2010: “Several lawmakers, including Richard
> Codey, sought to win over support by putting the new definition of
> marriage on a par with the civil rights movement”. http://www.sunlituplands.org/
The link doesn't mention anything about Cody.
> You see Mr Rosenbluth, when one reads through all of the rhetoric,
> fallacies & sophistry from pro-homosexuals advocates such as yourself,
> it comes down to their philosophy of “smoke and mirrors”. Claim
> discrimination over and over as an alleged violation of “rights”, when
> in fact their claims have no more legal weight than nudists, chain
> gang, biker and knitting club members.
>
> The only REAL difference between those groups and pro-homosexual
> groups Mr Rosenbluth is based on “feelings”, political power and
> money. Pro-homosexual advocates want laws based on “feelings” to
> meet their personal selfish desires and are willing to go to any
> lengths, especially rules by judicial fiat, to get their way. Pro-
> homosexual advocates are better funded and more politically powerful
> than the nudists, chain gang, biker and knitting club members.
>
> From a legal perspective, like you (and others) have played a “mix-n’-
> match” game of fallacies using Amendment XIV and the Civil Rights Act
> of 1964. As in this post, I’ve proven this time and again with
> evidence, validating my comment on the “smoke and mirrors” philosophy
> of pro-homosexual advocates.
You have yet to produce one example of a claim made by gay rights
supporters on the basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And you
won't find one because it is trivial that the Act doesn't apply to
gays.
Federal law? It's thr 14th, per Loving for interracial marriages.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
You said that because there was no suspect classification, rational
basis applies. Rational basis doesn't apply for a quasi-suspect
classification.
Josh Rosenbluth
Info Junkie
> lovely and talented Info Junkie broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 8, 10:27 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
> >> In our last episode,
> >> <68724a0a-4a15-4b9e-90e1-dd65978f4...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, the
> >> lovely and talented Info Junkie broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
>
> >> > On Jan 3, 9:42 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
> >> >> More to the point, marriage laws discriminate on the basis of *sex*,
> >> >> which is a near immutable as criteria.
> >> > Marriage laws, like all civil laws, are based on the potential benefit
> >> > to the majority of society, not to indulge the selfish desires of a
> >> > few individuals,.
>
> >> Laws may not discriminate unless the state can show a compeling reason to do
> >> so. Society must offer the equal protections of the law to everyone in
> >> spite of the prejudices of the majority.
> > False. State laws may indeed discriminate. Unless recognized as a
> > member of a "suspect classification" or similer need to enforce strict
> > scrutiny rules, the state is not obligated to prove it's
> > reasoning...the burden of proof is left to the petitioner.
>
> Marriage laws discriminate by sex. It is already well established that sex
> is a suspect classification.
Really? Post your evidence that "it is already well established that
sex is a suspect classification", won't you?
Until you post your evidence as requested, strict scrutiny doesn't
apply to "sex" as a suspect classification.
> >> >>No marriage law prevents homosexuals from
> >> >> marrying, so it is immaterial whether sexuality is immutable.
> >> > Using your false logic (TMK), it not illegal to marry your dog to your
> >> > cat...
>
> >> No. It is not legal to marry a cat to a dog, but that is not sex
> >> discrimination.
> > Where is the law showing "(i)t is not legal to marry a cat to a dog"?
> > You've also made an unsubstantiated assertion about the gender of the
> > cat and dog.
>
> No. It is not legal for a cat to marry a dog regardless of their sexes.
Again, where is the law you claim shows "(i)t is not legal to marry a
cat to a dog"?
> >> > but nowhere is there a law that requires the majority of
society
> >> > to accept nor provide government beneits to such a union.
>
> >> That is right because the equal protections of the law is extended only to
> >> persons, not to cats and dogs.
> > You want equal results, not equal protections, and yet:
> > ?The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact
> > or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same? -Justice
> > Frankfurter (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/
> > amendment14/19.html)
>
> There is nothing in fact different between same-sex marriage and
> opposite-sex marriage.
Really? (If in a location where homosexual marriages are legal) Fact:
Heterosexual marriage means a marriage between a male and female
Homosexual marriage means a marriage between a male and a male
(or between a female and a female).
THAT's such an obvious difference I'm surprized you didn't recognize
that fact alone refutes your own claim.
> >> > You may want to check out the laws in your state, as DOMA rules.
>
> >> And there was a wall in Berlin once. The will to liberty and equal before
> >> the law can be delayed, but not thwarted.
> > I was there when the wall Berlin existed. It has no relevance to
> > marriage between homosexual nor the US Constitution, ergo, your
> > fallacies of distraction are not condusive to your argument.
>
> The denial of equality before the law is exactly the same.
There is no relevance (or denial) between the Berlin wall and
marriage. The Berlin wall was the physical means of separating people
to ensure differing political ideologies did NOT JOIN together.
(Neither the US Constitution nor definition of marriage between US
citizens was involved regarding the installng or removal of the Berlin
wall)
Marriage (as recognized by the state) is the JOINING of one-man-to-one-
woman for the primary benefit to the majority of society. There is no
denial of equality for marriage, and like all civil rights, is based
on criteria from the majority of society.
>The suppression
> of a fundamental human right is exactly the same.
There no suppression of the right to marry. However like all civil
rights, marriage has restrictions. You don't like the restrictions so
you claim "discrimination" as if it's an inalienable right or on par
with previous retsrictions on blacks or women...which it's not.
>The oppression is exactly
> the same whether you call it Marxism or Christianity.
You're not oppressed as you're free to go anywhere in the world that
accepts homosexual marriages....regardless of your religious beliefs
or biases..and you're free to call it anything you like...truthful or
not.
> >> >> A gay may marry a lesbian, so clearly sexuality is not the issue. But
> >> >> when no man may marry any other man, the law discriminates according to
> >> >> sex, not sexuality.
> >> > Barring violation of laws that target members based on their being
> >> > members of a "suspect classification",
>
> >> Which is what sex is.
> > Really...according to whom? Cite your source that homosexuals are
> > members of a suspect classification.
>
> I did not claim that. Marriage laws discriminate by sex, not by sexuality.
> Sex has long be recognized as a suspect classification.
Neither homosexuals nor sex are members of a suspect classification,
> >> > all civil laws have criteria that must be met to fulfill the legal
> >> > obligations for recognition by the state.
> >> > Again, marriage laws, like all civil laws, are based on the potential
> >> > benefit to the majority of society, not to indulge the selfish desires
> >> > of a few selfish individuals.
>
> >> Again, since the state cannot demonstrate a compeling reason to deny equal
> >> protection, the irrational prejudices of even a majority of society cannot
> >> justify the discrimination.
> > Again, false. Unless members of a suspect classification are going to
> > court over an alleged discrimination case, rational basis rules and
> > it's not up to the state to prove a compelling reason. Claiming
> > discrimination over and over doesn't make it any alleged
> > discrimination factual...only annoying.
>
> Marriage laws discriminate by sex. If they did not, words like "man" and
> "woman" could be replaced by "person," and "husband" and "wife" could be
> replaced by "spouse."
How sad that you need words to be replaced because you don't like
their use. No one else is required to accept your preferences. Oh, but
here's a hint...when used on most offical forms, the term "spouse"
refers to a man or a woman. LOL
> > Marriage laws, like all civil laws, are based on the potential benefit
> > to the majority of society, not to indulge the selfish desires of a
> > few selfish individuals.
>
> The prejudices and whims of even a majority cannot be allowed to defeat
> liberty and equality before the law.
If a US citizen, you have liberty and equality. Claiming words and
definitions should be changed to meet your preferences only shows the
mannerisms of a child that has no respect for anyone or anything but
themselves.
Asserting discrimination doesn't make your assertions factual nor
worthy enough for society to supplant their customs, history and
traditions with the selfish desires of a few individuals that stomp
their little feet and demand "daddy" Court give them whant they want
by judical fiat.
Info Junkie
OMG. How many more "nits" are you trying to pick at Mr Rosenbluth...or
do you wish to continue to respond to comments based out-of-context?
(Side note: Classifications are just another example of what happens
when the Judicial Branch goes beyond the power delegated to wrt
interpreting intent, instead legislating by classification)
You also said about the poster is the "only thing he got wrong"
referred to a quasi-suspect classification...but this was AFTER he
posted, "Laws may not discriminate unless the state can show a
compelling reason" and BEFORE referring to alleged discrimination
against homosexuals based on sex.
A quasi-suspect classification also doesn’t require strict scrutiny
and the state need not prove a "compelling reason"…for which he
continues to claim.
Lars Eighner
<c4f58602-8b7b-406f...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
broadcast on alt.politics.homosexuality:
> On Jan 8, 4:55 pm, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>> There is nothing in fact different between same-sex marriage and
>> opposite-sex marriage.
> Really? (If in a location where homosexual marriages are legal) Fact:
> Heterosexual marriage means a marriage between a male and female
> Homosexual marriage means a marriage between a male and a male
> (or between a female and a female).
Nothing is different and thus it is entirely irrational that one is legal
everywhere and the other isn't.
> THAT's such an obvious difference I'm surprized you didn't recognize
> that fact alone refutes your own claim.
Yes, it is obvious that irrational prejudice makes one unlawful in some
places, deriving people of the equal protection of the law.
>> The denial of equality before the law is exactly the same.
> There is no relevance (or denial) between the Berlin wall and
> marriage. The Berlin wall was the physical means of separating people
> to ensure differing political ideologies did NOT JOIN together.
One oppressive system used bricks and mortar, the other uses statutes.
The effect of denying liberty and equality before the law is exactly the
same.
> (Neither the US Constitution nor definition of marriage between US
> citizens was involved regarding the installng or removal of the Berlin
> wall)
> Marriage (as recognized by the state) is the JOINING of one-man-to-one-
> woman for the primary benefit to the majority of society. There is no
> denial of equality for marriage, and like all civil rights, is based
> on criteria from the majority of society.
No. Rights do not come from the state. Human rights are inherent in
people; they are not granted to people by "society," which seems to be your
code word for the state. Marriage statutes that discriminate by sex deny
equality before the law and violate the most basic civil right.
>> The suppression of a fundamental human right is exactly the same.
> There no suppression of the right to marry. However like all civil
> rights, marriage has restrictions. You don't like the restrictions so
> you claim "discrimination" as if it's an inalienable right or on par
> with previous retsrictions on blacks or women...which it's not.
It most certainly is a violation of human rights, in no important way
different from Jim Crow or sharia.
>> The oppression is exactly the same whether you call it Marxism or
>> Christianity.
> You're not oppressed as you're free to go anywhere in the world that
> accepts homosexual marriages....
By this logic, slavery was not oppression because people could run away.
> regardless of your religious beliefs or biases..and you're free to call it
> anything you like...truthful or not.
>> Marriage laws discriminate by sex. If they did not, words like "man" and
>> "woman" could be replaced by "person," and "husband" and "wife" could be
>> replaced by "spouse."
> How sad that you need words to be replaced because you don't like
> their use. No one else is required to accept your preferences. Oh, but
> here's a hint...when used on most offical forms, the term "spouse"
> refers to a man or a woman. LOL
Exactly.
>> The prejudices and whims of even a majority cannot be allowed to defeat
>> liberty and equality before the law.
> If a US citizen, you have liberty and equality.
No. You know very well that I don't.
> Claiming words and definitions should be changed to meet your preferences
> only shows the mannerisms of a child that has no respect for anyone or
> anything but themselves.
Nonsense.
> Asserting discrimination doesn't make your assertions factual nor
> worthy enough for society to supplant their customs, history and
> traditions with the selfish desires of a few individuals that stomp
> their little feet and demand "daddy" Court give them whant they want
> by judical fiat.
Exactly the same argument we heard to support slavery and Jim Crow.
Wrong does not become right because it is "traditional."
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 38
933.3 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II.
Poetic Justice
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 04:58:23 -0800 (PST), Info Junkie
> <bond...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>> More to the point, marriage laws discriminate on the basis of *sex*, which
>>> is a near immutable as criteria.
>>
>> Marriage laws, like all civil laws, are based on the potential benefit
>> to the majority of society, not to indulge the selfish desires of a
>> few individuals,.
>
> protection under the law"
>
> Are you now arguing that an individual, regardless of his race, creed,
> age, or sexual orientation should be discriminated against?
Up to and until Affirmative action and social Justice.... From that
point on it has been a case of special laws and special protection, and
then you have GM where the Contract and law was overturned by the
government to stick it to the Bond holders and pay off the unions
instead, so Social Justice has trumped Equal Justice and your argument
is old school.
Contracts are now meaningless and there is no law that is supreme. That
is why we are in a Depression, people have no way to know where to
invest when there is no real law, all laws are subject to the whims of
this wishy-washy Socialist government.
Josh Rosenbluth
It's not a nit. If rational basis applies, the burden is on the
plaintiff. Even though strict scrutiny does not apply to a quasi-
suspect classification, rational basis does not apply and the burden
falls on the state to justify the law.
Your belief that a person can choose which gender he is attracted to
implies that the state not offering same-sex marriage is gender
discrimination - and thus the burden falls on the state.
> You also said about the poster is the "only thing he got wrong"
> referred to a quasi-suspect classification...but this was AFTER he
> posted, "Laws may not discriminate unless the state can show a
> compelling reason" and BEFORE referring to alleged discrimination
> against homosexuals based on sex.
You are correct - he was wrong about that too.
> A quasi-suspect classification also doesn’t require strict scrutiny
> and the state need not prove a "compelling reason"…for which he
> continues to claim.
Josh Rosenbluth
Info Junkie
The poster made falsely claimed "Laws may not discriminate unless the
state can show a compelling reason" and I applied the rules of strict
scrutiny based on his repeated use of a "compelling reason".
If the Court consides a case meets the requirements of a quasi-suspect
classification, then "Intermediate Scrutiny" may be applied, placing
the burden upon the state to prove its law is "substantially related
to IMPORTANT govt purpose" (emphasis mine). Notice "important" does
not equal "compelling".
> Your belief that a person can choose which gender he is attracted to
> implies that the state not offering same-sex marriage is gender
> discrimination - and thus the burden falls on the state.
To quote you Mr Rosenbluth, "You are free to disagree, but stop lying
about
*my* views". Whom may be attracted to whom is irrelevent. My belief
refers to pro-homosexuals advocates that allege, directly or
indirectly, that homosexuals should be allowed to marry based on their
false claim as being on par with blacks and women. Some based their
beliefs on immutability factors, while others seem to dismiss this
point as irrelevent. IMO, both are only interested in their selfish
personal desires and provides no long-term benefit to the stability
and survivability of society.
> > You also said about the poster is the "only thing he got wrong"
> > referred to a quasi-suspect classification...but this was AFTER he
> > posted, "Laws may not discriminate unless the state can show a
> > compelling reason" and BEFORE referring to alleged discrimination
> > against homosexuals based on sex.
>
> You are correct - he was wrong about that too.
You didn't even mention it...until I pointed it out, eh? LOL
Info Junkie
IOW, my comments regarding Amendment XIV, the Civil Rights Act of
1964, ENDA and the implementation of the Equal Protection Clause into
the world of private businesses is accurate.
> > > >> But do you agree that
> > > >> when it comes to whether there is a federal requirement that the state
> > > >> offers civil mariage to interracial couples (assuming the state offers
> > > >> it to same-race couples - I make no assumption about the feds require
> > > >> marriage in the first place), the Civil Rights Act of 1964 plays no
> > > >> part.
>
> > > > No I do not agree, as you base your comment by falsely suggesting a
> > > > federal requirement upon the states. However, there is no federal
> > > > requirement about what a state may offer as criteria for civil
> > > > marriages within their state.
>
> > > There is a federal requirement that the state must offer interracial
> > > marriages if the state offers same-race marriages.
>
> > There is no federal requirement about what a state may offer as
> > criteria for civil marriages within their state. The federal
> > government may only provide the guideline that state(s) do not exclude
> > members of a suspect classification nor target all of the civil rights
> > of a group of citizens with common interests without justification.
>
> > IF it’s perceived the state does not meet that guideline, then it
> > would go to Court where the state would defend its’ position. Until
> > such a ruling of that case, there is NO federal requirement about what
> > a state may offer as criteria for civil marriages within their state.
>
> Until such a ruling? You act like Loving didn't happen. I repeat:
> there is a federal requirement that the state must offer interracial
> marriages if the state offers same-race marriages.
Again, there’s no federal requirement, i.e., a list of “requirements”
a state must *check off* from the federal government when creating/
modifying the criteria for its civil laws including marriage.
I’m pointing out that IF a state denied a marriage license to a
couple, it would be up to the plaintiff to convince a court the
marriage license was denied BASED on race (or other suspect
classification), triggering strict scrutiny where the court would
consider the ruling in Loving v. Virginia. “Until such a ruling”
occurred and strict scrutiny was applied to that case, there is NO
federal requirement about what a state may offer as criteria for civil
marriages within their state.
ITM, unlike homosexual marriages, it’s illogical for a state to reject
a marriage based on race. Like any other heterosexual marriage, an
interracial meets the “compelling interests” of a state’s one-man-to-
one-woman criteria…ensuring the stability and survival of its
society.
Pro-homosexual advocates falsely use Loving as a claim of
discrimination, comparing themselves as being on par with blacks and/
or women. However, they are not members of a suspect classification,
they are not immutable and strict scrutiny does not apply to their
false claims, regardless of the number of times spewed otherwise
throughout these NGs.
Amendment XIV has no bearing on an employer of a private business.
Only violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be brought forth
under the Commerce Clause….a clause that when asked, “…which item(s)
under Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution refer to the Equal
Protection Clause?”…you replied “None do”.
>You countered, but what if
> the employer refuses to hire someone who is in a same-sex marriage?
Mr Rosenbluth, please answer questions posed to you as asked, not what
you hoped I wrote. Nowhere in my question do I state or imply
anything regarding the marital status of heterosexuals or homosexuals.
Try again: “If Amendment XIV has no bearing on civil rights in the
private sector, what legal recourse remains?”
ITM, YOU claimed “family leave and health care benefits for many
private employers (are) “derived from” whom the state must offer civil
marriages to” I refuted your claim, “State mandates generally do not
apply to the health plans offered by large employers, due to the
preemption clause of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Health_insurance_in_the_United_States)
> The answer is, there is no recourse under the Civil Rights Act of
> 1964, and no one said there is.
LOL. You’ve now added a new scenario (“what if the employer refuses
to hire someone who is in a same-sex marriage”), then provided an
answer to a question I’ve not asked.
In response to your NEW scenario: THAT’s why pro-homosexual advocates
want ENDA passed, since they cannot get their selfish desires
adjudicated via Amendment XIV (not a member of a suspect
classification). To which you agreed for all practical purposes, ENDA
if passed, would be the Civil Rights Act for homosexuals….which you
could then claim is an extension of Amendment XIV onto the private
sector.
Really? So you’re saying these 21 (undefined) states statues only
apply to government employees via Amendment XIV?
> > “…race and sex are not the same thing, but they are both described
> > under the various Civil Rights Acts and Court Findings as being equal
> > under the law in the ways they are discriminated against and the
> > banning and equal treatment under the Law.” Message-ID: 470971aa-
> > dc1c-4453-ba46-4b92f1e5c...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
>
> Nothing there about a claim on sexuality.
Now Mr Rosenbluth. You asked who in these or other threads did pro-
homosexual advocates use the claim of discrimination wrt homosexual
civil rights of the basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I don’t
see where in the examples I gave did I refer ONLY to a claim of
“sexuality”. Ergo, fallacies of distraction are not conducive to your
argument.
> > > What assertion
> > "According to the United States Government Accountability Office
> > (GAO), there are 1,138[1] statutory provisions in which marital status
> > is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges."
> > Message-ID: 95439952-4aae-4e9d-9314-
> > c7dbfbbbc...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com
>
> That's about the 14th Amendment.
Understood.
> > “(homosexuals) …won't be covered by his lover's health insurance in
> > many cases, won't be allowed to take medical and family leave in many
> > cases if his lover is ill or dies….”
> > Message-ID: 1170438259.431988.246...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>
> That's about the 14th (as explained above).
No it’s not about Amendment XIV, and the evidence was previously
provided and re-posted below.
> > (Affirmative action was then in the discussion)
> > “Civil right allows for one race sex or ethnicity to be given benefits
> > that another is exempted from..... that's why I can't get affirmative
> > action credits for benefits.” Message-ID: fiN0n.2504$5m.
> > 2...@newsfe12.iad
>
> > To which you didn’t disagree with the position, but merely limited it
> > to “Social Justice”.
> > Message-ID: hi0lts$fh...@josh.motzarella.org
>
> That's about the 14th Amendment.
The poster referred to affirmative action…action that implement the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and you didn’t disagree.
Whereas:
“… the modern history of affirmative action BEGAN with the Kennedy
administration and started to flourish during the Johnson
administration, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and two Executive
Orders.” (emphasis mine)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action)
> > FWIW, where in Amendment XIV are affirmative action issues
> > implemented?
>
> All racial classifications, including affirmative action which
> disfavors whites, trigger strict scrutiny. In some cases, but not in
> others, the Court has ruled the state meets strict scrutiny when it
> offers affirmative action.
So based on your statement, when multiple states like Michigan,
California, Nebraska and Washington banned affirmative action
programs, strict scrutiny will not be triggered in those states…
understood.
> > Since “No court has ever cited Loving as relevant precedent for
> > establishing same-sex marriage as a right”*, and “…five years after it
> > decided Loving (the Court), determined that that case did not support
> > an argument by same-sex couples that precluding them from marrying
> > violated the Fourteenth Amendment”**. One may logically conclude that
> > whenever a claim of “discrimination” is made regarding the rejection
> > of marriage between homosexuals, it is a false assertion and all that
> > remains is an attempt to apply alleged civil rights violations based
> > on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> > * Message-ID: <y62dnbDml8KObqTVnZ2dnUVZ_hadn...@comcast.com>
> > **http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
>
> That's your conclusion, and one which is not logical.
It’s very logical and the evidence has been provided. ITM, there
would be no need for ENDA, eh? LOL
> I continue to
> believe same-sex marriage is mandated by th 14th - it's got nothing to
> do woth the Civil Rights Act.
You’re free to believe what you want, but I don’t see any marriages
“mandated” by Amendment XIV. ITM, the EEOC does not implement
affirmative action policies based on Amendment XIV, but under the
authority of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
> > Other example (only pointing out one other pro-homosexual advocate’s
> > position):
> > New Jersey – January 2010: “Several lawmakers, including Richard
> > Codey, sought to win over support by putting the new definition of
> > marriage on a par with the civil rights movement”. http://www.sunlituplands.org/
>
> The link doesn't mention anything about Cody.
(Sigh) You’re right…and it’s “Codey”, not “Cody”. Try this instead:
http://www.sunlituplands.org/2010/01/new-jersey-senate-kills-gay-marriage.html
> > You see Mr Rosenbluth, when one reads through all of the rhetoric,
> > fallacies & sophistry from pro-homosexuals advocates such as yourself,
> > it comes down to their philosophy of “smoke and mirrors”. Claim
> > discrimination over and over as an alleged violation of “rights”, when
> > in fact their claims have no more legal weight than nudists, chain
> > gang, biker and knitting club members.
>
> > The only REAL difference between those groups and pro-homosexual
> > groups Mr Rosenbluth is based on “feelings”, political power and
> > money. Pro-homosexual advocates want laws based on “feelings” to
> > meet their personal selfish desires and are willing to go to any
> > lengths, especially rules by judicial fiat, to get their way. Pro-
> > homosexual advocates are better funded and more politically powerful
> > than the nudists, chain gang, biker and knitting club members.
>
> > From a legal perspective, like you (and others) have played a “mix-n’-
> > match” game of fallacies using Amendment XIV and the Civil Rights Act
> > of 1964. As in this post, I’ve proven this time and again with
> > evidence, validating my comment on the “smoke and mirrors” philosophy
> > of pro-homosexual advocates.
>
> You have yet to produce one example of a claim made by gay rights
> supporters on the basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And you
> won't find one because it is trivial that the Act doesn't apply to
> gays.
Oh my. IOW, no evidence to which you’ll admit. ITM, go back and re-
read the link I posted regarding New Jersey. Show where “family leave
and health care benefits for many private employers (are) “derived
from” whom the state must offer civil marriages to” based on Amendment
XIV and not the Civil Rights Act of 1964..
The Court’s ruling in Loving does not demand the criteria a state
“must offer” for any marriage. It ruled that a state cannot DENY
marriage BECAUSE of difference in race. As previously noted, it would
be illogical for a state to deny a marriage based on factors such as
race as it still would provide long-term benefits to the stability and
survivability of society. Again, no federal law tells a state’s the
criteria it “must offer” for any marriage…regardless of the number of
times you claim otherwise.
Alleging acts of civil rights discrimination against homosexuals being
denied civil rights (and it’ benefits) based on the false assertions
that involve both Amendment XIV and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Marriage is but one civil right and the attempt to use Loving as an
example of bias against marriage between homosexuals is a fallacy as
pro-homosexual advocates desperately try to equate homosexuals as
being on par with race and women.
As you’ve admitted, “No court has ever cited Loving as relevant
precedent for establishing same-sex marriage as a right. SCOTUS
rejected Loving for that purpose in Baker.”
Message-ID: <y62dnbDml8KObqTV...@comcast.com>
Josh
It is to the legal analysis.
> My belief refers to pro-homosexuals advocates that allege,
I didn't comment on your beliefs on what pro-gay advocates allege. I
commented on your beliefs on whether a person can choose which gender
they are attracted to. So, "yes" or "no", do you believe a person can
choose which gender they are attracted to?
> directly or
> indirectly, that homosexuals should be allowed to marry based on their
> false claim as being on par with blacks and women. Some based their
> beliefs on immutability factors, while others seem to dismiss this
> point as irrelevent. IMO, both are only interested in their selfish
> personal desires and provides no long-term benefit to the stability
> and survivability of society.
>
>>> You also said about the poster is the "only thing he got wrong"
>>> referred to a quasi-suspect classification...but this was AFTER he
>>> posted, "Laws may not discriminate unless the state can show a
>>> compelling reason" and BEFORE referring to alleged discrimination
>>> against homosexuals based on sex.
>> You are correct - he was wrong about that too.
>
> You didn't even mention it...until I pointed it out, eh? LOL
>
>>> A quasi-suspect classification also doesn�t require strict scrutiny
>>> and the state need not prove a "compelling reason"�for which he
>>> continues to claim.
Josh Rosenbluth
Info Junkie
There is no "legal analysis" regarding attraction.
> > My belief refers to pro-homosexuals advocates that allege,
>
> I didn't comment on your beliefs on what pro-gay advocates allege. I
> commented on your beliefs on whether a person can choose which gender
> they are attracted to.
Correct...you lied by posting you knew my beliefs are regarding
atttraction. Attraction has no bearing on the legal analysis anymore
than if a man is attracted to a woman, another male or a dog.
> So, "yes" or "no", do you believe a person can
> choose which gender they are attracted to?
Ah, so now you've movd on to asking the loaded question "have you
stopped beating your wife"? LOL
Beliefs are formed by one's environment, age, maturity, and a whole
host of variables too numerous to mention. I have no need to pay for
the beliefs of a selfish few. Your question is as relevent as asking
a 18-year old today if they would have voted for Andrew Jackson as US
President..."So, 'yes" or "no'"?.
ITM, "Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons identifies the major causes of same-sex
attraction disorder (SSAD) in men and women. [1] "Gender identity
disorder in children regularly leads to same-sex attraction in
adolescence," writes Dr. Fitzgibbons. "The Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual IV of the American Psychiatric Association defined Gender
Identity Disorder (GID) in children as a strong persistent cross-
gender identification, a discomfort with one's own sex, and a
preference for cross-sex roles in play or in fantasies."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_attraction
Noted is your dismissal in addrsseing the remainder of the post in the
context presented.
> > directly or
> > indirectly, that homosexuals should be allowed to marry based on their
> > false claim as being on par with blacks and women. Some based their
> > beliefs on immutability factors, while others seem to dismiss this
> > point as irrelevent. IMO, both are only interested in their selfish
> > personal desires and provides no long-term benefit to the stability
> > and survivability of society.
>
> >>> You also said about the poster is the "only thing he got wrong"
> >>> referred to a quasi-suspect classification...but this was AFTER he
> >>> posted, "Laws may not discriminate unless the state can show a
> >>> compelling reason" and BEFORE referring to alleged discrimination
> >>> against homosexuals based on sex.
> >> You are correct - he was wrong about that too.
>
> > You didn't even mention it...until I pointed it out, eh? LOL
>
> >>> A quasi-suspect classification also doesn’t require strict scrutiny
> >>> and the state need not prove a "compelling reason"…for which he
> >>> continues to claim.
Josh Rosenbluth
If a person can choose which gender they are attracted to, current
marriage law discriminates on the basis of gender - and intermediate
scrutiny is triggered. Otherwise, intermediate scrutiny is not
triggered because there is no gender discrimination.
> > So, "yes" or "no", do you believe a person can
> > choose which gender they are attracted to?
>
> Ah, so now you've movd on to asking the loaded question "have you
> stopped beating your wife"? LOL
The question is directly relevant to the legal analysis.
Josh Rosenbluth
Info Junkie
Mr Rosenbluth, would you cite the case involving marriage where the
Court ruled discrimination occurred based on gender attraction? That
the case denied the plaintiff(s) their civil rights and was a
violation of Amendment XIV because of gender attraction?
IF such a case existed, and IF intermediate scrutiny was triggered
based on gender attraction, the state would need only to show that
marriage laws were
"substantially related to IMPORTANT govt purpose", but not "compelling
reasons" .
Noted is your constant attempt, like others pro-homosexual advocates,
to demand the courts to make your case for you. If homosexuality was
as beneficial to the stability and survival of the state as is
heterosexuality, there'd be no need to try to re-define the "spirit
and intent" of marriage, nor subtely push the need to allegde
homosexuality is "normal" and a reasonable "alternative" to
heterosexual lifestyle.
> > > So, "yes" or "no", do you believe a person can
> > > choose which gender they are attracted to?
>
> > Ah, so now you've movd on to asking the loaded question "have you
> > stopped beating your wife"? LOL
>
> The question is directly relevant to the legal analysis.
So you've claimed twice...and it remains a loaded question. I've
provided your answer below, along with what one psychiatrist has
written on the subject.
-
Info Junkie
> >> More to the point, marriage laws discriminate on the basis of *sex*, which
> >> is a near immutable as criteria.
>
> >Marriage laws, like all civil laws, are based on the potential benefit
> >to the majority of society, not to indulge the selfish desires of a
> >few individuals,.
>
> The US constittution covering a civil contract requires "equal
> protection under the law"
>
> Are you now arguing that an individual, regardless of his race, creed,
> age, or sexual orientation should be discriminated against?
Please start at the beginning of the thread and read it in context. If
you had done so, you'd have already had an answered to your question.
Info Junkie
> Josh wrote:
>
> > Info Junkie wrote:
> > > Again NG readers (except Mr Rosenbluth), I apologize for the long
> > > post. I “snipped” sections to reduced the bandwidth.
>
> > > On Jan 2, 9:33 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> On Jan 2, 8:14 am, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > >>> On Dec 31, 11:23 am, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > As Mr Rosenbluth did…
>
> > >> {snipping old stuff}
>
> > >>> ROTFLMHO. So the purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is just “to
> > >>> enforce some court rulings”, eh? More importantly, later in your
> > >>> post you admit the Civil Rights Act of 1964 extends the intent of
> > >>> equal protections found in Amendment XIV into the areas of private
> > >>> business under the Commerce Clause. It was done so because it would be
> > >>> “unconstitutional” extend the Equal Protection Clause of Amendment XIV
> > >>> into the private areas of commerce.
> > >>>> But, the latter has nothing to do
> > >>>> family leave and health care benefits for many private employers
> > >>>> derive from.
> > >>> private employers (are) “derived from” whom the state must offer civil
> > >>> not apply to the health plans offered by large employers, due to the
> > >>> preemption clause of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.”
> > >> sex, national origin
>
> > >> <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/2000e-2.html>
>
> > >> Suspect and quasi-suspect classes:
>
> > >> Race and national origin (Korematsu - 1944, pre-dating the Act).
> > >> <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/
> > >> USSC_CR_0323_0214_ZO.html>
>
> > >> Alienage (Takahashi - 1948, pre-dating the Act and not covered by the
> > >> Act).
> > >> <http://supreme.justia.com/us/334/410/case.html>
>
> > >> Sex (quasi-suspect, Boren - 1976)
> > >> <http://supreme.justia.com/us/429/190/case.html>
>
> > >> Illegitimacy (quasi-suspect, Trimble - 1977, not covered by the Act).
> > >> <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/
> > >> USSC_CR_0430_0762_ZO.html>
>
> > > Thanks. However, I don’t see where you listed religion or women (not
> > > gender) for Amendment IXV.
>
> > Any classification by gender is quasi-suspect, women included.
>
> > every link from a Google search on "suspect classifications" mentions
> > religion in the same breadth as race and national origin. I suspect
> > that is because religion was thought of as a race when the Fourteenth
> > was passed as noted in Teflia:
>
> > <http://supreme.justia.com/us/481/615/case.html>
>
> > >>> Constitution, stated or implied, that delegates power to the Judicial
> > >>> Branch for legislating the creation of people into classes)
> > >>> ITM, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is merely a means to implement Equal
> > >>> Protection Clause into the world of private businesses. Should ENDA
> > >>> pass, this *Civil Rights Act…for homosexuals* would be just an
> > >>> extension of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Should homosexuals be
> > >>> allowed to marry (probably by judicial fiat), the ramifications would
> > >>> permeate the guidelines of both the CRA of 1964 and ENDA. Just as
> > >>> proven the relationship of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to marriage,
> > >>> should ENDA pass, “when it comes to marriage, it is no different”.
> > >>> Just curious; Is there a court case that found Title VII of the Civil
> > >>> Rights Act of 1964 that was being violated that did NOT apply to
> > >>> members of a “suspect or quasi-suspect “ class as defined by Amendment
> > >>> XI?
> > >> All gender-related Title VII violations between 1964 and 1976 were on
> > >> a non-suspect classification.
>
> > > You’re claiming NO Title VII cases related to members of a suspect
> > > classification have occurred since 1964? No cases about gender-related
> > > Title VII violations after 1976?
>
> > No. You asked if there were cases in which a non-suspect,
> > non-quasi-suspect class brought a case under Title VII. Between 1964
> > and 1976 every gender claim under Title VII was for a non-suspect,
> > non-quasi-suspect class.
>
> > >> when it comes to whether there is a federal requirement that the state
> > >> offers civil mariage to interracial couples (assuming the state offers
> > >> it to same-race couples - I make no assumption about the feds require
> > >> marriage in the first place), the Civil Rights Act of 1964 plays no
> > >> part.
>
> > > No I do not agree, as you base your comment by falsely suggesting a
> > > federal requirement upon the states. However, there is no federal
> > > requirement about what a state may offer as criteria for civil
> > > marriages within their state.
>
> > There is a federal requirement that the state must offer interracial
> > marriages if the state offers same-race marriages.
>
> > > within state may be found in the majority of its citizenry. Regarding
> > > the civil right of marriage between homosexuals (or federal
> > > recognition of the same) may be seen in the Defense of Marriage Act
> > > (DOMA). The only federal requirement to a state is that state’s
> > > criteria for ANY civil law, including marriage, is to not violate the
> > > guidelines of strict scrutiny, of which requires immutability…a point
> > > not applicable to marriages between homosexuals whom base their
> > > assertions on their “feelings”.
>
> > > federal requirement about what a state may offer as criteria for civil
> > > Civil Rights Act of 1964 irrelevant.
>
> > > You began with false assertions, resulting in your flawed conclusion
> > > based solely on sophistry.
>
> > > “snip”
>
> > >>> of civil rights violations by pro-homosexuals are not limited to
> > >>> have been based on issues that involve BOTH Amendment XIV and the
> > >>> Civil Rights Act of 1964. To date, those assertions have been shown as
> > >>> homosexuals and civil rights laws.
> > >> This discussion is about marriage, not other issues, and only you
> > >> interjected the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
>
> > > False. The discussion included other alleged violations of “rights”
> > > as claimed by pro-homosexual advocates in this and other threads.
> > > Just for you, I’ve posted a couple of examples from your posts that
> > > Act of 1964.
>
> > > Which poster points out the “mix-n’-match” fallacies posted by pro-
> > > homosexuals advocates is what‘s irrelevant Mr Rosenbluth, and your
> > > continual attempt at a poisoning-the-well fallacy doesn’t change that.
>
> > >>> While nothing I have posted has been intentionally false, and maybe,
> > >>> just maybe “Only (I) have brought up the Civil Rights Act of 1964” is
> > >>> because I'm the only one paying attention to the pro-homosexual
> > >>> rhetoric and sophistry in these threads, eh? By your responses, it
> > >>> seems your eyes have been opened a bit as well, eh? Glad I could help
> > >>> Mr Rosenbluth.
> > >> Your tangential observation noted above adds nothing to this
> > >> discussion.
>
> > > The only “tangential observation” that “adds nothing to this
> > > discussion”, is the sentence above this one. You posted the fallacy, I
> > > responded to it.
>
> > > claiming discrimination by disallowing interracial marriages was ruled
> > > as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (link
> > > provided)…
>
> > Your link showed that an employer cannot refuse to hire someone who is
> > in an interracial marriage. That's not the same as "disallowing
> > interracial marriage".
>
> > > in Loving v Virginia. As you already admitted, Equal Protection
> > > discrimination via Loving is also a false claim for pro-homosexual
> > > advocates to base their false assertions
>
> > Just a few days ago, I said: "I didn't say the Equal Protection case
> > was moot. Cases since Baker (Zablocki, Turner, Romer, Lawrence) have
> > *my* views on Equal Protection.
>
> > > so too would be the false
> > > assertion to apply the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
>
> > What assertion, made by whom?
>
> > > “must offer marriage to interracial couples”, or for ANY marriage, we
> > > can continue. Until then, your fallacies (and sophistry) are not
> > > conducive to your argument. What you’ve “opened (my) eyes” to Mr
> > > Rosenbluth, is your continual refusal to admit your errors, resorting
> > > to more sophistry and fallacies.
>
>
> A time will come when the economics of denying homosexuals the right of
> marriage will be too expensive and the law will change. Probhibition
> and slavey changed.
Both prohibition and the instituion of slavery did change. Notice did
NOT change by a Court order (judicial fiat) or by a Presidential
Executive Order, but by a vote from the majority of society. It was
done by Article V, i.e., legally amending the US Constitution.
Have you tried placing the civil right of marriage between homosexuals
as an amendment to the US Constitution before the majority of society
to vote on? Let's see how far you'll get with that, eh?
Josh
> On Jan 15, 12:56 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 9:42 am, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
Firstly, I didn't say the discrimination would be on the basis of
"gender attraction". I said that if a person could choose which gender
they are attracted to, discrimination would be based on "gender".
Secondly, the Court has never dealt with the issue of what type of
discrimination has occurred. I am expressing my viewpoint in advance of
a possible ruling.
> IF such a case existed, and IF intermediate scrutiny was triggered
> based on gender attraction, the state would need only to show that
> marriage laws were
> "substantially related to IMPORTANT govt purpose", but not "compelling
> reasons" .
>
> Noted is your constant attempt, like others pro-homosexual advocates,
> to demand the courts to make your case for you. If homosexuality was
> as beneficial to the stability and survival of the state as is
> heterosexuality, there'd be no need to try to re-define the "spirit
> and intent" of marriage, nor subtely push the need to allegde
> homosexuality is "normal" and a reasonable "alternative" to
> heterosexual lifestyle.
>
>>>> So, "yes" or "no", do you believe a person can
>>>> choose which gender they are attracted to?
>>> Ah, so now you've movd on to asking the loaded question "have you
>>> stopped beating your wife"? LOL
>> The question is directly relevant to the legal analysis.
>
> So you've claimed twice...and it remains a loaded question. I've
> provided your answer below, along with what one psychiatrist has
> written on the subject.
Josh Rosenbluth
Info Junkie
You see Mr Rosenbluth, unlike pro-homosexual advocates’ dismissal of
facts pertaining to immutability, I see no need to speculate on the
alleged feelings based on "woulda, shoulda, coulda" vague assertions
You're assertion a case may be made for gender discrimination based on
one's sexual attraction is akin to the Court assessing "voter intent"
by looking at the hanging chads on a butterfly ballot in Florida.
I'm starting to understand that is EXACTLY what you're alluding to Mr
Rosenbluth. However, IF the Court acted on “feelings” of sexual
attraction like the FLSC did on the alleged claims of "voter intent",
it would not only try to "fashion a remedy" (unconstitutionally ) to
address such false claims, it would be doing so based on "feelings",
not on “voter intent” but of sexual attraction. It would crush the
Court system by the onslaught on cases regardless of one's sexual
preference.
> Secondly, the Court has never dealt with the issue of what type of
> discrimination has occurred.
IOW, there is no “legal analysis", there is only your unsubstantiated
opinion.
> I am expressing my viewpoint in advance of
> a possible ruling.
ITM, now that's you've expressed your "viewpoint"*, when you posted,
"...I, like SCOTUS, require cases before you can know what my opinion
is." **, were you lying then or are you lying now?
*view - "a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or
certainty; "my opinion differs from yours.” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/view
**Message-ID: <M4ednXzOvMJFq0ba...@comcast.com>
ITM, “The Constitution does not require things which are different in
fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same” -
Justice Frankfurter (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/
amendment14/19.html)
Josh
> On Jan 16, 7:54 am, Josh <u...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Info Junkie wrote:
>>> On Jan 15, 12:56 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 15, 9:42 am, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>> {snipping old stuff}
{and more old stuff}
>>>>>>> My belief refers to pro-homosexuals advocates that allege,
>>>>>> I didn't comment on your beliefs on what pro-gay advocates allege. I
>>>>>> commented on your beliefs on whether a person can choose which gender
>>>>>> they are attracted to.
>>>>> Correct...you lied by posting you knew my beliefs are regarding
>>>>> atttraction. Attraction has no bearing on the legal analysis anymore
>>>>> than if a man is attracted to a woman, another male or a dog.
>>>> If a person can choose which gender they are attracted to, current
>>>> marriage law discriminates on the basis of gender - and intermediate
>>>> scrutiny is triggered. Otherwise, intermediate scrutiny is not
>>>> triggered because there is no gender discrimination.
>>> Mr Rosenbluth, would you cite the case involving marriage where the
>>> Court ruled discrimination occurred based on gender attraction? That
>>> the case denied the plaintiff(s) their civil rights and was a
>>> violation of Amendment XIV because of gender attraction?
>> Firstly, I didn't say the discrimination would be on the basis of
>> "gender attraction". I said that if a person could choose which gender
>> they are attracted to, discrimination would be based on "gender".
>
> You see Mr Rosenbluth, unlike pro-homosexual advocates� dismissal of
> facts pertaining to immutability, I see no need to speculate on the
> alleged feelings based on "woulda, shoulda, coulda" vague assertions
OK, let's not speculate, and first establish the facts. Can a person
choose which gender they are attracted to?
> You're assertion a case may be made for gender discrimination based on
> one's sexual attraction is akin to the Court assessing "voter intent"
> by looking at the hanging chads on a butterfly ballot in Florida.
What a bizarre, irrelevant analogy. My case is very straightforward.
If a man can choose which gender he is attracted to, then he could marry
a man if only he were a woman. Thus, he is being discriminated against
because he is a man - gender discrimination.
> I'm starting to understand that is EXACTLY what you're alluding to Mr
> Rosenbluth. However, IF the Court acted on �feelings� of sexual
> attraction like the FLSC did on the alleged claims of "voter intent",
If a person can choose which gender they are attracted to, then the
Court would *not* be acting on "feelings" of sexual attraction. To the
contrary they would be *ignoring* "feelings" of sexual attraction, and
instead would be acting based on gender.
> it would not only try to "fashion a remedy" (unconstitutionally ) to
> address such false claims, it would be doing so based on "feelings",
> not on �voter intent� but of sexual attraction. It would crush the
> Court system by the onslaught on cases regardless of one's sexual
> preference.
>
>> Secondly, the Court has never dealt with the issue of what type of
>> discrimination has occurred.
>
> IOW, there is no �legal analysis", there is only your unsubstantiated
> opinion.
>
>> I am expressing my viewpoint in advance of
>> a possible ruling.
>
> ITM, now that's you've expressed your "viewpoint"*, when you posted,
> "...I, like SCOTUS, require cases before you can know what my opinion
> is." **, were you lying then or are you lying now?
Neither. That quote above refers to having either a hypothetical or
actual case to analyze, rather than an untethered theoretical question.
For this discussion, we have an actual case (the Olson/Boies case)
that is on the road up to the Court.
> *view - "a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or
> certainty; "my opinion differs from yours.� http://www.thefreedictionary.com/view
>
> **Message-ID: <M4ednXzOvMJFq0ba...@comcast.com>
>
> ITM, �The Constitution does not require things which are different in
> fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same� -
> Justice Frankfurter (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/
> amendment14/19.html)
Josh Rosenbluth
Pat Magroyne
People have both a gender and a sexual orientation. In this example,
Josh is focusing on the gender, and not the sexual orientation, and
saying that a case could be made for gender discrimination. (It's
like a black woman claiming discrimination -- the basis might be her
race or gender, but it wouldn't have to be both.)
Consider: If Josh wanted to marry me (I'm gay, and so far as I know,
Josh hasn't stated his sexual orientation outright, and it isn't
important, since we aren't discussing sexual orientation
discrimination, but rather gender discrimination), he wouldn't be able
to, NOT because of our sexual orientations (homosexuals are allowed to
marry straights, and two homosexuals of opposite gender can marry),
but because I'm male.
Info Junkie
> > facts pertaining to immutability, I see no need to speculate on the
> > alleged feelings based on "woulda, shoulda, coulda" vague assertions
>
> OK, let's not speculate, and first establish the facts. Can a person
> choose which gender they are attracted to?
Mr Rosenbluth, do you normally "establish the facts" by asking a
loaded question whose answer may be speculative? ROTFLMHO
> > You're assertion a case may be made for gender discrimination based on
> > one's sexual attraction is akin to the Court assessing "voter intent"
> > by looking at the hanging chads on a butterfly ballot in Florida.
>
> What a bizarre, irrelevant analogy. My case is very straightforward.
> If a man can choose which gender he is attracted to, then he could marry
> a man if only he were a woman. Thus, he is being discriminated against
> because he is a man - gender discrimination.
Not "irrelevant" at all. In the Florida issue, regardless of whom the
voter actually voted for, because of the controversial “hanging chads”
issue, the FLSC wanted to "fashion a remedy” by adjudicating the
"feelings” of the voter’s CHOICE by assuming their “intent”, else the
Court would consider it discriminatory, i.e., voter disfranchisement.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your post, your new assertion tries to
setup a discrimination claim regardless of choice or individual
responsibility:
If choice = gender discrimination (else)
If no choice = immutability, i.e. Equal Protection Clause
(discrimination)
You’re not interested in having the Court “fashion a remedy", you
already have your “remedy”, e.g. consider homosexuals as suspect
classification members (or equivalent), being on par with blacks and/
or women or claim “gender” discrimination.
How sad you are…continuing to look for ways to bolster your selfish
little desires at the expense of everyone else.
> > I'm starting to understand that is EXACTLY what you're alluding to Mr
> > Rosenbluth. However, IF the Court acted on “feelings” of sexual
> > attraction like the FLSC did on the alleged claims of "voter intent",
>
> If a person can choose which gender they are attracted to, then the
> Court would *not* be acting on "feelings" of sexual attraction. To the
> contrary they would be *ignoring* "feelings" of sexual attraction, and
> instead would be acting based on gender.
Oh my. To "choose" is a CHOICE Mr Rosenbluth. Choices are based on
feelings and are the responsibility of the individual(s) making the
CHOICE to affect their desired outcome. Such choices are the
responsibility of the individuals involved, not the responsibility of
society. The reasons’ behind such a choice is based on factors I’ve
already noted are too numerous to mention.
Whether you have the ability to choose (or not) your mate based on
sexual attraction, doing so makes you very immature and selfish, for
you’ve ignored a whole host of factors that should have been
considered as a benefit…for yourselves AND for the majority of
society.
> > it would not only try to "fashion a remedy" (unconstitutionally ) to
> > address such false claims, it would be doing so based on "feelings",
> > not on “voter intent” but of sexual attraction. It would crush the
> > Court system by the onslaught on cases regardless of one's sexual
> > preference.
>
> >> Secondly, the Court has never dealt with the issue of what type of
> >> discrimination has occurred.
>
> > IOW, there is no “legal analysis", there is only your unsubstantiated
> > opinion.
>
> >> I am expressing my viewpoint in advance of
> >> a possible ruling.
>
> > ITM, now that's you've expressed your "viewpoint"*, when you posted,
> > "...I, like SCOTUS, require cases before you can know what my opinion
> > is." **, were you lying then or are you lying now?
>
> Neither. That quote above refers to having either a hypothetical or
> actual case to analyze, rather than an untethered theoretical question.
> For this discussion, we have an actual case (the Olson/Boies case)
> that is on the road up to the Court.
Others are free to read what you posted on this issue and make up
their own mind as to when you lied.
ITM, SCOTUS has agreed to hear the Olson/Boies case? (Here’s where
your “yes” or “no” answer belongs)
> > *view - "a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or
> > certainty; "my opinion differs from yours.” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/view
>
> > **Message-ID: <M4ednXzOvMJFq0banZ2dnUVZ_r6rn...@comcast.com>
>
> > ITM, “The Constitution does not require things which are different in
> > fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same” -
Info Junkie
Gender is gender. There is no discrimination.
> Consider: If Josh wanted to marry me (I'm gay, and so far as I know,
> Josh hasn't stated his sexual orientation outright, and it isn't
> important, since we aren't discussing sexual orientation
> discrimination, but rather gender discrimination), he wouldn't be able
> to, NOT because of our sexual orientations (homosexuals are allowed to
> marry straights, and two homosexuals of opposite gender can marry),
> but because I'm male
I do understand the intent of his (and I believe, yours above).
Marriage is a civil right, and all civil rights have
boundaries...boundaries set up by the majority of society, IMO, what
you do in the privacy of your own home is your concern.
However, ALL civil rights are designed to benefit the majority of
society and such benefits are carried to encourage benefits to the
individual. All civil rights have boundaries, boundaries set down by
the majority of society.
IMHO, the pro-homosexual advocates (and progressives in general) have
tried to "chip away" at these boundaries until they are boundaries no
more. What does that leave but benefits for a few and unintended
consequences for society?
Unintended consequencies that the majority of society are not willing
to trade their historical values, customs and traditions to pass on to
their heirs for the selfish desires of a few.
Pat Magroyne
There is discrimination if, for example, a male is allowed to do
something while a female is not.
> > Consider: If Josh wanted to marry me (I'm gay, and so far as I know,
> > Josh hasn't stated his sexual orientation outright, and it isn't
> > important, since we aren't discussing sexual orientation
> > discrimination, but rather gender discrimination), he wouldn't be able
> > to, NOT because of our sexual orientations (homosexuals are allowed to
> > marry straights, and two homosexuals of opposite gender can marry),
> > but because I'm male
>
> I do understand the intent of his (and I believe, yours above).
> Marriage is a civil right, and all civil rights have
> boundaries...boundaries set up by the majority of society, IMO, what
> you do in the privacy of your own home is your concern.
>
> However, ALL civil rights are designed to benefit the majority of
> society
In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, it will be argued that same-sex marriage
creates more stable relationships and neighborhoods and protects the
children who are of that marriage (adopted children, biological
children of one or both of the spouses), and that this benefits the
larger society (just as you say that opposite-sex marriage does).
> and such benefits are carried to encourage benefits to the
> individual. All civil rights have boundaries, boundaries set down by
> the majority of society.
Incorrect. See Loving v. Virginia, which decision was handed down
when a larger percentage than today oppose gay marriage opposed inter-
racial marriage.
> IMHO, the pro-homosexual advocates (and progressives in general) have
> tried to "chip away" at these boundaries until they are boundaries no
> more. What does that leave but benefits for a few and unintended
> consequences for society?
Changing the "boundary" by including a class and giving that class the
right to partake of a contract heretofore limited to opposite-sex
couples doesn't harm society.
If you say it does, you'll kindly provide some proof.
> Unintended consequencies that the majority of society are not willing
> to trade their historical values, customs and traditions to pass on to
> their heirs for the selfish desires of a few.
The majority doesn't rule, necessarily, when we are dealing with civil
rights.
Josh Rosenbluth
> On Jan 16, 9:40 am, Josh <u...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Info Junkie wrote:
> > > On Jan 16, 7:54 am, Josh <u...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > >> Info Junkie wrote:
> > >>> On Jan 15, 12:56 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >>>> On Jan 15, 9:42 am, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
{snipping old stuff}
> > >>>>>>> My belief refers to pro-homosexuals advocates that allege,
You got it. Noted is your lack of a substantive counter argument.
> You’re not interested in having the Court “fashion a remedy", you
> already have your “remedy”, e.g. consider homosexuals as suspect
> classification members (or equivalent), being on par with blacks and/
> or women or claim “gender” discrimination.
>
> How sad you are…continuing to look for ways to bolster your selfish
> little desires at the expense of everyone else.
>
> > > I'm starting to understand that is EXACTLY what you're alluding to Mr
> > > Rosenbluth. However, IF the Court acted on “feelings” of sexual
> > > attraction like the FLSC did on the alleged claims of "voter intent",
>
> > If a person can choose which gender they are attracted to, then the
> > Court would *not* be acting on "feelings" of sexual attraction. To the
> > contrary they would be *ignoring* "feelings" of sexual attraction, and
> > instead would be acting based on gender.
>
> Oh my. To "choose" is a CHOICE Mr Rosenbluth. Choices are based on
> feelings and are the responsibility of the individual(s) making the
> CHOICE to affect their desired outcome. Such choices are the
> responsibility of the individuals involved, not the responsibility of
> society. The reasons’ behind such a choice is based on factors I’ve
> already noted are too numerous to mention.
This is a classic Info Junkie incoherent rambling that is impossible
to parse.
> Whether you have the ability to choose (or not) your mate based on
> sexual attraction, doing so makes you very immature and selfish, for
> you’ve ignored a whole host of factors that should have been
> considered as a benefit…for yourselves AND for the majority of
> society.
>
> > >> I am expressing my viewpoint in advance of
> > >> a possible ruling.
>
> > > ITM, now that's you've expressed your "viewpoint"*, when you posted,
> > > "...I, like SCOTUS, require cases before you can know what my opinion
> > > is." **, were you lying then or are you lying now?
>
> > Neither. That quote above refers to having either a hypothetical or
> > actual case to analyze, rather than an untethered theoretical question.
> > For this discussion, we have an actual case (the Olson/Boies case)
> > that is on the road up to the Court.
>
> Others are free to read what you posted on this issue and make up
> their own mind as to when you lied.
>
> ITM, SCOTUS has agreed to hear the Olson/Boies case? (Here’s where
> your “yes” or “no” answer belongs)
No, they must first wait for lower courts to finish their work. So
effin what?
Josh Rosenbluth
Alan Ford
> However, ALL civil rights are designed to benefit the majority of
> society
What a bullshit.
and such benefits are carried to encourage benefits to the
> individual. All civil rights have boundaries, boundaries set down by
> the majority of society.
Not much of civil rights, then.
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
Poetic Justice
>> facts pertaining to immutability, I see no need to speculate on the
>> alleged feelings based on "woulda, shoulda, coulda" vague assertions
>>
>> You're assertion a case may be made for gender discrimination based on
>> one's sexual attraction
>
> People have both a gender and a sexual orientation. In this example,
> Josh is focusing on the gender, and not the sexual orientation, and
Sexual orientation can't be a civil right, if it were then Bisexual and
polygamy(Mormons) and Sadist and prostitution, would all be civil rights
that can *NOT* be discriminated against and yet they are limited by
Government. No State could pass laws against Prostitution if it were a
civil right, and if someone chooses NOT to marry and instead seeks
sexual interest in Prostitutes because sex without a relationship does
it for them then that is their orientation.
Pat Magroyne
wrote:
> >> facts pertaining to immutability, I see no need to speculate on the
> >> alleged feelings based on "woulda, shoulda, coulda" vague assertions
>
> >> You're assertion a case may be made for gender discrimination based on
> >> one's sexual attraction
>
> > People have both a gender and a sexual orientation. In this example,
> > Josh is focusing on the gender, and not the sexual orientation, and
>
> Sexual orientation can't be a civil right,
Of course it *can* be. But at this juncture, we're discussing gender,
not sexual orientation.
> if it were then Bisexual and
> polygamy(Mormons) and Sadist and prostitution, would all be civil rights
Well, I don't think that polygamy and prostitution would fit into a
category called "sexual orientation". Sadists and bisexuals,
probably. So what?
> that can *NOT* be discriminated against and yet they are limited by
> Government. No State could pass laws against Prostitution if it were a
> civil right, and if someone chooses NOT to marry and instead seeks
> sexual interest in Prostitutes because sex without a relationship does
> it for them then that is their orientation.
Anyway, what we are talking about here is FORGETTING ABOUT SEXUAL
ORIENTATION ALTOGETHER in this scenario, and considering that the
discrimination is one of gender.
Again, a female can marry me, while a male cannot. The issue is not
one of sexual orientation. It is one of gender. Doesn't matter what
the sexual orientations are of the parties; the issue is gender.
Anlatt the Builder
wrote:
> >> facts pertaining to immutability, I see no need to speculate on the
> >> alleged feelings based on "woulda, shoulda, coulda" vague assertions
>
> >> You're assertion a case may be made for gender discrimination based on
> >> one's sexual attraction
>
> > People have both a gender and a sexual orientation. In this example,
> > Josh is focusing on the gender, and not the sexual orientation, and
>
> Sexual orientation can't be a civil right, if it were then Bisexual and
> polygamy(Mormons) and Sadist and prostitution
Please actually look up a definition of sexual orientation, and learn
how the word is used in U.S. law. Bisexuality is a sexual orientation.
Polygamy and prostitution are not sexual orientations.
And the previous posters are correct: laws that prohibit same-sex
marriage discriminate on the basis of GENDER,just like laws against
interracial marriage discriminate on the basis of race.
Info Junkie
> Info Junkie got sick and threw up all over the keyboard:
>
> > However, ALL civil rights are designed to benefit the majority of
> > society
>
> What a bullshit.
Name a civil right that only benefits the individual.
> and such benefits are carried to encourage benefits to the
>
> > individual. All civil rights have boundaries, boundaries set down by
> > the majority of society.
>
> Not much of civil rights, then.
Obviously you have no clue as to what as civil right is or isn't.
Info Junkie
The issue is a civil right is to primarily benefit the stability and
survivability of society. What you do in the privacy of your own home
is (IMO) covered by Amendment IX, not Amendment XIV.
Info Junkie
So my comments were accurate as posted. "Counter--argument"? I've
posted my "counter-arguments" for years...seeral with you Mr
Rosenbluth. You feel it should be re-hashed yet again while you ignore
the facts? Oh my.
> > You’re not interested in having the Court “fashion a remedy", you
> > already have your “remedy”, e.g. consider homosexuals as suspect
> > classification members (or equivalent), being on par with blacks and/
> > or women or claim “gender” discrimination.
>
> > How sad you are…continuing to look for ways to bolster your selfish
> > little desires at the expense of everyone else.
>
> > > > I'm starting to understand that is EXACTLY what you're alluding to Mr
> > > > Rosenbluth. However, IF the Court acted on “feelings” of sexual
> > > > attraction like the FLSC did on the alleged claims of "voter intent",
>
> > > If a person can choose which gender they are attracted to, then the
> > > Court would *not* be acting on "feelings" of sexual attraction. To the
> > > contrary they would be *ignoring* "feelings" of sexual attraction, and
> > > instead would be acting based on gender.
>
> > Oh my. To "choose" is a CHOICE Mr Rosenbluth. Choices are based on
> > feelings and are the responsibility of the individual(s) making the
> > CHOICE to affect their desired outcome. Such choices are the
> > responsibility of the individuals involved, not the responsibility of
> > society. The reasons’ behind such a choice is based on factors I’ve
> > already noted are too numerous to mention.
>
> This is a classic Info Junkie incoherent rambling that is impossible
> to parse.
It's neither "incoherent rambling" nor "impossible to parse" at all Mr
Rosenbluth. The reality is, to quote you, "Noted is your lack of a
substantive counter argument." ROTFLMHO
> > Whether you have the ability to choose (or not) your mate based on
> > sexual attraction, doing so makes you very immature and selfish, for
> > you’ve ignored a whole host of factors that should have been
> > considered as a benefit…for yourselves AND for the majority of
> > society.
>
> > > >> I am expressing my viewpoint in advance of
> > > >> a possible ruling.
>
> > > > ITM, now that's you've expressed your "viewpoint"*, when you posted,
> > > > "...I, like SCOTUS, require cases before you can know what my opinion
> > > > is." **, were you lying then or are you lying now?
>
> > > Neither. That quote above refers to having either a hypothetical or
> > > actual case to analyze, rather than an untethered theoretical question.
> > > For this discussion, we have an actual case (the Olson/Boies case)
> > > that is on the road up to the Court.
>
> > Others are free to read what you posted on this issue and make up
> > their own mind as to when you lied.
>
> > ITM, SCOTUS has agreed to hear the Olson/Boies case? (Here’s where
> > your “yes” or “no” answer belongs)
>
> No, they must first wait for lower courts to finish their work. So
> effin what?
If and until that case reaches SCOTUS, it IS a "untethered theoretical
question". or are you implying the Court has already pre-judged the
case?
Info Junkie
Josh Rosenbluth
Just so it isn't lost in the record, I disagree. If sexuality is
mutable, then it is gender discrimination. If not, then it is
sexuality discrimination.
Josh Rosenbluth
Pat Magroyne
I'm not following you here. If you think a case can be made for
gender discrimination, why would that depend on whether or not sexual
orientation is mutable?
Josh
>>>>>> facts pertaining to immutability, I see no need to speculate on the
>>>>>> alleged feelings based on "woulda, shoulda, coulda" vague assertions
>>>>>> You're assertion a case may be made for gender discrimination based on
>>>>>> one's sexual attraction
>>>>> People have both a gender and a sexual orientation. In this example,
>>>>> Josh is focusing on the gender, and not the sexual orientation, and
>>>> Sexual orientation can't be a civil right, if it were then Bisexual and
>>>> polygamy(Mormons) and Sadist and prostitution
>>> Please actually look up a definition of sexual orientation, and learn
>>> how the word is used in U.S. law. Bisexuality is a sexual orientation.
>>> Polygamy and prostitution are not sexual orientations.
>>> And the previous posters are correct: laws that prohibit same-sex
>>> marriage discriminate on the basis of GENDER,just like laws against
>>> interracial marriage discriminate on the basis of race.
>> Just so it isn't lost in the record, I disagree. If sexuality is
>> mutable, then it is gender discrimination. If not, then it is
>> sexuality discrimination.
>
> I'm not following you here. If you think a case can be made for
> gender discrimination, why would that depend on whether or not sexual
> orientation is mutable?
Assuming sexuality is mutable, gender discrimination is established
because a man could marry another man if only he were a women. But if
sexuality isn't mutable, even if the man in question were a woman, he'd
have no interest in marrying a man. He'd also have to become straight.
Josh Rosenbluth
Alan Ford
>>> However, ALL civil rights are designed to benefit the majority of
>>> society
>> What a bullshit.
>
> Name a civil right that only benefits the individual.
Why move the goalposts now? They're good where they are. You said that
"ALL civil rights are designed to benefit the majority of society", and
this is so obviously and patently not true that it hurts.
For example, when slavery was made illegal in the US, how did this
benefit the majority of society?
When segregation was banned and voting rights restored for the blacks in
the 60's, how did this benefit the majority of society?
And so on...
A lot of civil rights put in place are there almost exclusively to
protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority of society.
Why this pathetic attempt to have me "name a civil right that only
benefits the individual"? Not to mention that in actuality every civil
right benefits the individual, because it protects him from the tyranny
of the majority and/or the ruler.
>
>> and such benefits are carried to encourage benefits to the
>>
>>> individual. All civil rights have boundaries, boundaries set down by
>>> the majority of society.
>> Not much of civil rights, then.
>
> Obviously you have no clue as to what as civil right is or isn't.
Poor pitiful me. Obviously, for example, restoring the civil rights for
blacks in the 60's clearly benefited the white America. Moron.
Alan Ford
> The issue is a civil right is to primarily benefit the stability and
> survivability of society.
What a bullshit. There have been hundreds of stable societies that
survived for quite a while that clearly had no civil rights for all
their citizens and limited for some.
Info Junkie
> Info Junkie got sick and threw up all over the keyboard:
>
> >>> However, ALL civil rights are designed to benefit the majority of
> >>> society
> >> What a bullshit.
>
> > Name a civil right that only benefits the individual.
>
> Why move the goalposts now? They're good where they are.
What "goalposts" are being changed for you to address the request as
asked?
>You said that
> "ALL civil rights are designed to benefit the majority of society",
Yep...
>and
> this is so obviously and patently not true that it hurts.
If it were not true as you've claimed, you'd already answered the
request as asked. Instead you move onto rhetoric when you posted...
> For example, when slavery was made illegal in the US, how did this
> benefit the majority of society?
Slavery was not a civil right and it was made illegal by amending the
US Constitution via Amendment XIII. (Hint: US Constitutional
amendments requiring passage means ratification by 3/4th of all
states, i.e. a majority of society)
> When segregation was banned and voting rights restored for the blacks in
> the 60's, how did this benefit the majority of society?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 corrected de jure segregation. Voting
rights were never "lost" for blacks and were ruled legal by amending
the US Constitution via Amendment XV. The ability to vote was made
too restrictive and "Literacy tests...disenfranchise(d) blacks...did
the same to illiterate whites."*. Along with literacy tests, poll
taxes disenfranchised blacks AND poor whites and this was corrected by
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (and accepted by the majority of
society). *http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/03/31/voting-
rights-act-of-1965/
> And so on...
Now that I've dispensed with your little apples and oranges fallacy,
when are you going to answer my request as asked?
> A lot of civil rights put in place are there almost exclusively to
> protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority of society.
...with conditions as defined by the majority of society to protect
itself from being ruled by the minority as well.
> Why this pathetic attempt to have me "name a civil right that only
> benefits the individual"? Not to mention that in actuality every civil
> right benefits the individual, because it protects him from the tyranny
> of the majority and/or the ruler.
If my request was so "pathetic", you'd had no problem answering the
request as asked, Now try reading what was posted, not what you hoped
I wrote; "Name a civil right that ONLY benefits the individual." (note
the emphasis is in CAPS)
Notice too that I didn't claim civil rights didn't benefit
individuals, but are designed primarily to benefit the majority of
society.
> >> and such benefits are carried to encourage benefits to the
>
> >>> individual. All civil rights have boundaries, boundaries set down by
> >>> the majority of society.
> >> Not much of civil rights, then.
>
> > Obviously you have no clue as to what as civil right is or isn't.
>
> Poor pitiful me. Obviously, for example, restoring the civil rights for
> blacks in the 60's clearly benefited the white America. Moron.
There's no need to feel bad for your ignorance. Implementation of
government policies to reflect the spirit and intent of US
Constitution's Amendment's XIV and XIV was a failure by all political
parties from the time they were ratified (done so by a majority of
society, i.e., 3/4ths of all states).
Removing votiing restrictions did help the majority of society by
allowing better representation for all citizens, blacks and whites.
While the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to enforce civil rights on
private business, it was for "color, race, national origin, religion,
or sex" not JUST blacks.
Since your confused, here a diffenrent way to look at it: Name a
civil right that has no boundaries on adult individuals.
Boundaries might inlcude: (example: fishing (for most states)
1. Must have a valid fishing license.
2. Restrictions on number of fish they can catch (dependant on
varieties of fish)
3. Restrictions on manner of fishing (fly fishing, live bait, catch
and release, rod and reel, etc.)
4. Other: Offshore and/or onshore rules/regulations
Now, are you going to continue to spew rhetoric and fallacies or
answer the request(s) as asked?
Info Junkie
> Info Junkie got sick and threw up all over the keyboard:
>
> > The issue is a civil right is to primarily benefit the stability and
> > survivability of society.
>
> What a bullshit. There have been hundreds of stable societies that
> survived for quite a while that clearly had no civil rights for all
> their citizens and limited for some.
Son, I'm posting from alt.politics.usa.constitution. Please try and
keep up won't you?
Don Martin
>
>For example, when slavery was made illegal in the US, how did this
>benefit the majority of society?
Considering that the presence of slave labor renders a great economic advantage
to society as a whole (the factories and other mercantile enterprises of the New
England abolitionists enjoyed profitable sales to southern agriculturists on the
back of slave labor), I suspect a good argument could be made for this move
being a _sacrifice_ on the part of the majority.
-
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Ray Fischer
>On Jan 17, 10:17 pm, Alan Ford <zzz....@qqq.net> wrote:
>> Info Junkie got sick and threw up all over the keyboard:
>>
>> >>> However, ALL civil rights are designed to benefit the majority of
>> >>> society
>> >> What a bullshit.
>>
>> > Name a civil right that only benefits the individual.
>>
>> Why move the goalposts now? They're good where they are.
>
>What "goalposts" are being changed for you to address the request as
>asked?
>
>>You said that
>> "ALL civil rights are designed to benefit the majority of society",
>
>Yep...
>
>>and
>> this is so obviously and patently not true that it hurts.
>
>If it were not true as you've claimed, you'd already answered the
>request as asked. Instead you move onto rhetoric when you posted...
>
>> For example, when slavery was made illegal in the US, how did this
>> benefit the majority of society?
>
>Slavery was not a civil right and it was made illegal by amending the
>US Constitution via Amendment XIII. (Hint: US Constitutional
>amendments requiring passage means ratification by 3/4th of all
>states, i.e. a majority of society)
You didn't answer the question.
>> When segregation was banned and voting rights restored for the blacks in
>> the 60's, how did this benefit the majority of society?
>
>The Civil Rights Act of 1964 corrected de jure segregation. Voting
>rights were never "lost" for blacks and were ruled legal by amending
That isn't answering the question either.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
WangoTango
dog...com says...
> Sexual orientation can't be a civil right,
Well, no it can't BUT you can't discriminate or oppress a person's
rights because of it either. That's the issue.
Alan Ford
>>>>> However, ALL civil rights are designed to benefit the majority of
>>>>> society
>>>> What a bullshit.
>>> Name a civil right that only benefits the individual.
>> Why move the goalposts now? They're good where they are.
>
> What "goalposts" are being changed for you to address the request as
> asked?
>
>> You said that
>> "ALL civil rights are designed to benefit the majority of society",
>
> Yep...
>
>> and
>> this is so obviously and patently not true that it hurts.
>
> If it were not true as you've claimed, you'd already answered the
> request as asked. Instead you move onto rhetoric when you posted...
Stop being deliberately stupid. You said that "ALL civil rights are
designed to benefit the majority of society". When I said that was an
obvious bullshit, you asked me to "name a civil right that only benefits
the individual".
If you're going to be dense, you can fuck off.
>
>> For example, when slavery was made illegal in the US, how did this
>> benefit the majority of society?
>
> Slavery was not a civil right
??? You know what? Just fuck off. There's enough idiots here as it is.
Alan Ford
>>> The issue is a civil right is to primarily benefit the stability and
>>> survivability of society.
>> What a bullshit. There have been hundreds of stable societies that
>> survived for quite a while that clearly had no civil rights for all
>> their citizens and limited for some.
>
> Son, I'm posting from alt.politics.usa.constitution. Please try and
> keep up won't you?
Yeah, that is really relevant to your "argument". Goddamn, I hate stupid
and weaselly people.
Alan Ford
>> For example, when slavery was made illegal in the US, how did this
>> benefit the majority of society?
>
> Considering that the presence of slave labor renders a great economic advantage
> to society as a whole (the factories and other mercantile enterprises of the New
> England abolitionists enjoyed profitable sales to southern agriculturists on the
> back of slave labor), I suspect a good argument could be made for this move
> being a _sacrifice_ on the part of the majority.
Ah, but you see, according to Info Cretin, "slavery was not a civil
right". So there.
Poetic Justice
Some men like male prostitutes and yet they marry!
Some men like children yet they marry a woman!
Gender is male female, all else is your own problem.
If it takes pain and whips to and other men to make you happy... then
you needn't put all that in a Marriage contract.... a contract that only
dictates one man one woman.
If one man one woman is what you want then you go and you *buy* a
marriage license.
If you want something else then you go *BUY* a dog license or a
prostitution license, or what ever license fits your particular needs.
But in reality if government hasn't chosen to license your activity, you
might just be lucky.
Don Martin
>Don Martin got sick and threw up all over the keyboard:
>
>>> For example, when slavery was made illegal in the US, how did this
>>> benefit the majority of society?
>>
>> Considering that the presence of slave labor renders a great economic advantage
>> to society as a whole (the factories and other mercantile enterprises of the New
>> England abolitionists enjoyed profitable sales to southern agriculturists on the
>> back of slave labor), I suspect a good argument could be made for this move
>> being a _sacrifice_ on the part of the majority.
>
>
>Ah, but you see, according to Info Cretin, "slavery was not a civil
>right". So there.
I suspect he is a junkie to several things; info being the only one with no
effect.
Info Junkie
> Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 17, 10:17 pm, Alan Ford <zzz....@qqq.net> wrote:
> >> Info Junkie got sick and threw up all over the keyboard:
>
> >> >>> However, ALL civil rights are designed to benefit the majority of
> >> >>> society
> >> >> What a bullshit.
>
> >> > Name a civil right that only benefits the individual.
>
> >> Why move the goalposts now? They're good where they are.
>
> >What "goalposts" are being changed for you to address the request as
> >asked?
>
> >>You said that
> >> "ALL civil rights are designed to benefit the majority of society",
>
> >Yep...
>
> >>and
> >> this is so obviously and patently not true that it hurts.
>
> >If it were not true as you've claimed, you'd already answered the
> >request as asked. Instead you move onto rhetoric when you posted...
>
> >> For example, when slavery was made illegal in the US, how did this
> >> benefit the majority of society?
>
> >Slavery was not a civil right and it was made illegal by amending the
> >US Constitution via Amendment XIII. (Hint: US Constitutional
> >amendments requiring passage means ratification by 3/4th of all
> >states, i.e. a majority of society)
>
> You didn't answer the question.
Acutally I did. (hint: try reading the words). He didn't ask a valid
question wrt civil rights...the subject that was under discussion, as
evidenced by my answer.
> >> When segregation was banned and voting rights restored for the blacks in
> >> the 60's, how did this benefit the majority of society?
>
> >The Civil Rights Act of 1964 corrected de jure segregation. Voting
> >rights were never "lost" for blacks and were ruled legal by amending
>
> That isn't answering the question either.
Again I did answer, but apparently you had a preconceived notion of
how you thought I should've responded. LOL
ITM, it's too bad you "snipped" the rest of my answer that was
elsewhere in the post.
Info Junkie
Ah...you must be posting with your "mature" response. Understood.
ROTFLMHO
Info Junkie
> In article <RNt4n.39121$Gf3.8...@newsfe22.iad>, PoeticJustice@talk-n-
> dog...com says...
>
> > Sexual orientation can't be a civil right,
>
> Well, no it can't BUT you can't discriminate or oppress a person's
> rights because of it either. That's the issue.
Actually it seems many progressives (liberals) in these NGs don't know
(or intentionally mislead) the spirit and intent of the meaning of a
civil right. The state CAN discriminate/oppress a person's rights on
some issues, while in other cases the Court has deemed the state must
show such discrimination is for "important" government interests,
while others must be shown as "compelling" to government interests.
For the most all others like nudists, bikers, knitting club members
and homosexuals, such claims are merely alleged to be discriminatory
and the burden of proof of discrimination is upon the plaintiff.
Info Junkie
You're correct on one point, "There's enough idiots here as it is."
and you've confirmed that regarding your ingornace of the legality of
a civil right.
Info Junkie
> Info Junkie got sick and threw up all over the keyboard:
>
> >>> The issue is a civil right is to primarily benefit the stability and
> >>> survivability of society.
> >> What a bullshit. There have been hundreds of stable societies that
> >> survived for quite a while that clearly had no civil rights for all
> >> their citizens and limited for some.
>
> > Son, I'm posting from alt.politics.usa.constitution. Please try and
> > keep up won't you?
>
> Yeah, that is really relevant to your "argument". Goddamn, I hate stupid
> and weaselly people.
It IS relevant,as the discussion concerns the constitutional laws of
civil rights, not some childish woulda-coulda-shoulda-feel-good
rhetoric of the day. IOW, putting PRINCIPLES of law into PRACTICE is
not the same as whining about "fairness" on some blog. Wake up to
reality sonny.
Alan Ford
Yeah, sure you are. You are practicing mental masturbation on the level
of those who looked at the US Constitution and all its amendments and
still concluded that a black man is worth 3/5 the white man.
Iow, if you have a bigot agenda to defend, you'll bend over backwards to
make it appear "legal" and "constitutional".
That's why I have more respect for a redneck who comes out and admits
that he hates fags and that's the reason he won't endorse their rights,
than for a pseudo-intellectual who employs your style of "debate" to
defend his bigotry.
Human rights and civil liberties are absolute, non-negotiable and apply
equally to all. If not, they're worth shit. As for your "PRINCIPLES of
law", racial discrimination and slavery was perfectly within the
"PRINCIPLES of law" at the time. But, hey, I forgot: slavery was not a
civil right, huh? LOLZ.
Ray Fischer
>On Jan 18, 9:55�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Info Junkie �<bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>> >> For example, when slavery was made illegal in the US, how did this
>> >> benefit the majority of society?
>>
>> >Slavery was not a civil right and it was made illegal by amending the
>> >US Constitution via Amendment XIII. (Hint: US Constitutional
>> >amendments requiring passage means ratification by 3/4th of all
>> >states, i.e. a majority of society)
>>
>> You didn't answer the question.
>
>Acutally I did. (hint: try reading the words). He didn't ask a valid
>question wrt civil rights.
So you're justifying your evasion and subsequent lie by claiming that
the question wasn't "valid"?
Which propaganda ministry do you work for?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
>On Jan 18, 11:05�am, WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> In article <RNt4n.39121$Gf3.8...@newsfe22.iad>, PoeticJustice@talk-n-
>> dog...com says...
>>
>> > Sexual orientation can't be a civil right,
>>
>> Well, no it can't BUT you can't discriminate or oppress a person's
>> rights because of it either. �That's the issue.
>
>Actually it seems many progressives (liberals) in these NGs don't know
>(or intentionally mislead) the spirit and intent of the meaning of a
>civil right.
Smirk. Rightards know what civil rights people _really_ deserve.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Geode
> Don Martin got sick and threw up all over the keyboard:
>
> >> For example, when slavery was made illegal in the US, how did this
> >> benefit the majority of society?
>
> > Considering that the presence of slave labor renders a great economic advantage
> > to society as a whole (the factories and other mercantile enterprises of the New
> > England abolitionists enjoyed profitable sales to southern agriculturists on the
> > back of slave labor), I suspect a good argument could be made for this move
> > being a _sacrifice_ on the part of the majority.
>
> Ah, but you see, according to Info Cretin, "slavery was not a civil
> right". So there.
I am not sure. To own slaves could be the right of someone with money
to buy them. So the right to have a property could be viewed as a
civil right.
So, we see here case of a civil right all right. Other case is that
those were owned did not like this sort of civil right, and many other
people who had no slaves, would think the same.
Geode
Alan Ford
>>>> For example, when slavery was made illegal in the US, how did this
>>>> benefit the majority of society?
>>> Considering that the presence of slave labor renders a great economic advantage
>>> to society as a whole (the factories and other mercantile enterprises of the New
>>> England abolitionists enjoyed profitable sales to southern agriculturists on the
>>> back of slave labor), I suspect a good argument could be made for this move
>>> being a _sacrifice_ on the part of the majority.
>> Ah, but you see, according to Info Cretin, "slavery was not a civil
>> right". So there.
>
> I am not sure. To own slaves could be the right of someone with money
> to buy them. So the right to have a property could be viewed as a
> civil right.
>
> So, we see here case of a civil right all right. Other case is that
> those were owned did not like this sort of civil right, and many other
> people who had no slaves, would think the same.
You can't call a civil right an action or a condition that suppresses or
impinges on anyone else's basic civil or human rights. While it may be
my right as a human being to own property, if that property includes
another human being, it can no longer be called a civil or human right
no matter how legal it is.
Slavery was without question not anyone's civil right. The issue was
that Info Cretin was being obtuse with this "answer".
Info Junkie
> Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 18, 9:56 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jan 17, 10:20 pm, Alan Ford <zzz....@qqq.net> wrote:
> >> >> Info Junkie got sick and threw up all over the keyboard:
>
> >> >> > The issue is a civil right is to primarily benefit the stability and
> >> >> > survivability of society.
>
> >> >> What a bullshit. There have been hundreds of stable societies that
> >> >> survived for quite a while that clearly had no civil rights for all
> >> >> their citizens and limited for some.
>
> >> >Son, I'm posting from alt.politics.usa.constitution. Please try and
> >> >keep up won't you?
>
> >> You're posting from alt.brainless.bullshit.homophobic
>
> >Ah...you must be posting with your "mature" response.
>
> Notice how similar it is to your comment.
Not at all...but your free to believe what you wish to beleive.
> Get a clue.
The "clue" under discussion was about civil rights in the USA. You;ve
moved on to posting rhetoric and vulgarity.
Info Junkie
> Info Junkie got sick and threw up all over the keyboard:
>
> >>>>> The issue is a civil right is to primarily benefit the stability and
> >>>>> survivability of society.
> >>>> What a bullshit. There have been hundreds of stable societies that
> >>>> survived for quite a while that clearly had no civil rights for all
> >>>> their citizens and limited for some.
> >>> Son, I'm posting from alt.politics.usa.constitution. Please try and
> >>> keep up won't you?
> >> Yeah, that is really relevant to your "argument". Goddamn, I hate stupid
> >> and weaselly people.
>
> > It IS relevant,as the discussion concerns the constitutional laws of
> > civil rights, not some childish woulda-coulda-shoulda-feel-good
> > rhetoric of the day. IOW, putting PRINCIPLES of law into PRACTICE is
> > not the same as whining about "fairness" on some blog. Wake up to
> > reality sonny.
>
> Yeah, sure you are. You are practicing mental masturbation on the level
> of those who looked at the US Constitution and all its amendments and
> still concluded that a black man is worth 3/5 the white man.
If what you claim were true, you'd have provided at least a a shred of
evidence from any of my posts that states or implies such a claim.
Since you can't, you move onto a personal attack fallacy.
> Iow, if you have a bigot agenda to defend, you'll bend over backwards to
> make it appear "legal" and "constitutional".
More unsubstantiated "bigot" claims without a shred of evidence to
back such lies.
> That's why I have more respect for a redneck who comes out and admits
> that he hates fags and that's the reason he won't endorse their rights,
> than for a pseudo-intellectual who employs your style of "debate" to
> defend his bigotry.
More Ad Hominem and not shred of evidence to back your lies.
Homosexuals have no more rights than nudists or biker gangs or
knitting club members.
> Human rights and civil liberties are absolute, non-negotiable and apply
> equally to all.
Thanks for proving my point, i.e., you don't understand what a civil
right is or isn't . Unalienable rights (to some aka human rights) are
in fact "absolute, non-negotiable and apply equally to all". However,
civil liberties are NOT as they can be surrendered or forfeited based
upon the person's behavior. (see below)
> If not, they're worth shit.
If you're an US citizen, over 18yrs old, are not a felon and of sound
mind, you may vote for whom you wish to be your elected
representative. (Notice the restrictions)
>As for your "PRINCIPLES of
> law", racial discrimination and slavery was perfectly within the
> "PRINCIPLES of law" at the time. But, hey, I forgot: slavery was not a
> civil right, huh? LOLZ.
Slavery was made illegal by the majority of society by amending the US
Constitution. (3/4ths of all states).
Info Junkie
Since you responded to my post, I may only presume your referring to
my post. If true, you really ought to learn to read for
comprehension.
Unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary, nowhere have I
stated or implied "what civil rights people _really_ deserve".
Wharever the sexual prefernce an individual wishes to claim for
themselves is neither a civil right nor a legal basis for society to
recognize their self-proclaimed preference.
Info Junkie
> >>>>>> facts pertaining to immutability, I see no need to speculate on the
> >>>>>> alleged feelings based on "woulda, shoulda, coulda" vague assertions
> >>>>>> You're assertion a case may be made for gender discrimination based on
> >>>>>> one's sexual attraction
> >>>>> People have both a gender and a sexual orientation. In this example,
> >>>>> Josh is focusing on the gender, and not the sexual orientation, and
> >>>> Sexual orientation can't be a civil right, if it were then Bisexual and
> >>>> polygamy(Mormons) and Sadist and prostitution
> >>> Please actually look up a definition of sexual orientation, and learn
> >>> how the word is used in U.S. law. Bisexuality is a sexual orientation.
> >>> Polygamy and prostitution are not sexual orientations.
> >>> And the previous posters are correct: laws that prohibit same-sex
> >>> marriage discriminate on the basis of GENDER,just like laws against
> >>> interracial marriage discriminate on the basis of race.
> >> Just so it isn't lost in the record, I disagree. If sexuality is
> >> mutable, then it is gender discrimination. If not, then it is
> >> sexuality discrimination.
>
> > I'm not following you here. If you think a case can be made for
> > gender discrimination, why would that depend on whether or not sexual
> > orientation is mutable?
>
> Assuming sexuality is mutable, gender discrimination is established
> because a man could marry another man if only he were a women.
If you wish use this canard, sexuality, considered a noun, should
first be defined:
"sexuality - the properties that distinguish organisms on the basis
of their reproductive roles" http://www.thefreedictionary.com
Based on that definition, sexuality is not mutable.
>But if
> sexuality isn't mutable, even if the man in question were a woman,
Unless you wish to elucidate further, you're posting of a birth
deformity, then trying to use this deformity as a basis to build a
claim of discrimination. Without such a deformity, a man can not be a
woman.
>he'd
> have no interest in marrying a man. He'd also have to become straight.
Now you referring to personal preferences. ITM, homosexuality is not a
gender.
Josh
I'm using the second definition of sexuality from thefreedictionary:
"sexual orientation, sexual preference, leaning"
For clarity, substitute "sexual orientation" for "sexuality" in my argument.
Josh Rosenbluth
anonymous
There was no reason to give women the right to vote, the right to an
education, the right to work. There was no reason to give blacks the
right to marry whites, blacks the right to vote, the blacks the right to
an education, or essentially the right of blacks and women to equality.
But they did.
In the same way that some person rights may have been interferred with
during the times of war in history and currently. But it happened. So
what you think any individual should have or should not have is your
personal view and worth exactly one vote whether you have a penis or a
vagina.
When the right moment in history occurs, homosexuals will have equality
in the same way that when the right moment came for women to get the
vote, they got it. I am not sure what laws in any country make women a
property of a man/husband, but women not only got that law thrown out,
but they took it upon themselves that any man who dumps them for love or
sex must forfeit half the assets of the marriage including pensions to
the wife ensuring that the sex he got from her while he was drunk and
smelled like "shit" was bought and paid for!
anonymous
Every person is entitled in civil matters and criminal matters to make
submission to the presiding authority. These submissions can be on
topic or off topic, but in the end they are just submissions and have no
relationship to the truth of the facts or the laws as they stand. In
the end it is the decision of the judge that is all that is appealable
and since you hold no judgment in your hand, you are making submissions
on something that has never happened. How interesting is that again?
anonymous
The problem with definitions is that a guy can describe himself as
heterosexual, he can publicly life the life of a heterosexual, but he
screw guys when he gets the chance. Tiger evidently had a certain
image, since I don't know anything about Tiger, I can't comment, but
definitions don't help much in the real world.
Info Junkie
Thanks for the clarification. Based on your definition, i.e.
sexuality equals sexual orientation, sexuality is mutable, and as I
posted (and your definition shows), you were referring to personal
preferences.
So concerning your proposed assertions that (if) "sexuality is
mutable, gender discrimination is established because a man could
marry another man if only he were a women" remains an invalid
assertion as:
1. "a man could marry another man if only he were a women" and/or
"if the man in question were a woman"
cannot occur unless your posting about a birth deformity, then trying
to use this deformity as a basis to build a claim of discrimination.
Without such a deformity, a man cannot also be a woman.
2. Homosexuality is still not a gender, so gender discrimination is
not applicable.
Based on your definition, sexuality being mutable also means
ineligibility as a suspect classification so the Equal Protection
Clause (via Amendment XIV) and/or protections under the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 also don't apply.
Info Junkie
If there is no agreed upon definition of a subject under discussion,
there can be no honest discussion.
Info Junkie
Not sure I follow your post. I'm posting from is in
alt.politics.usa.constitution and the discussion concerns
homosexuality and man-made laws. I make no judgement about persons
doing whatever they desire in the privacy of their own home.
Info Junkie
Women and blacks gained the right to vote by amending the US
Constitution (3/4ths majority - Amendments XIX and XV respectively)
Marriage between races didn't change the basic survivability of
society and discrimination was based on immunability. Homosexuality is
not immutable.
There is no such thing as a "right to education"
> In the same way that some person rights may have been interferred with
> during the times of war in history and currently. But it happened.
??? Please claify this claim further.
>So
> what you think any individual should have or should not have is your
> personal view and worth exactly one vote whether you have a penis or a
> vagina.
One vote...and part of the view of the majoirty of society. Whereas,
"your
personal view and worth exactly one vote" and may be part of the
minority.
> When the right moment in history occurs, homosexuals will have equality
> in the same way that when the right moment came for women to get the
> vote, they got it.
Women got the vote by amending the US Constitution. Are you claiming
homosexuals don't have the right to vote?
>I am not sure what laws in any country make women a
> property of a man/husband, but women not only got that law thrown out,
> but they took it upon themselves that any man who dumps them for love or
> sex must forfeit half the assets of the marriage including pensions to
> the wife ensuring that the sex he got from her while he was drunk and
> smelled like "shit" was bought and paid for!
Fallacies of distraction are not condusive to your argument....or this
discussion.
Info Junkie
Thanks for the clarification. Based on your definition, i.e.
sexuality equals sexual orientation, sexuality is mutable, and as I
posted (and your definition shows), you were referring to personal
preferences.
So concerning your proposed assertions that (if) "sexuality is
mutable, gender discrimination is established because a man could
marry another man if only he were a women" remains an invalid
assertion as:
1. "a man could marry another man if only he were a women" and/or
"if the man in question were a woman"
cannot occur unless your posting about a birth deformity, then trying
to use this deformity as a basis to build a claim of discrimination.
Josh
> On Jan 22, 7:35 am, Josh <u...@nowhere.com> wrote:
{snipping out the extraneous stuff}
A slight re-phrasing only to clear up what appears to be a misconception
on your part: "a man could marry another man if only he were a women,
but because that cannot occur, there is gender discrimination".
> 2. Homosexuality is still not a gender, so gender discrimination is
> not applicable.
>
> Based on your definition, sexuality being mutable also means
> ineligibility as a suspect classification so the Equal Protection
> Clause (via Amendment XIV) and/or protections under the Civil Rights
> Act of 1964 also don't apply.
Josh Rosenbluth
Info Junkie
Ok. Let's review what you've posted, shall we?
1. (JR) "Assuming sexuality is mutable, gender discrimination is
established because a man could marry another man if only he were a
women."
Your statement cannot be true. If mutable, sexuality, as you defined
it, like homosexuality is a preference, and such preferences may
change based on the personal behavioral decisions of an individual's
life.
OTHO, gender is not mutable, and there is no gender discrimination as
both genders are denied the right to marry their same gender, as there
is no benefit to society. (Before travelling down that same old road,
gender attraction is not the same a gender discrinimation)
2. (JR) "...if sexuality isn't mutable, even if the man in question
were a woman..."
This statement of yours also cannot be true. If immutable, sexuality
no longer meets the same definition you've claimed it means to you,
and a man STILL cannot be a woman...unless you're posting of a birth
deformity, then trying to use this deformity as a basis to build a
claim of discrimination.
By your definition, sexuality, i.e. sexual orientation, is mutable and
based on a individuals personal preferences. Society has no interest
in a person's personal preferences nor a need to encourge or reward
such personal preferences, societal resouces (benefits) to a few
selfish individuals whose behaviors are based on their personal
preferences and not primarily benficial to the majority of society.
Bottom line: Your reliance on false assertions usually leads to false
conclusions.
Poetic Justice
> On Jan 22, 12:38 pm, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
>> Info Junkie wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 19, 1:37 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> When the right moment in history occurs, homosexuals will have equality
>> in the same way that when the right moment came for women to get the
>> vote, they got it.
>
> Women got the vote by amending the US Constitution. Are you claiming
> homosexuals don't have the right to vote?
Homosexuals already have all the rights the rest of us have.
Their is no right for a Pedophile to marry their lover. So why is there
a need for Homosexuals to marry theirs. There is no right to marry.
Sexual behavior doesn't come with rights.... You don't have a right to
violate a corps or have sex in the street.
SEX and the Genetic Male/Female GENDER is not the same and all people
fall under Male or Female and for an extra right just because you don't
like the opposite sex is *NOT* in the constitution. But Polygamy gay
unions should also be able to have a union under the Gay ceremony.
You have the same rights to create a ceremony but calling it marriage is
not an option. So create it and create the laws that are needed to make
it work, I don't think *adoption* should be part of the law and we need
to protect the kids from being involved in what is a sexual behavior and
is NOT capable of producing children, like we keep kids from other
things like pedophilia in families. If gays were meant to have children
to raise then Nature would make same sex "sex" produce children similar
to how worms do.
I think Polygamy deserves their own ceremony also and should have
special laws that protect the kids from multiple heterosexual parent
family disputes.
All the types of unions need different laws and legal definitions so as
to protect the children from the many different lifestyles.
Enos Penvy
Nor does marriage between people of the same sex.
> and discrimination was based on immunability. Homosexuality is
> not immutable.
It appears that it is.
Anyway, SCOTUS is known to be innovative when it wants to decide a
certain way on an issue. They're constructed classes of scrutiny, and
they can construct more.
> There is no such thing as a "right to education"
Sure there is.
"The right to education is recognized as a human right by the United
Nations[1] and is understood to establish an entitlement to free,
compulsory primary education for all children, an obligation to
develop secondary education accessible to all children, as well as
equitable access to higher education"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_education
> > In the same way that some person rights may have been interferred with
> > during the times of war in history and currently. But it happened.
>
> ??? Please claify this claim further.
>
> >So
> > what you think any individual should have or should not have is your
> > personal view and worth exactly one vote whether you have a penis or a
> > vagina.
>
> One vote...and part of the view of the majoirty of society. Whereas,
> "your
> personal view and worth exactly one vote" and may be part of the
> minority.
>
> > When the right moment in history occurs, homosexuals will have equality
> > in the same way that when the right moment came for women to get the
> > vote, they got it.
>
> Women got the vote by amending the US Constitution.
Isn't that interesting? They didn't have the right to vote yet they
got the votes to amend the Constitution.
> Are you claiming
> homosexuals don't have the right to vote?
Nobody claimed this. What's your point?
Enos Penvy
The REASON the man cannot marry the person in question is because of
the person's GENDER, not because of the person's sexual orientation.
> 2. Homosexuality is still not a gender, so gender discrimination is
> not applicable.
One can be homosexuality and still have a gender, and then not fight
for a right based on the homosexuality, but on the issue of gender
instead.
Why are you pretending to not understand this concept?
Homosexuals can marry. Homosexuals can marry each other. The issue
preventing marriage is one of gender.
> Based on your definition, sexuality being mutable also means
> ineligibility as a suspect classification
Don't forget that SCOTUS can create new classifications and new levels
of scrutiny. There's a rather informal level that nobody seems to
want to mention: "rational basis with bite". If SCOTUS believes that
same-sex marriage should be allowed, it will find a way to allow that
to happen. It is not bound by its own precedents.
Enos Penvy
wrote:
> On 1/23/2010 8:43 AM, Info Junkie wrote:
>
> > On Jan 22, 12:38 pm, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> >> Info Junkie wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 19, 1:37 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >> When the right moment in history occurs, homosexuals will have equality
> >> in the same way that when the right moment came for women to get the
> >> vote, they got it.
>
> > Women got the vote by amending the US Constitution. Are you claiming
> > homosexuals don't have the right to vote?
>
> Homosexuals already have all the rights the rest of us have.
Homosexuals aren't allowed to marry a romantic partner as straights
are.
> Their is no right for a Pedophile to marry their lover. So why is there
> a need for Homosexuals to marry theirs. There is no right to marry.
SCOTUS has called marriage a fundamental right.
> Sexual behavior doesn't come with rights....
Incorrect. In fact, Lawrence v. Texas pretty much extends the right
to privacy with respect to private sexual behavior, where that right
had not previously existed.
> You don't have a right to
> violate a corps or have sex in the street.
Why must you rely on these false analogies? Is it because you really
have no argument? Do you think that by likening homosexuality to
necrophilia, you're HELPING your case?
> SEX and the Genetic Male/Female GENDER is not the same and all people
> fall under Male or Female
"Intersexuality in humans refers to intermediate or atypical
combinations of physical features that usually distinguish male from
female. This is usually understood to be congenital, involving
chromosomal, morphologic, genital and/or gonadal anomalies, such as
diversion from typical XX-female or XY-male presentations, e.g., sex
reversal (XY-female, XX-male), genital ambiguity, sex developmental
differences. An intersexed individual may have biological
characteristics of both the male and female sexes.[1] Intersexuality
is the term adopted by medicine during the 20th century, applied to
human beings whose biological sex cannot be classified as either male
or female."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexuality
> and for an extra right just because you don't
> like the opposite sex is *NOT* in the constitution.
Neither is the right to abortion, the right to privacy, or any number
of other things.
> But Polygamy gay
> unions should also be able to have a union under the Gay ceremony.
>
> You have the same rights to create a ceremony but calling it marriage is
> not an option.
That's what the fight is about, and we will win. It's just a matter
of time. You're swimming against a tide that has reversed itself.
Ray Fischer
>On Jan 19, 1:36�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Info Junkie �<bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jan 18, 9:56�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> Info Junkie �<bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Jan 17, 10:20�pm, Alan Ford <zzz....@qqq.net> wrote:
>> >> >> Info Junkie got sick and threw up all over the keyboard:
>>
>> >> >> > The issue is a civil right is to primarily benefit the stability and
>> >> >> > survivability of society.
>>
>> >> >> What a bullshit. There have been hundreds of stable societies that
>> >> >> survived for quite a while that clearly had no civil rights for all
>> >> >> their citizens and limited for some.
>>
>> >> >Son, I'm posting from alt.politics.usa.constitution. Please try and
>> >> >keep up won't you?
>>
>> >> You're posting from alt.brainless.bullshit.homophobic
>>
>> >Ah...you must be posting with your "mature" response.
>>
>> Notice how similar it is to your comment.
>
>Not at all...
Run along, dimwit. Go play with the other children.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jan 19, 1:37�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Info Junkie �<bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>> >On Jan 18, 11:05�am, WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <RNt4n.39121$Gf3.8...@newsfe22.iad>, PoeticJustice@talk-n-
>> >> dog...com says...
>>
>> >> > Sexual orientation can't be a civil right,
>>
>> >> Well, no it can't BUT you can't discriminate or oppress a person's
>> >> rights because of it either. �That's the issue.
>>
>> >Actually it seems many progressives (liberals) in these NGs don't know
>> >(or intentionally mislead) the spirit and intent of the meaning of a
>> >civil right.
>>
>> Smirk. �Rightards know what civil rights people _really_ deserve.
>
>Since you responded to my post, I may only presume your referring to
>my post. If true, you really ought to learn to read for
>comprehension.
YOuo're not smart enough to be condescending.
>Unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary, nowhere have I
>stated or implied "what civil rights people _really_ deserve".
You just insist that certain people do not deserve certain civil
rights.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Poetic Justice
> On Jan 23, 10:44 am, Poetic Justice <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com>
> wrote:
>> On 1/23/2010 8:43 AM, Info Junkie wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 22, 12:38 pm, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
>>>> Info Junkie wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 19, 1:37 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>> When the right moment in history occurs, homosexuals will have equality
>>>> in the same way that when the right moment came for women to get the
>>>> vote, they got it.
>>
>>> Women got the vote by amending the US Constitution. Are you claiming
>>> homosexuals don't have the right to vote?
>>
>> Homosexuals already have all the rights the rest of us have.
>
> Homosexuals aren't allowed to marry a romantic partner as straights
> are.
>
>> Their is no right for a Pedophile to marry their lover. So why is there
>> a need for Homosexuals to marry theirs. There is no right to marry.
>
> SCOTUS has called marriage a fundamental right.
>
>> Sexual behavior doesn't come with rights....
>
> Incorrect. In fact, Lawrence v. Texas pretty much extends the right
> to privacy with respect to private sexual behavior, where that right
> had not previously existed.
>
NO that is all sexual behavior NOT GAY sexual behavior. That is part of
privacy not part of sexuality.
>> You don't have a right to
>> violate a corps or have sex in the street.
>
> Why must you rely on these false analogies? Is it because you really
> have no argument? Do you think that by likening homosexuality to
> necrophilia, you're HELPING your case?
I'm pointing out that heterosexuals are like necrophilia, They don't
have heterosexual "rights" as necrophilia has no rights, as Homosexuals
have no special rights... as sadists have no special rights.
>> SEX and the Genetic Male/Female GENDER is not the same and all people
>> fall under Male or Female
>
> "Intersexuality in humans refers to intermediate or atypical
> combinations of physical features that usually distinguish male from
> female. This is usually understood to be congenital, involving
> chromosomal, morphologic, genital and/or gonadal anomalies, such as
> diversion from typical XX-female or XY-male presentations, e.g., sex
> reversal (XY-female, XX-male), genital ambiguity, sex developmental
> differences. An intersexed individual may have biological
> characteristics of both the male and female sexes.[1] Intersexuality
> is the term adopted by medicine during the 20th century, applied to
> human beings whose biological sex cannot be classified as either male
> or female."
>
And yet they are classified by law.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexuality
>
>> and for an extra right just because you don't
>> like the opposite sex is *NOT* in the constitution.
>
> Neither is the right to abortion, the right to privacy, or any number
> of other things.
The 4th amendment gives "privacy" or at least it prohibits introusion
unless you have a warrant.
Abortion is a problem of the rights of the baby not being recognized by
the courts. Because when it comes to a right to not be inconvenienced,
that is less important than the "life/Death" of the baby.
Can I kill you because you inconvenience me?
>> But Polygamy gay
>> unions should also be able to have a union under the Gay ceremony.
>>
>> You have the same rights to create a ceremony but calling it marriage is
>> not an option.
>
> That's what the fight is about, and we will win. It's just a matter
> of time. You're swimming against a tide that has reversed itself.
As arrogant as Obama is aren't you just a typical Liberal narcissist.
Your 2% can try to force your whining little wants on the Nation and our
children, but you may be miss understanding support with tolerance.
You really aren't as special as your mommy tells you. Most
gays/lesbians I know, including the 20 something Lesbians I took out to
lunch last month, I notice are so "special" and think everything is
about them and they crave attention and I'm not so sure that many if not
most, just like the extra attention. Which returns to the basic theme,
that you have deeper problems than what's on the surface.
But I see it as no more different than Necrophilia or sadism or even
heterosexual pursuits. You really aren't special.