Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on June 26, 2015, 10:13:13 AM
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/26/supreme-court-gay-lesbian-marriage/28649319/
Gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states.
-
Here's hoping we can continue to argue about it while the country destroys itself fiscally and socialism gets furthered!
-
Let's use the precedent and push for all states to recognize each other's carry permits.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/26/supreme-court-gay-lesbian-marriage/28649319/
Gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states.
No surprise there, equal right for everyone.
One thing to expect is a lot more fanatical Republican candidates tanking elections for the GOP.
-
Federal hands on carry permit reciprocity is a bad, bad thing. Best to have States strike deals with each other, even if it take a while to get somewhere.
-
No surprise there, equal right for everyone.
What about polygamy ???
It's time we got serious about this equal rights thing :P
-
Let's use the precedent and push for all states to recognize each other's carry permits.
Lolz.. Yes lets standardize the length of chain that gets put on everyone's ankle.
-
Let's use the precedent and push for all states to recognize each other's carry permits.
This.
Federal hands on carry permit reciprocity is a bad, bad thing. Best to have States strike deals with each other, even if it take a while to get somewhere.
Not if it is done in the same manner as driver licenses and marriage licenses. Issued in one state, but valid in all.
-
This.
Not if it is done in the same manner as driver licenses and marriage licenses. Issued in one state, but valid in all.
This. Never sad anything about a federal CCW or getting the Feds involved. A CCW license issued in one state is valid in all states. Period. No fed licensing crap.
-
This. Never sad anything about a federal CCW or getting the Feds involved. A CCW license issued in one state is valid in all states. Period. No fed licensing crap.
Yeah, if everyone had to recognize Vermont Style Carry, you'd have a point, bit that isn't going to happen.
-
What about polygamy ???
It's time we got serious about this equal rights thing :P
I'm down with that.
-
Yeah, if everyone had to recognize Vermont Style Carry, you'd have a point, bit that isn't going to happen.
Yes. Vermont style carry nationwide is what I want, what we should already have. And yes, I agree with you that it will never happen....for several reasons that are all BS.
-
We have another Roe v. Wade, unjustly taking a contentious issue from the states, where it properly resided.
It's going to go just as well as that one, too.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/26/supreme-court-gay-lesbian-marriage/28649319/
Gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states.
Seen on the facebooks: "So much for keeping government out of the bedroom".
Another signpost on our way into the abyss. The crazy's coming fast and heavy lately.
-
We have another Roe v. Wade, unjustly taking a contentious issue from the states, where it properly resided.
It's going to go just as well as that one, too.
Oh, and I'll note that there is a proper way to get the federal government to force the states to grant government imprimatur to homosexual unions. It's called an amendment.
Having the SCOTUS decide that liberty means something because that's their preference is an extremely bad precedent.
Which, I suppose, is the perfect mate to yesterdays ruling that we live under the judgement of men, not law anymore. A marriage, even (definitely not made in heaven.)
-
What about polygamy ???
It's time we got serious about this equal rights thing :P
I don't see how it could be legally objected to after this. Same with incestuous unions.
-
What about polygamy ???
It's time we got serious about this equal rights thing :P
Why not, it's not for me, but I'm not going to pass judgment on those who want to participate. Consenting adults can do whatever.
-
Same with incestuous unions.
I guess as long as they are adults.
-
We have another Roe v. Wade, unjustly taking a contentious issue from the states, where it properly resided.
It's going to go just as well as that one, too.
Indeed.
Just another anti-human, dyscivic judgement handed down by SCOTUS. Don't expect folks to just sit around.
Here's hoping we can continue to argue about it while the country destroys itself fiscally and socialism gets furthered!
There is a positive correlation between social conservatism and economic liberty/anti-fascism of other sorts. There is a positive correlation between social liberalism and socialism/fascism. Kicking the socons to the curb is a fine way to ensure more socialism comes our way.
I don't see how it could be legally objected to after this. Same with incestuous unions.
Homosexual pseudo-marriage, polygamy, incest, pedophilia are all on the same continuum. What is absurd scare mongering today is policy tomorrow. Keep an eye on your kiddos, because the libertines surely are.
-
I don't see how it could be legally objected to after this. Same with incestuous unions.
Marrying a pair of sisters was my thought to get a couple of wives with only set of in laws. Now I just need to talk them into it by the time SCOTUS's next set of 'interpretations' comes around.
-
Marrying a pair of sisters was my thought to get a couple of wives with only set of in laws. Now I just need to talk them into it by the time SCOTUS's next set of 'interpretations' comes around.
My neighbor, back when he was an up & coming corporate cool-guy, was propositioned by a pair of sisters for a matrimonial relationship involving the three of them. Not sure if the gals were LDS or some offshoot. He was sorely tempted, but in the end got wierded out by the religion. Looking back on his choices in women to marry, he should have taken the deal.
-
What about polygamy ???
What about it? It's plenty traditional, and I have yet to see a coherent explanation of why it's bad. Sure, you get more in-laws, but it's not the job of the government to protect people from bad decisions.
-
Not sure if the gals were LDS or some offshoot.
Could be an offshoot, the actual Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not practiced plural marriage since the 1890s (it's now an excommunicable offense), which is also when the polygamous offshoots broke away. There are also a few other Christian and non-Christian sects that practice it, I believe.
-
From everything I've heard and read, there doesn't seem to be any legal wall to block polygamy at this point. I don't really care from the "minding my own business" standpoint and believing marriage should have nothing to do with government.
The problem with polygamy would be if, like with same sex marriage, the state forces employers to cover spouses on health care etc. In this case, spouses really is plural. That could cost business a lot of money.
The other legal battle that will likely ensue will be forcing churches to perform gay, poly, etc. marriages with the stick for not doing so being revocation of tax exempt status.
Equality =/= freedom.
-
The problem with polygamy would be if, like with same sex marriage, the state forces employers to cover spouses on health care etc. In this case, spouses really is plural. That could cost business a lot of money.
The other legal battle that will likely ensue will be forcing churches to perform gay, poly, etc. marriages with the stick for not doing so being revocation of tax exempt status.
This. I could care less about the gays getting married. I am more worried about stuff like churches and pastors being forced to perform marriages they do not want to.
-
The other legal battle that will likely ensue will be forcing churches to perform gay, poly, etc. marriages with the stick for not doing so being revocation of tax exempt status.
Equality =/= freedom.
Easy solution - stop giving out the marriage certificate in the church. If the church isn't giving out government documents, there is no reason whatsoever for the government to tell them what to do. A church that does not wish interference can simply perform ceremonies with no paperwork.This doesn't need to be a law, just a decision on the part of the church.
-
Easy solution - stop giving out the marriage certificate in the church. If the church isn't giving out government documents, there is no reason whatsoever for the government to tell them what to do. A church that does not wish interference can simply perform ceremonies with no paperwork.This doesn't need to be a law, just a decision on the part of the church.
Need to do what Germany does
http://germany.usembassy.gov/acs/getting_married/
-
What about it? It's plenty traditional, and I have yet to see a coherent explanation of why it's bad. Sure, you get more in-laws, but it's not the job of the government to protect people from bad decisions.
Nobody's keeping you from binding yourself to as many men or women or cabbages as you choose. But heaven forbid government not be involved in your kooky relationships.
-
Easy solution - stop giving out the marriage certificate in the church. If the church isn't giving out government documents, there is no reason whatsoever for the government to tell them what to do. A church that does not wish interference can simply perform ceremonies with no paperwork.This doesn't need to be a law, just a decision on the part of the church.
:lol: Tell that to your local baker.
-
:lol: Tell that to your local baker.
Exactly why this going through SCOTUS the way it did will be a problem (it doesn't need to be, but the same people who are banning the Confederate flag will make it one).
Again, given the gay / non-gay ratio in the population, I see it as a net loss of freedom.
-
So anyone got any leads on a good island? Unsettled small country sized block of land? Somewhere with easy to subjugate locals we could take over?
Cause I'm about tired of this *expletive deleted*it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
So anyone got any leads on a good island? Unsettled small country sized block of land? Somewhere with easy to subjugate locals we could take over?
The moon has a weight loss bonus.
-
Easy solution - stop giving out the marriage certificate in the church. If the church isn't giving out government documents, there is no reason whatsoever for the government to tell them what to do. A church that does not wish interference can simply perform ceremonies with no paperwork.This doesn't need to be a law, just a decision on the part of the church.
Easy solution in government?? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I predict churches who don't tow the sodomists' line on gay marriage will be sued within a year.
-
Easy solution in government?? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I predict churches who don't tow the sodomists' line on gay marriage will be sued within a year.
Exactly. The 1st amendment has been basically dissolved at the present time anyway.
-
Easy solution in government?? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I predict churches who don't tow the sodomists' line on gay marriage will be sued within a year.
Wouldn't be surprised. And I'll be interested to see how many church's will refuse, as they've said they would.
What I'd love to see is for a state to tell SCOTUS to go to hell and refuse to issue the licenses, in accordance with their laws/constitutions, on the basis that their ruling is a blatant overreach of federal authority.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
So a law restricting people,from doing something they otherwise would do is gone. Freedom is on the retreat?
-
Easy solution in government?? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I predict churches who don't tow the sodomists' line on gay marriage will be sued within a year.
The gays have long had that exact "easy solution". Nobody was withholding from them the freedom to do their own thing: they could've loved whoever they wanted, held their religious ceremonies, made their vows, lived and slept together, and called it whatever they wanted.
But that was never acceptable to them. The goal was to force people to agree with gay marriage. Letting gay people live their own lives and do their own thing doesn't serve that end.
Letting churches do their own thing doesn't serve that end, so don't expect that to be acceptable.
You will conform.
-
Wouldn't be surprised. And I'll be interested to see how many church's will refuse, as they've said they would.
What I'd love to see is for a state to tell SCOTUS to go to hell and refuse to issue the licenses, in accordance with their laws/constitutions, on the basis that their ruling is a blatant overreach of federal authority.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Me too. Love to see a State (s) tell SCOTUS pound sand.
-
So a law restricting people,from doing something they otherwise would do is gone. Freedom is on the retreat?
A law forcing people to do something they otherwise wouldn't do has been enacted. Freedom is on the retreat.
-
Need to do what Germany does
http://germany.usembassy.gov/acs/getting_married/
That's bassackwards. Of all the features of a marriage, a piece of paperwork signed by a government registrar would seem to be the least relevant.
If a couple does everything a marriage normally entails (wedding, vows, changing names, living together as a family, buying property, conceiving & raising kids, etc) except get that registrar's signoff, would anyone argue seriously that they aren't married?
But that registrar's signoff is the only factor German law considers?
And I suppose our law is no better.
-
This. I could care less about the gays getting married. I am more worried about stuff like churches and pastors being forced to perform marriages they do not want to.
Ditto.
Also, the SJWs are already fighting amongst themselves about this issue. Hilarious.
-
That's bassackwards. Of all the features of a marriage, a piece of paperwork signed by a government registrar would seem to be the least relevant.
If a couple does everything a marriage normally entails (wedding, vows, changing names, living together as a family, buying property, conceiving & raising kids, etc) except get that registrar's signoff, would anyone argue seriously that they aren't married?
But that registrar's signoff is the only factor German law considers?
And I suppose our law is no better.
Germany treats marriage/union as a legal contract, not a religious action.
-
Germany treats marriage/union as a legal contract, not a religious action.
For the most part, so do we.
-
So a law restricting people,from doing something they otherwise would do is gone. Freedom is on the retreat?
Where does the federal government have the authority tell states what marriage licenses they MUST issue? I don't care where one stands on pseudo marriage of folks of the same sex, the Feds and therefor SCOTUS, have no authority to dictate such.
States rights, and people's rights within states that choose not to issue marriage license to homosexuals, have been massively eroded. So yes, it's on the retreat.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Where does the federal government have the authority tell states what marriage licenses they MUST issue? I don't care where one stands on pseudo marriage of folks of the same sex, the Feds and therefor SCOTUS, have no authority to dictate such.
States rights, and people's rights within states that choose not to issue marriage license to homosexuals, have been massively eroded. So yes, it's on the retreat.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
States, like all governments, do not have rights. They have powers.
Individuals have rights.
-
States, like all governments, do not have rights. They have powers.
Individuals have rights.
And that makes any difference to the point....how exactly?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
For the most part, so do we.
Why do you say that?
-
Many, Many, Many Americans get married without involving a church at all.
Even those that do involve a church, make sure they conform to the secular requirements. An American marriage license doesn't have a spot for which church married them, nor does it have a spot for the churches approval/disapproval.
If you were to look at the documents of a married couple you would be hard pressed to know their religion, but would know the government entity that approved it down to the county level.
[snark on] and 50% of them dissolve with the assistance of lawyers.[/snark]
How is that not more like a contract?
-
Germany treats marriage/union as a legal contract, not a religious action.
And that should be the extent of government involvement; recognizing the contract and potentially mediating disputes when it is dissolved.
-
Many, Many, Many Americans get married without involving a church at all.
Even those that do involve a church, make sure they conform to the secular requirements. An American marriage license doesn't have a spot for which church married them, nor does it have a spot for the churches approval/disapproval.
If you were to look at the documents of a married couple you would be hard pressed to know their religion, but would know the government entity that approved it down to the county level.
[snark on] and 50% of them dissolve with the assistance of lawyers.[/snark]
How is that not more like a contract?
That looks like a false dichotomy of either govt or church, and if it's not a religious ceremony, it's all government's territory. I think you're leaving out the very large part that personal, familial, and social motives play in marriage vows. For example, as a religious person, part of my reluctance to divorcing my wife would be the fact that I gave my word to God that I would "have and hold for better or worse," etc. But I've never heard of anybody saying, "Hey, Jim, how can you do this? You swore to the justice of the peace that you would love her always in sickness and in health, and now you're just blowing it all off?". If we're offended about someone leaving their spouse, it's usually because the spouse is terminally ill, or because we think they should stay together for the children, that sort of thing.* The government is just a functionary that keeps the records, and demands some i's be dotted before the arrangement is done away with.
*My point is not that people should stay together for their children. I'm not looking to start that stupid debate.
-
That looks like a false dichotomy of either govt or church, and if it's not a religious ceremony, it's all government's territory. I think you're leaving out the very large part that personal, familial, and social motives play in marriage vows.
Indeed. Marriage isn't a government thing. Whether you said your vows on the courthouse steps or your favorite church, you aren't married because the government said you are, you're married because YOU said you are.
-
Easy solution in government?? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I predict churches who don't tow the sodomists' line on gay marriage will be sued within a year in less than 60 days.
FTFY
-
Next: ban straight marriage because it makes the Gaze feel bad ???
-
Next: ban straight marriage because it makes the Gaze feel bad ???
Thinking about it, the notion doesn't sound all that far fetched anymore.
-
Many, Many, Many Americans get married without involving a church at all.
Even those that do involve a church, make sure they conform to the secular requirements. An American marriage license doesn't have a spot for which church married them, nor does it have a spot for the churches approval/disapproval.
If you were to look at the documents of a married couple you would be hard pressed to know their religion, but would know the government entity that approved it down to the county level.
[snark on] and 50% of them dissolve with the assistance of lawyers.[/snark]
How is that not more like a contract?
Ah, can one marry in a church, without involving the state at all?
I recall, when we married, before things broke up the minister called us over to finish up "the real form" that he would at some point deliver to the courthouse.
-
So a law restricting people,from doing something they otherwise would do is gone. Freedom is on the retreat?
:facepalm:
IIRC Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the problem with "Roe vs. Wade" was that SCOTUS usurped powers that ought to belong to the state and thus prevented society from resolving the problem of abortion.
This court decision has done the same with regards to Gay Marriage.
Gays constitute maybe 1-2% of society. I tend to think this is more serious in principle than in fact.
But, that principle is still important and someday it will come up and bite society on the butt in a far more important manner.
The U.S. Constitution says nothing about marriage. It is not a power vested in the federal government in the legislative, executive, or judicial sections, therefor it is a power reserved to the states, or to the people.
-
:facepalm:
IIRC Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the problem with "Roe vs. Wade" was that SCOTUS usurped powers that ought to belong to the state and thus prevented society from resolving the problem of abortion.
This court decision has done the same with regards to Gay Marriage.
Gays constitute maybe 1-2% of society. I tend to think this is more serious in principle than in fact.
But, that principle is still important and someday it will come up and bite society on the butt in a far more important manner.
The U.S. Constitution says nothing about marriage. It is not a power vested in the federal government in the legislative, executive, or judicial sections, therefor it is a power reserved to the states, or to the people.
Yeah that
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
More Orwellian silliness from an organ of government.
Words have meaning and marriage is what marriage is, regardless of stupid court rulings.
Considering that homosexuals are such a small percentage of the population and that only a small percentage of them want to participate in the now legal charade I'm not really worried about this whole issue.
On a side note a lot of "gay marriages" are "open" marriages with no children. That is not a marriage :facepalm:
-
That looks like a false dichotomy of either govt or church, and if it's not a religious ceremony, it's all government's territory. I think you're leaving out the very large part that personal, familial, and social motives play in marriage vows. For example, as a religious person, part of my reluctance to divorcing my wife would be the fact that I gave my word to God that I would "have and hold for better or worse," etc. But I've never heard of anybody saying, "Hey, Jim, how can you do this? You swore to the justice of the peace that you would love her always in sickness and in health, and now you're just blowing it all off?". If we're offended about someone leaving their spouse, it's usually because the spouse is terminally ill, or because we think they should stay together for the children, that sort of thing.* The government is just a functionary that keeps the records, and demands some i's be dotted before the arrangement is done away with.
We might be talking past each other. The Government should (and does, mostly) treat marriages as a contract. I'm certain that plenty of folks in Germany have deeper, and even religious, aspects to their marriages. But the statement was "Germany treats marriage as a legal contract" I took that to mean, the government entity that is "Germany". Any other reading doesn't make sense. Germany is not a nation of loveless athiests, of course the individuals invest any amount of deeper meaning into their marriages.
Pretty much how we do it here.
*Also FWIW no one swears to the justice of the peace. The vows (including yours) are to your god(s) and your spouse.
-
More Orwellian silliness from an organ of government.
Words have meaning and marriage is what marriage is, regardless of stupid court rulings.
Considering that homosexuals are such a small percentage of the population and that only a small percentage of them want to participate in the now legal charade I'm not really worried about this whole issue.
On a side note a lot of "gay marriages" are "open" marriages with no children. That is not a marriage :facepalm:
Probably the same number of open marriages without children on the straight side.
Seriously, can you guys ever discuss gays without bringing out a whole lot of stupid, irrelevant and judgemental crap?
If no one is going to do the smart thing and seriously work at getting rid of state certified marriage, than gay marriage is on the table. If straight marriages preformed in one state are recognized in all the others, than this is fair.
Marriage may not have been a part of SCOTUS's oversight before, but, thanks to this kerfuffle, it is now. So suck it up and deal.
-
Probably the same number of open marriages without children on the straight side.
Seriously, can you guys ever discuss gays without bringing out a whole lot of stupid, irrelevant and judgemental crap?
If no one is going to do the smart thing and seriously work at getting rid of state certified marriage, than gay marriage is on the table. If straight marriages preformed in one state are recognized in all the others, than this is fair.
Marriage may not have been a part of SCOTUS's oversight before, but, thanks to this kerfuffle, it is now. So suck it up and deal.
Not even close.
-
Probably the same number of open marriages without children on the straight side.
Seriously, can you guys ever discuss gays without bringing out a whole lot of stupid, irrelevant and judgemental crap?
If no one is going to do the smart thing and seriously work at getting rid of state certified marriage, than gay marriage is on the table. If straight marriages preformed in one state are recognized in all the others, than this is fair.
Marriage may not have been a part of SCOTUS's oversight before, but, thanks to this kerfuffle, it is now. So suck it up and deal.
Can you ever discuss gay issues without getting butt hurt?
The federal government has zero legally authority to regulate marriage. Not one damn bit of authority to do so. The only legally correct move here would have been to knock it down as a power reserved to the states and to the people of those states. Instead, they took it upon themselves to grant yet another level of authority to the federal government. Good job.
It's not about ones personal views on what some consenting adults want to do. My personal beliefs are what they are, their beliefs are what theirs are. If they want to legalize it then do it through the proper channels instead of judicial activism. THAT is what the bulk of the problem here is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The federal government has zero legally authority to regulate marriage. Not one damn bit of authority to do so. The only legally correct move here would have been to knock it down as a power reserved to the states and to the people of those states. Instead, they took it upon themselves to grant yet another level of authority to the federal government. Good job.
There is precedent on the books that SCOTUS can rule on marriage, and no one was really screaming for that to be overturned prior to 2010. It's also pretty well known that SCOTUS HATES reversing an earlier SCOTUS decision. They will, but it takes a lot. I'm not sure what everyone really expected here.
I'm not disagreeing that I'd like the state out of my relationship altogether, but that was a pipe dream.
-
Oh I'm not saying I was holding my breath that they'd pass over a chance to screw with powers that should be reserved for the states.
But that doesn't mean I firmly believe it would have been the correct ruling.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It's worth remembering that this particular power was usurped by fed.gov in 1862, and by SCOTUS in 1967.
-
Probably the same number of open marriages without children on the straight side.
Seriously, can you guys ever discuss gays without bringing out a whole lot of stupid, irrelevant and judgemental crap?
If no one is going to do the smart thing and seriously work at getting rid of state certified marriage, than gay marriage is on the table. If straight marriages preformed in one state are recognized in all the others, than this is fair.
Marriage may not have been a part of SCOTUS's oversight before, but, thanks to this kerfuffle, it is now. So suck it up and deal.
LOL, Orwellian doublethinkers get all riled up when you point out that they are saying; that which is not, is, or that which is, is not.
Marriage is a man/woman arrangement to connect and grow families. Since recorded history.
My point was that a percentage of "gay marriages" are sham marriages for political or other purposes and don't even fit into any concept of marriage.
You suck it up and deal with your own irrational thoughts ;)
-
Ah, can one marry in a church, without involving the state at all?
I recall, when we married, before things broke up the minister called us over to finish up "the real form" that he would at some point deliver to the courthouse.
Many churches take the whole "Obey the civil authorities placed over you" thing seriously, so I would assume it's almost always going to be a get both scenario.
-
Ah, can one marry in a church, without involving the state at all?
I recall, when we married, before things broke up the minister called us over to finish up "the real form" that he would at some point deliver to the courthouse.
I missed this. IM (limited)E, Yes. But generally not Christian ones.
-
The federal government has zero legally authority to regulate marriage. Not one damn bit of authority to do so.
Yeah, they do. The 14th's relevant bit:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It doesn't take a very fancy reading of the 14th to find the fed's ability to jack their way into marriage. It's not a new thing either. That same clause keeps states form preventing interracial marriages.
This wasn't much of a debatable issue in the judicial circles. When reading the opinion of the 6th circuit that upheld's Michigan's ban and finally gave the SCOTUS a split their opinion was little more than "Meh, tossing this up. It's not our place to overturn the will of the people but we know it'll happen eventually anyway so we're punting. Here's the split you needed to shut this crap up."
-
LOL, Orwellian doublethinkers get all riled up when you point out that they are saying; that which is not, is, or that which is, is not.
Marriage is a man/woman arrangement to connect and grow families. Since recorded history.
My point was that a percentage of "gay marriages" are sham marriages for political or other purposes and don't even fit into any concept of marriage.
You suck it up and deal with your own irrational thoughts ;)
So, I'm guessing you're totally in support of legalizing polyogomy than. :angel:
Hate to burst your bubble, but "Marriage" has been a lot of things in the course of recorded human history, many of which don't fall in line with your little, narrow definition.
Get over it, move on.
The 14th clears the way for Federal decisions on marriage. It's within the scope. Instead of whinging because "omg! Gays married is not right!!!" and hiding behind BS "historical fact" maybe try to think up a way this could be used to our benefit. The 14th could be handy to those of us who want some things recognized nationally.
-
Many churches take the whole "Obey the civil authorities placed over you" thing seriously, so I would assume it's almost always going to be a get both scenario.
I have heard that principle in my Church with the exception of laws that conflict with the Word. A guest pastor I heard predicted 10 years or so ago that the SC would legalize it based on the 14th Amendment. His concern then and now was that he thought gay marriage was against Biblical teaching and he would refuse to do it. How many Churches and pastors will compromise I don't know. Many Churches have compromised on quite a bit these days so it would not surprise me to see it.
As far as bluestarlizzard's comment, I agree that heterosexuals have been walking all over the sanctity of marriage for quite some time now. I find myself not caring what homosexuals do if they keep it to themselves. It is what they might try to legally force me to do that I am concerned about. Considering their motivations with this, I think there will be plenty of homosexual activists pushing the limits even further.
-
On the other hand, we will soon have the new Reality TV Gay Divorce Court!!!!
-
So, I'm guessing you're totally in support of legalizing polyogomy than. :angel:
Hate to burst your bubble, but "Marriage" has been a lot of things in the course of recorded human history, many of which don't fall in line with your little, narrow definition.
Get over it, move on.
The 14th clears the way for Federal decisions on marriage. It's within the scope. Instead of whinging because "omg! Gays married is not right!!!" and hiding behind BS "historical fact" maybe try to think up a way this could be used to our benefit. The 14th could be handy to those of us who want some things recognized nationally.
A polygamous marriage is in fact a marriage. It is also discouraged in Christianity but that is another discussion.
Words have meanings and are defined by usage (which can change over time).
We are being commanded by government to accept the new definition and start using it, or else. Nothing organic taking place here, just a power move.
Your hyperventilation's and attempts at shaming me show the emptiness of your non-arguments. That is the common tactic of the leftists to compensate for the lack of historical or reasoned arguments. Attacks, shaming, ostracize all in place of an actual reasoned position.
If you have a more historical definition than what I provided please enlighten us.
Otherwise cut out the crap and argue the position. Don't try and bait me into personal attacks because your moral/historical position is weak.
Marriage is a man/woman arrangement to connect and grow families.
A little clunky due to being written on the fly but true nonetheless.
-
As a side note, the libertarian me is in somber, reluctant agreement with SCOTUS on this one, but I still cringe. When there are closely held principles in conflict, I defer to the 9th Amendment. Not all of the rights we have are enumerated in the Constitution. "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." It is not seemly to deny people the right to make the wrong choice. Otherwise, they are not free at all.
Otoh...
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice will not sleep forever".
Off to check quotes.
Minor edit to punctuation. I didn't realize that BOTH of those were from TJ.
-
My moral and historical argument is not weak. You just refuse to pay attention to it.
And I'm just not going around and around and around on the subject, again.
Marriage is a social construct, not a scientifically established fact. It's a social construct that changes to meet the needs and wishes of society. It's changed many times in the past, and it will continue to change in the future, regardless of your opinion. You live in a society in which majority rules. Hate to tell you this, but the majority either supports gay marriage or doesn't care about it, supporting it by default.
Gay marriage is in and it's here to stay. The 14th amendment covers this. It's covered marriage before.
And, FWIW, the whole personal attacks thing? Yeah, if your talk the talk, walk the walk. I told you to stop whining and asked why you had to bring up a salacious "factoid" about "gay" marriage. You sit and accuse me of not making any reasoned arguments and being all emotional like a leftist.
Who's exactly is bringing the personal attacks instead of arguing the facts?
-
As a side note, the libertarian me is in somber, reluctant agreement with SCOTUS on this one, but I still cringe. When there are closely held principles in conflict, I defer to the 9th Amendment. Not all of the rights we have are enumerated in the Constitution. "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." It is not seemly to deny people the right to make the wrong choice. Otherwise, they are not free at all.
Otoh...
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and His justice will not sleep forever".
Off to check quotes.
I applaud your ability to sepperate your personal beliefs on the subject and your political viewpoints.
I really don't understand why other people can't. =|
-
I applaud your ability to sepperate your personal beliefs on the subject and your political viewpoints.
I really don't understand why other people can't. =|
None of them have my stoic, Spockian wisdom... =D
-
I disagree on the 14th. That shouldn't open the door. Does it? As applied sure, but so does the commerce clause on many issues and that works out so well.
This has nothing to do with my view of homosexuals, it's not my business whose fiddle people wanna diddle. What I do have issue with is judicial activism forcing every state in the country to do something that is outside of their powers.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
From everything I've heard and read, there doesn't seem to be any legal wall to block polygamy at this point. I don't really care from the "minding my own business" standpoint and believing marriage should have nothing to do with government.
The problem with polygamy would be if, like with same sex marriage, the state forces employers to cover spouses on health care etc. In this case, spouses really is plural. That could cost business a lot of money.
The other legal battle that will likely ensue will be forcing churches to perform gay, poly, etc. marriages with the stick for not doing so being revocation of tax exempt status.
Equality =/= freedom.
Not really much of a threat to our little church; we've been losing money for years. There's nothing to tax.
-
The problem with polygamy would be if, like with same sex marriage, the state forces employers to cover spouses on health care etc. In this case, spouses really is plural. That could cost business a lot of money.
I initially thought this reasonable.
Then I remembered how my spouse right now is not at all covered by the insurance my employer gives me. (I am paying the Obamacare penalties). I could get coverage thorough the employer, but I would have to pay for it, more than I can afford.
If they are not forced to cover her right now, why would they be forced to cover any other spouses?
-
Seriously, can you guys ever discuss gays without bringing out a whole lot of stupid, irrelevant and judgemental crap?
I agree. This has been a major problem with the pro-marriage, pro-reason side all along. We should have simply said that marriage requires both sexes; no moral judgments required. It is what it is.
I applaud your ability to sepperate your personal beliefs on the subject and your political viewpoints.
I really don't understand why other people can't. =|
Marriage is a social construct, not a scientifically established fact. It's a social construct that changes to meet the needs and wishes of society. It's changed many times in the past, and it will continue to change in the future, regardless of your opinion....Gay marriage is in and it's here to stay.
Not exactly keeping your personal beliefs out of it, there.
As a side note, the libertarian me is in somber, reluctant agreement with SCOTUS on this one, but I still cringe. When there are closely held principles in conflict, I defer to the 9th Amendment. Not all of the rights we have are enumerated in the Constitution. "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." It is not seemly to deny people the right to make the wrong choice. Otherwise, they are not free at all.
Your inner libertarian is confused. Homosexuals were already free to make the wrong choice, but now your inner libertarian is forcing state governments to validate their private behavior. Not so libertarian after all.
-
"Hey, you breeders, I reject your traditional morality! Stay out of my bedroom!"
"Oh, and by the way, I demand that your tradition of marriage include me! Get me a license for what I do in my bedroom!"
-
"Hey, you breeders, I reject your traditional morality! Stay out of my bedroom!"
"Oh, and by the way, I demand that your tradition of marriage include me! Get me a license for what I do in my bedroom!"
Cue stop-motion video of LawDog's gun control cake under consumption. =(
-
It took one day
It's time to legalize polygamy-Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html?hp=r4_4#.VY4Gtc9VhHw
-
I initially thought this reasonable.
Then I remembered how my spouse right now is not at all covered by the insurance my employer gives me. (I am paying the Obamacare penalties). I could get coverage thorough the employer, but I would have to pay for it, more than I can afford.
If they are not forced to cover her right now, why would they be forced to cover any other spouses?
I suppose it would be employer specific (though that could always change as well). I was just supposing that if an employer covered a spouse, they could be forced to cover all spouses.
Again, just from my POV, I could care less if someone has 1 or 100 spouses as long as taxpayers and others are not forced to do anything special because of it. This is one of my main problems with the ruling. It's being called a "right" and it is not. If I exercise my 2nd amendment rights, it doesn't affect anyone else's freedoms. This ruling has great potential to do so because it is based on force of law versus a natural right.
-
Cue stop-motion video of LawDog's gun control cake under consumption. =(
I had to look that one up. "Anime eyes." :laugh:
-
After eviscerating the constitution the High Priests of the Supreme Court have been able to read the long hidden intent of the founders in the still steaming entrails.
-
Marriage is a social construct, not a scientifically established fact.
I can't argue with that. Since men in the wild naturally want to bang as many women as possible, "marriage" is a construct enforced by religious/legal means to protect women who are biologically tasked with bearing and raising children.
So I am totally mystified as to why same sex couples would even want to entangle themselves in such an institution ???
The state ought to get out of the "marriage" business altogether. Write up any sort of contract that you want, have it notarized, and file it away in a drawer. Take it to court if one party doesn't fulfill his/her/their promise(s). If you want to get "married" go to the church/coven/etc of your choice and do whatever they do. Why anyone would want to get "married" in a church whose faith they don't believe in is beyond me =|
-
I can't argue with that. Since men in the wild naturally want to bang as many women as possible, "marriage" is a construct enforced by religious/legal means to protect women who are biologically tasked with bearing and raising children.
So I am totally mystified as to why same sex couples would even want to entangle themselves in such an institution ???
The state ought to get out of the "marriage" business altogether. Write up any sort of contract that you want, have it notarized, and file it away in a drawer. Take it to court if one party doesn't fulfill his/her/their promise(s). If you want to get "married" go to the church/coven/etc of your choice and do whatever they do. Why anyone would want to get "married" in a church whose faith they don't believe in is beyond me =|
Because it has nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with liberals doing precisely what they accuse the religious of. Forcing others, through legal action or otherwise, to capitulate to their beliefs.
It hasn't been about love or marriage for some time
-
As soon as children enter the picture or one of the "contractors" dies, the nation (and this the gov't) has a stake. Can not wave that away with gassy libertarian prattle about contracts.
Because it has nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with liberals doing precisely what they accuse the religious of. Forcing others, through legal action or otherwise, to capitulate to their beliefs.
It hasn't been about love or marriage for some time
Plus, they get to rub regular people's noses in the feces of their culture.
-
Its amazing to watch how such a small population makes everyone dance
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
-
Its amazing to watch how such a small population makes everyone dance
Eventually the dance ends and it is time to pay the piper. I, for one, am keeping an itemized bill.
-
YEEhaw! This side-effect of the gay marriage ruling will make liberals EXPLODE
http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/yeehaw-this-side-effect-of-the-gay-marriage-ruling-will-make-liberals-explode/ (http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/yeehaw-this-side-effect-of-the-gay-marriage-ruling-will-make-liberals-explode/)
-
Quote from: White Horseradish on June 26, 2015, 08:54:39 AM
Easy solution - stop giving out the marriage certificate in the church. If the church isn't giving out government documents, there is no reason whatsoever for the government to tell them what to do. A church that does not wish interference can simply perform ceremonies with no paperwork.This doesn't need to be a law, just a decision on the part of the church.
Tell that to your local baker.
The baker could post prominent signs quoting scripture passages related to marriage being between a man and a woman. The immediate boycott would take care of the unwanted customers. If they still insist on a cake, nobody says they have to stock Adam and Steve toppers, nor does it have to be their best work.
-
YEEhaw! This side-effect of the gay marriage ruling will make liberals EXPLODE
http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/yeehaw-this-side-effect-of-the-gay-marriage-ruling-will-make-liberals-explode/ (http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/yeehaw-this-side-effect-of-the-gay-marriage-ruling-will-make-liberals-explode/)
It will certainly be an interesting argument to follow. Also, I'd love to see one of the more prominent 2nd amendment activists that have their legal people on retainer test this theory by carrying someplace like CA, NYC, or DC.
-
I agree. This has been a major problem with the pro-marriage, pro-reason side all along. We should have simply said that marriage requires both sexes; no moral judgments required. It is what it is.
Not exactly keeping your personal beliefs out of it, there.
Your inner libertarian is confused. Homosexuals were already free to make the wrong choice, but now your inner libertarian is forcing state governments to validate their private behavior. Not so libertarian after all.
I'm actually laughing since your example of a "personal belief" is not actually a personal anything. It's about all the fact one can get in regards to what marriage is. Social construct defined by the society using it.
Furthermore, my libertarian nature isn't confused at all. My libertarian nature is screaming "why can't we just have the government stop licensing marriage!?!"
But nobody wants to the intelligent thing, so we are stuck with this really, really, really stupid fight (<-- there is your personal belief, fistful, for future reference)
If .gov is handing out marriage licenses, than they have to hand them out to everyone. All consenting adults. Straight marriage, interracial marriage, gay marriage, plural marriage, incestual marriage (which grosses me the *expletive deleted*ck out, but consenting adults and i don't think they should be allowed to have biological children)
It's not about what you think marriage should be. It's not about what I think marriage should be. It's just the nature of this beast.
Second, the 14th does cover this. Yes, it probably covers a lot more than we'd like these days, and yes, that does screw employers who have to give health insurance to spouses. The US is both a lot bigger and a lot smaller than it was when that clause was written. People move from state to state. Communication from state to state happens in the blink of an eye. Our country is becoming more and more homogeneous. Which means more rights not explicitly covered (9th) are more relevant on a federal level (14th)
If marriage is a "right" than it's a federal issue. If marriage isn't a "right", well, than, go for that argument. Good luck. It didn't work with healthcare, and marriage as a right is even more easy to push than flipping healthcare.
As far as people getting screwed. Ha-ha! Welcome to the problems inherent in having the government define marriage.
-
So I am totally mystified as to why same sex couples would even want to entangle themselves in such an institution ???
I expect we will see very few gay marriages mirages.
The state ought to get out of the "marriage" business altogether. Write up any sort of contract that you want, have it notarized, and file it away in a drawer. Take it to court if one party doesn't fulfill his/her/their promise(s). If you want to get "married" go to the church/coven/etc of your choice and do whatever they do. Why anyone would want to get "married" in a church whose faith they don't believe in is beyond me =|
Church issued baptismal certificates are documents that can be used for legal purposes.
-
YEEhaw! This side-effect of the gay marriage ruling will make liberals EXPLODE
http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/yeehaw-this-side-effect-of-the-gay-marriage-ruling-will-make-liberals-explode/ (http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/yeehaw-this-side-effect-of-the-gay-marriage-ruling-will-make-liberals-explode/)
The national reciprocity thing? They'll find a way to weasel out of it. Or it will take 30 years of litigation to acomplish.
-
Tell that to your local baker.
The baker could post prominent signs quoting scripture passages related to marriage being between a man and a woman.
"Illegal H8 speech!"
The immediate boycott would take care of the unwanted customers. If they still insist on a cake, nobody says they have to stock Adam and Steve toppers, nor does it have to be their best work.
-
I expect we will see very few gay marriages mirages.
Church issued baptismal certificates are documents that can be used for legal purposes.
What legal purposes? And why?
-
It will certainly be an interesting argument to follow. Also, I'd love to see one of the more prominent 2nd amendment activists that have their legal people on retainer test this theory by carrying someplace like CA, NYC, or DC.
Nah, that's not the way it works. We're being ruled by the arbitrary whims of whoever holds power. Words are twisted however they need to serve their goals.
They don't want national reciprocity. They'll twist and rationalize any way they need to justify denying national reciprocity.
-
:facepalm:
The U.S. Constitution says nothing about marriage. It is not a power vested in the federal government in the legislative, executive, or judicial sections, therefor it is a power reserved to the states, or to the people.
The Constitution has not been obeyed by the legislature, the executive or the judicial for quite a long time now. All three entities have usurped the powers reserved to the states and the people continually over the last 5 decades and longer. It's been sped up over the last 20 years.
-
YEEhaw! This side-effect of the gay marriage ruling will make liberals EXPLODE
http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/yeehaw-this-side-effect-of-the-gay-marriage-ruling-will-make-liberals-explode/ (http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/yeehaw-this-side-effect-of-the-gay-marriage-ruling-will-make-liberals-explode/)
Yeah, no.
Go ahead and see if your license keeps you out of prison in New Jersey.
if you are looking for scotus to make logical and cobsistent rulings, you are barking up the wrong tree.
-
At least one member of the clergy is seeing the funny side:
https://whitewatercrossing.org/ive-decided-to-marry-bacon/#more-7280
-
At least one member of the clergy is seeing the funny side:
https://whitewatercrossing.org/ive-decided-to-marry-bacon/#more-7280
Finally coming out of the smokehouse :cool:
-
#LoveWins even in the Middle East.
https://twitter.com/Raqqa_Sl/status/614534534449623045
#Syria #ISIS Executed a gay man in #DirZour by throwing him from High building in front of the people #LoveWins #IS
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/06/isis-celebrates-lovewins-by-tossing-4-gays-from-roof-of-building/
A different sort of rainbow symbolism:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fisis-building-gay-575x366.jpg&hash=72c5ed529d4c0f12e29c31a5cfc97e346492a5f6)
I think that the libertines are going to regret undermining Christianity at some time in the not too distant future as the vacuum is filled by other belief systems.
-
I'm actually laughing since your example of a "personal belief" is not actually a personal anything. It's about all the fact one can get in regards to what marriage is. Social construct defined by the society using it.
Even there, your personal opinion is out of the closet, and flamboyantly evident. :P
At least, in your previous post, if you had stopped with "marriage is a social construct," you would have just stated a fact. Maybe that's why I quoted more than just that factual statement. Did you not consider that?
Marriage is a social construct, not a scientifically established fact. It's a social construct that changes to meet the needs and wishes of society. It's changed many times in the past, and it will continue to change in the future, regardless of your opinion....Gay marriage is in and it's here to stay.
I won't bother with the "here to stay" part, though it seems like a pretty big contradiction to idea that marriage changes. But leaving that aside, your personal opinion is that marriage can change so that it excludes one of the sexes, and furthermore that the change we've seen in marriage recently is due to the changing "needs and wishes of society." Also, your definition seems to suggest that no other definition of marriage could be considered. Those are the personal opinions to which I referred. So...
Firstly, let's understand our own objectivity, or lack of it. Secondly, I find your wax nose view of marriage to be so out of control, that you have the nose off of the face, and not really being a nose anymore. Though I suppose you might also quibble about the definition of "nose." As for marriage changing along with the needs and wishes of society - well - that's obviously not been allowed to happen here, has it?
Furthermore, my libertarian nature isn't confused at all. My libertarian nature is screaming "why can't we just have the government stop licensing marriage!?!"
But nobody wants to the intelligent thing...
The intelligent thing would be to dismiss your absurd ideas out of hand, as the social justice warrior babble it has always been. It hurts, but it's true.
, so we are stuck with this really, really, really stupid fight
Which was started by your side of the argument.
If .gov is handing out marriage licenses, than they have to hand them out to everyone.
What happened to marriage just being something that meets the needs of society? You realize you're argument justifies antimiscegenation laws just as much as same-sex marriage, right? No, I don't think you do.
As far as people getting screwed. Ha-ha! Welcome to the problems inherent in having the government define marriage.
You mean, having the government undefine marriage, as it just did. Thanks, Liz and company. Thanks so much.
-
How does supporting gay marriage entail in any way bans on interracial marriage??
Marriage has for a good century now been an institution that serves individuals. It allows them to treat their partners property and person in many respects as their own. Prohibiting gay marriage denied that option to people on the basis of their chosen sexual/love partners. That's why it went down in flames - if you're going to give couples a legal leg up on life decisions and basic economic choices, you have to extend it to all couples.
Does this mean polygamy may someday be legal? Probably. And other than one religion's book, what's the reason it shouldn't be?
The bible (or more properly, beliefs about the bible which bear little to no relationship to its authors' beliefs) is/are not a sound basis for law making. The framers didn't write canonical laws into the constitution for a reason - many of them weren't even Christian. You don't have to be a Christian to enjoy rights.
-
How does supporting gay marriage entail in any way bans on interracial marriage??
Marriage has for a good century now been an institution that serves individuals. It allows them to treat their partners property and person in many respects as their own. Prohibiting gay marriage denied that option to people on the basis of their chosen sexual/love partners. That's why it went down in flames - if you're going to give couples a legal leg up on life decisions and basic economic choices, you have to extend it to all couples.
Does this mean polygamy may someday be legal? Probably. And other than one religion's book, what's the reason it shouldn't be?
The bible (or more properly, beliefs about the bible which bear little to no relationship to its authors' beliefs) is/are not a sound basis for law making. The framers didn't write canonical laws into the constitution for a reason - many of them weren't even Christian. You don't have to be a Christian to enjoy rights.
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.
-
How does supporting gay marriage entail in any way bans on interracial marriage??
Marriage has for a good century now been an institution that serves individuals. It allows them to treat their partners property and person in many respects as their own. Prohibiting gay marriage denied that option to people on the basis of their chosen sexual/love partners. That's why it went down in flames - if you're going to give couples a legal leg up on life decisions and basic economic choices, you have to extend it to all couples.
Does this mean polygamy may someday be legal? Probably. And other than one religion's book, what's the reason it shouldn't be?
The bible (or more properly, beliefs about the bible which bear little to no relationship to its authors' beliefs) is/are not a sound basis for law making. The framers didn't write canonical laws into the constitution for a reason - many of them weren't even Christian. You don't have to be a Christian to enjoy rights.
Heretic! Marriage is traditional!
I can't believe I'm saying this.....I agree with DS for once.
You mean, having the government undefine marriage, as it just did. Thanks, Liz and company. Thanks so much.
The problem ultimately is that we ever let government define marriage at all. Marriage is ultimately a religious concept. When you get government involved, it becomes inherently secular.
So much wailing and gnashing of teeth, as if this ruling somehow invalidates the religious marriages many undertake as part of their belief system under their god.
-
So much wailing and gnashing of teeth, as if this ruling somehow invalidates the religious marriages many undertake as part of their belief system under their god.
Oh, hey, this canard! It's a fun one.
As I've responded to this one before: homosexuals getting married does not affect my marriage at all. Just as the TPP, abortion, ISIS, and the Export-Import bank have no effect on my marriage.
My positions on all of these have to do with the well-being of the country, not my marriage.
-
Since I'm not a county clerk, baker, or preacher, I guess it doesn't affect me - yet =|
-
How does supporting gay marriage entail in any way bans on interracial marriage??
Never said it did, obviously. Go back to what Liz said - marriage is a social construct that changes according to society's needs and wishes. So she can't object to any marriage laws, except on utilitarian grounds. If she really believed her own argument, she'd be OK with anti-miscegenation laws, if that's what people felt was best. She would also be OK with states democratically declining to recognize same-sex marriage, as many have done.
Marriage has for a good century now been an institution that serves individuals. It allows them to treat their partners property and person in many respects as their own. Prohibiting gay marriage denied that option to people on the basis of their chosen sexual/love partners. That's why it went down in flames - if you're going to give couples a legal leg up on life decisions and basic economic choices, you have to extend it to all couples.
Well, yeah, if you've already decided to redefine marriage as just any two humans, regardless of sex. But that makes no sense.
The bible (or more properly, beliefs about the bible which bear little to no relationship to its authors' beliefs) is/are not a sound basis for law making. The framers didn't write canonical laws into the constitution for a reason - many of them weren't even Christian. You don't have to be a Christian to enjoy rights.
This stupid argument again. Because teh geyz were tying the knots right and left, before teh Christianz took over, and changed every marriage tradition in the entire world, retroactively, so that marriage was always heterosexual from the beginning of time. Those sneaky little Christians.
-
The problem ultimately is that we ever let government define marriage at all. Marriage is ultimately a religious concept. When you get government involved, it becomes inherently secular.
Liz, straighten this guy out, would ya? Marriage is just an endlessly malleable social construct, that the state defines at will.
-
Let us all celebrate the gay community finally getting the government out of their bedrooms and relationships by formally being allowed to have the government as a legal party to their relationships. :rofl:
Once a society rejects the concept of objective truth the descent into absurdity is inevitable.
More and more it will be seen that the real goal here is the destruction of historical institutions that don't fit the cultural Marxist agenda. That would be any institution that attempts to hold to tradition or any concept of objective truth.
This isn't being driven by love for or by homosexuals but by hatred; hatred of traditional American culture and particularly hatred of conservative American Christianity. Tolerance of homosexuality was achieved decades ago and the gay community in whole has experienced greater economic success in America than the average. They won that battle a long time ago. This is something different.
Tolerance of the gay lifestyle it appears was never the goal, acceptance wasn't even good enough. We must celebrate, we must confess that it is on par or even more enlightened than mere heterosexuality. If you refuse to confess its equality or superiority to traditional morality you will be attacked and destroyed.
This will be another cudgel used to attack the freedom of religion, otherwise known as freedom of conscience.
-
Let us all celebrate the gay community finally getting the government out of their bedrooms and relationships by formally being allowed to have the government as a legal party to their relationships. :rofl:
Once a society rejects the concept of objective truth the descent into absurdity is inevitable.
More and more it will be seen that the real goal here is the destruction of historical institutions that don't fit the cultural Marxist agenda. That would be any institution that attempts to hold to tradition or any concept of objective truth.
This isn't being driven by love for or by homosexuals but by hatred; hatred of traditional American culture and particularly hatred of conservative American Christianity. Tolerance of homosexuality was achieved decades ago and the gay community in whole has experienced greater economic success in America than the average. They won that battle a long time ago. This is something different.
Tolerance of the gay lifestyle it appears was never the goal, acceptance wasn't even good enough. We must celebrate, we must confess that it is on par or even more enlightened than mere heterosexuality. If you refuse to confess its equality or superiority to traditional morality you will be attacked and destroyed.
This will be another cudgel used to attack the freedom of religion, otherwise known as freedom of conscience.
QFT.
And Muslims (radical or orthodox, I'm not familiar enough with the religion to know which) will get a free pass because they are also trying to destroy western culture in general and America in particular. You won't find *any* Halal bakers or mosques attacked for not participating in homosexual weddings.
-
Does this mean polygamy may someday be legal? Probably. And other than one religion's book, what's the reason it shouldn't be?
A guy may have many wives, which he can barely support .... but what if he has six children per wife? Are taxpayers supposed to supliment his income when he can't afford more than two urchins? Three ....four?
Yeah we have WIC programs and other support for indigent people but I don't see it as a benefit to society to create a condition where, in all probability, more will be added.
The bible (or more properly, beliefs about the bible which bear little to no relationship to its authors' beliefs) is/are not a sound basis for law making. The framers didn't write canonical laws into the constitution for a reason - many of them weren't even Christian. You don't have to be a Christian to enjoy rights.
Yes it is, if one doesn't wish to go against God's wishes. We started doing that the moment Eve took the bite from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and we all know (or ought to) what happened then.
How many of our founders were athiests? I know some were deists. But I believe the greatest majority of them did believe in God. Back then each state actually did have an "official" religion, of a sorts -- and if you didn't like it, you voted with your feet. It was to the Federal Government that the proscription of establishing a official religion attended. <<<< And that is why the founders "didn't write canonical laws into the constitution."
-
Heretic! Marriage is traditional!
I can't believe I'm saying this.....I agree with DS for once.
The problem ultimately is that we ever let government define marriage at all. Marriage is ultimately a religious concept. When you get government involved, it becomes inherently secular.
So much wailing and gnashing of teeth, as if this ruling somehow invalidates the religious marriages many undertake as part of their belief system under their god.
Yes, and now the Federal government has intervened. I believe most will agree that once this bloated, stinking camel enters the tent, it does not leave, but rather occupies ever greater space, crowding out the original occupants, in this case liberty. This decision opens the door to increasing intrusion by government into peoples' personal lives. This intrusion will not stop, and I warrant may affect all of us in unpleasant ways. So, in a sense, we're now all gay. That is at least prison gay/omnisexual, because we're going to be screwed legally, by a faceless, amorphous entity seeking only its own gratification.
Not a victory for liberty, but less choice for states, communities, and ultimately, individuals.
-
I wonder if Mrs Lupe could do with another wife to help share the workload...
Course once in the same house their biological clocks would probably sync and I'd end up in the loony bin.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
At the risk of making light of what, to many, is serious:
https://youtu.be/GjgGWOpksEw?t=43
*expletive deleted*it like this is why we are supposed to have a small, limited in power government.
-
Liz, straighten this guy out, would ya? Marriage is just an endlessly malleable social construct, that the state defines at will.
"Society"
"State"
I'm pretty sure those are two different words with different meanings. *checks dictionary* yep, two different words that mean different things.
-
So basically the people most upset about gay marriage want the Christian bible to be the basis of our family law.
What could possibly be wrong with having a single contested religion define people's civil rights?
Those sects of Christians who still practice discrimination against gays remain free after this decision to not marry same sex partners. I fail to see the great evil in churches, clubs, or whoever else doesn't believe in legal discrimination being able to host gay marriages.
-
Oh, hey, this canard! It's a fun one.
As I've responded to this one before: homosexuals getting married does not affect my marriage at all. Just as the TPP, abortion, ISIS, and the Export-Import bank have no effect on my marriage.
My positions on all of these have to do with the well-being of the country, not my marriage.
Can you articulate even one real world scenario whereby the country goes to pot because gays can marry? Or even suffers any loss other than the loss of happiness by people who hate gays?
-
So basically the people most upset about gay marriage want the Christian bible to be the basis of our family law.
Yep, the nuclear family unit being composed of a man and woman having children, and the parents binding themselves together legally and socially, is a crazy unheard of thing only found in the Bible.
-
Yep, the nuclear family unit being composed of a man and woman having children, and the parents binding themselves together legally and socially, is a crazy unheard of thing only found in the Bible.
How does this decision have any impact on nuclear, man woman families whatsoever?
-
"Society"
"State"
I'm pretty sure those are two different words with different meanings. *checks dictionary* yep, two different words that mean different things.
This thread is about the state unilaterally changing the definition of marriage. Are you saying you disagree with the recent ruling?
-
How does this decision have any impact on nuclear, man woman families whatsoever?
He's pointing out that you can't possibly blame the hetero's-only tradition of marriage on Christians or the Bible, given all of the non-Christian, non-Bible-reading cultures that have also held to that tradition. Before there was a Bible or any Christians, in fact.
-
He's pointing out that you can't possibly blame the hetero's-only tradition of marriage on Christians or the Bible, given all of the non-Christian, non-Bible-reading cultures that have also held to that tradition. Before there was a Bible or any Christians, in fact.
Who are these non Christian, non bible reading cultures that have these beliefs?
Funny, btw, that no Jews noticed that monogamous marriage was required. Muslims missed that rule as well.
Are these the Buddhists you're thinking of maybe? Or Hindus?
-
Who are these non Christian, non bible reading cultures that have these beliefs?
Funny, btw, that no Jews noticed that monogamous marriage was required. Muslims missed that rule as well.
Are these the Buddhists you're thinking of maybe? Or Hindus?
Nice try counselor, but your moving the goal posts. We are discussing heterosexual marriage, not monogamous marriage.
-
Nice try counselor, but your moving the goal posts. We are discussing heterosexual marriage, not monogamous marriage.
I notice you had no answer to the question I asked you there.
The point was that Christian biblical views of marriage are not universal. They are contested, and government has no basis for adopting one religion over another.
-
I notice you had no answer to the question I asked you there.
The point was that Christian biblical views of marriage are not universal. They are contested, and government has no basis for adopting one religion over another.
And the basis of the .gov's conditions for issuing marriage licenses have nothing to do with religion.
-
And the basis of the .gov's conditions for issuing marriage licenses have nothing to do with religion.
Ok, so what's the argument for restricting them to man-woman couples only? And how does that impact the nuclear family?
-
And the basis of the .gov's conditions for issuing marriage licenses have nothing to do with religion.
So why do you care what the .gov defines marriage as?
-
So why do you care what the .gov defines marriage as?
That's a very good point... up until the govt starts dictating what is acceptable church doctrine, and making their version of "marriage" compulsory. And I don't think that is very far away.
-
I don't know, Balog. Do you think they really don't get it, or are they just playing dumb?
Ok, so what's the argument for restricting them to man-woman couples only?
What argument kept marriage limited to heterosexual couples for the past x-thousand years?
Have you read the Chief Justice's dissent yet? It would help you with some of that confusion. If you were open to reason, of course.
-
That's a very good point...
:laugh: Actually, it's a dead-stupid question. Unless, of course, Balog swore off caring about anything beyond religion. I mean, he could be a civic-minded person who ponders political matters aside from his religion.
-
I don't know, Balog. Do you think they really don't get it, or are they just playing dumb?
What argument kept marriage limited to heterosexual couples for the past x-thousand years?
The Bible as read by Christians, mostly. If you know of some other argument please let us know - I keep seeing allusions to something other than the Christian version of the bible, but never see the actual claim.
-
So why do you care what the .gov defines marriage as?
Because if the government can change the meaning of words by diktat it then can make the law mean whatever it wants.
Even the opposite of the intention of those who drafted the law.
-
The Bible as read by Christians, mostly. If you know of some other argument please let us know - I keep seeing allusions to something other than the Christian version of the bible, but never see the actual claim.
Maybe you could point out all the historical societies where homosexual "marriage" was practiced ???
(and I don't mean that homosexuality was just known of and/or tolerated - I mean that same sex couples were considered "married")
-
Or great societies with alternative family structures to the man/woman having children and raising them among extended family.
-
What argument kept marriage limited to heterosexual couples for the past x-thousand years?
The Bible as read by Christians, mostly. If you know of some other argument please let us know - I keep seeing allusions to something other than the Christian version of the bible, but never see the actual claim.
So the Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus that you referenced earlier; those societies all wanted homosexual marriage for hundreds or even thousands of years, but were kept from doing so by Christians making Biblically-based arguments? How long before the birth of Christianity, or before the collation of the biblical books was this occurring, would you say? Can you tell us anything about the nature of the Christians' time travel technology?
-
The Bible as read by Christians, mostly. If you know of some other argument please let us know - I keep seeing allusions to something other than the Christian version of the bible, but never see the actual claim.
So the Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus that you referenced earlier; those societies all wanted homosexual marriage for hundreds or even thousands of years, but were kept from doing so by Christians making Biblically-based arguments? How long before the birth of Christianity, or before the collation of the biblical books was this occurring, would you say? Can you tell us anything about the nature of the Christians' time travel technology?
Sorry fistful - you missed the point. And are now obviouly making the error of moral argument by dictionary. All of them have widely different versions of what a marriage entails. If the definition of "marriage" is so obvious or universal, that isn't possible. The translator who came up with the equivalent terms doesn't get to determine at all what are the necessary and sufficient conditions of a marriage - that is a judgment call, not a definition.
Buddhists, muslims, and Hindus and various non-Christian societies all tolerated or formally recognised same sex arrangements over the years. The fact that Christians didn't translate those words as "marriage" into English is a judgment call, which you're now trying to twist into a moral argument because it comes from the dictionary. Well, it ended up there because of a judgment call in the first place.
So I'll ask again - what's this non-religious basis for discriminating against gay relationships? If it's just that other socieities do it, I shouldn't have to explain why that's absurd.
-
Maybe you could point out all the historical societies where homosexual "marriage" was practiced ???
(and I don't mean that homosexuality was just known of and/or tolerated - I mean that same sex couples were considered "married")
This is a red herring - marriage has meant ownership of a woman as near chattel in many cultures (most) as well, but I don't see anyone arguing that giving women individual legal rigts in marriage somehow undoes the institution.
You are picking and choosing what exceeds the definition to suit your chosen prejudice.
-
Mistranslation!
What a load of bs
There may have been pragmatic arrangements regarding gay couples but they weren't considered marriage.
Plenty of history of that in the states also.
It just isn't marriage, by definition.
-
Mistranslation!
What a load of bs
There may have been pragmatic arrangements regarding gay couples but they weren't considered marriage.
Plenty of history of that in the states also.
It just isn't marriage, by definition.
And who decided what the definition is? Last I checked merriam Webster had no authority to determine rights and obligations.
-
And who decided what the definition is? Last I checked merriam Webster had no authority to determine rights and obligations.
Who decides definitions in law dictionaries?
Common usage of a word for hundreds of years in our language, thousands in the classical languages is a pretty good indicator of what the definition should be of a word.
-
I notice you had no answer to the question I asked you there.
The point was that Christian biblical views of marriage are not universal. They are contested, and government has no basis for adopting one religion over another.
But does that mean government cannot enact a standard for marriage? For most of America, most of the time, it's been (1) man married to (1) woman.
If we accept gay marriage, what about the nutcake who wants to marry his ox?
Or goat?
Christian Biblical views of marriage may not be universal but why should that mean we should become a potpourri of the whole world's customs?
-
And who decided what the definition is? Last I checked merriam Webster had no authority to determine rights and obligations.
And who decided definitions should be put into question simply because they don't support your point? If you have evidence supporting alternative definitions, please enlighten us.
-
This is a red herring - marriage has meant ownership of a woman as near chattel in many cultures (most) as well, but I don't see anyone arguing that giving women individual legal rigts in marriage somehow undoes the institution.
You are picking and choosing what exceeds the definition to suit your chosen prejudice.
A straw man does not negate a red herring. =D
-
This is a red herring - marriage has meant ownership of a woman as near chattel in many cultures (most) as well, but I don't see anyone arguing that giving women individual legal rigts in marriage somehow undoes the institution.
You are picking and choosing what exceeds the definition to suit your chosen prejudice.
Just go "marry" your self then. :P
First you make the claim that heterosexual only marriage is a strictly Judeo-Christian concept and then refuse to provide any evidence to back your claim.
You are nothing but a god damned troll :old:
-
Who decides definitions in law dictionaries?
Common usage of a word for hundreds of years in our language, thousands in the classical languages is a pretty good indicator of what the definition should be of a word.
Courts on 1.
On the second, how is that any different from saying "it should be this way because this is how many people did it?"
Arguing that we should keep discriminating because lots of societies have engaged in a particular kind of discrimination is no argument at all. Just think of how many cultures have practiced racism - is that a good argument for it?
-
Just go "marry" your self then. :P
First you make the claim that heterosexual only marriage is a strictly Judeo-Christian concept and then refuse to provide any evidence to back your claim.
You are nothing but a god damned troll :old:
Notice that here you've resorted to name calling rather than simply explaining what the non-religious basis for man-woman only marriage is.
Again, you intimate that it's there (other cultures ban gays! Most even!), yet give nothing beyond that.
-
... is that a good argument for it?
Depends on what the meaning of "is" is :P
Notice that here you've resorted to name calling rather than simply explaining what the non-religious basis for man-woman only marriage is.
Procreation :facepalm:
Again, you intimate that it's there (other cultures ban gays! Most even!), yet give nothing beyond that.
Who the hell is talking about "banning" gays ???
-
Tall pine, how does this Supreme Court decision in any way affect procreation?
And again, how does the fact that many cultures have discriminated against gays (including prohibiting legal rights to them like marriage) reason to do it in America?
-
Tall pine, how does this Supreme Court decision in any way affect procreation?
Are you fokking stupid, or do you do this *expletive deleted*it deliberately ???
Your question was: "[explain] what the non-religious basis for man-woman only marriage is."
I answered your question. :facepalm:
-
Are you fokking stupid, or do you do this *expletive deleted*it deliberately ???
Your question was: "[explain] what the non-religious basis for man-woman only marriage is."
I answered your question. :facepalm:
No, you didn't answer the question. Screaming procreation doesn't explain why a same sex couple shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Does allowing gay marriage reduce procreation? Or are legal entitlements like shared property, end of life decision making, etc somehow only valuable to people who plan to have children?
At some level you must recognise how irrational this need to disadvantage gays is.
-
Sorry fistful - you missed the point.
It was Balog's point, as I recall, and I think you missed it. As he said, you moved the goal posts from "discriminating against gays [sic]" to defining marriage down to every last detail.
And are now obviouly making the error of moral argument by dictionary.
A moral argument? Oh, yeah, see I like to make plain that my defense of marriage is free of moral judgments or religious ideas. Which, if you go back through this thread, you'll notice. But thanks for playing. No moral or religious talk is necessary to point out that marriage is heterosexual.
Buddhists, muslims, and Hindus and various non-Christian societies all tolerated or formally recognised same sex arrangements over the years. The fact that Christians didn't translate those words as "marriage" into English is a judgment call, which you're now trying to twist into a moral argument because it comes from the dictionary. Well, it ended up there because of a judgment call in the first place.
No, once again, you find yourself making presumptions about someone's point of view. I'm not talking about marriage as a word found in a dictionary. I'm talking about marriage itself. Also, please note that a society's moral acceptance of homosexuality is not at all the same thing as its having homosexual marriages. Or if your "recognized same sex arrangements" amount to marriages, why not come out and call them marriages? I suspect that, like everyone else whose gone looking, you can't come up with much of anything. And, besides which, you ought to know it's absurd to claim the government has an obligation to recognize same-sex unions, just because Civilization X on Continent Y recognized them in 245 B.C., or what-have-you.
-
No, you didn't answer the question. Screaming procreation doesn't explain why a same sex couple shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Does allowing gay marriage reduce procreation? Or are legal entitlements like shared property, end of life decision making, etc somehow only valuable to people who plan to have children?
At some level you must recognise how irrational this need to disadvantage gays is.
If this was really about shared property and end-of-life decision-making, we wouldn't be talking about homosexuals at all. You'd be basing your argument on relatives who live together; unmarried people that have close friendships, etc.
But if you were prepared to be so rational, you'd understand why the procreative tendency of heterosexual couples explains the worldwide, cross-cultural, heterosexual tradition of marriage, among people of differing religious beliefs. I suspect you'll never get there.
-
Just to straighten out the record, for anyone who's been confused by misinformation in this thread, the notion that state marriage laws were discriminating against homosexuals is simply a myth. Homosexuals have been free to marry, just like anyone else. Marriage, after all, means you're getting hitched to someone of the opposite sex. Homosexuals have not been barred from doing that.
Then there is this kooky idea that it is the defenders of the status quo ante that must explain why "gays" are "excluded." Obviously, it is those who wished to change marriage who owed us all an explanation - one they never cared to provide.
But, hey, lies work.
-
Ok, so what's the argument for restricting them to man-woman couples only? And how does that impact the nuclear family?
What is the reason that .gov recognizes marriage at all? What is the point?
-
So why do you care what the .gov defines marriage as?
How many times do I have to answer the same question from you?
Redefining marriage does a few things. It is fed.gov social engineering, it dictates how companies must provide benefits, and it opens a huge door to suppress religious freedom. And before you start the "Who would sue a church" stuff let me answer that: the same kind of people who would troll for a baker who didn't want to work for them to sue.
I'm not sure how you're in favor of any of that.
-
I don't know, Balog. Do you think they really don't get it, or are they just playing dumb?
I assume everything shootinstudent posts is disingenuous.
-
No, you didn't answer the question. Screaming procreation doesn't explain why a same sex couple shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Does allowing gay marriage reduce procreation? Or are legal entitlements like shared property, end of life decision making, etc somehow only valuable to people who plan to have children?
At some level you must recognise how irrational this need to disadvantage gays is.
This part here is a blatant lie. Gay couples can have the exact same shared property and end of life etc etc legal rights as straight people, they just fill out different forms for it.
So, again: what do you think the purpose is behind state rcognition of marriage?
-
This part here is a blatant lie. Gay couples can have the exact same shared property and end of life etc etc legal rights as straight people, they just fill out different forms for it.
So, again: what do you think the purpose is behind state rcognition of marriage?
That is completely false balog - to say there's no functional change in legal entitlements from a marriage is preposterous. It shows how deep the discrimination and ignorance about the issue runs.
-
That is completely false balog - to say there's no functional change in legal entitlements from a marriage is preposterous. It shows how deep the discrimination and ignorance about the issue runs.
It doesn't force employers to cover gay partners a spouses for benefits purposes. Other than that it's just a different set of paperwork.
And you still won't answer my question.
-
I assume everything shootinstudent posts is disingenuous.
I know you think you're being witty by calling him out with a name he hasn't used in years, but you're only making the conversation confusing for people who don't know his previous screenname and are probably wondering who the fsck you're talking about. Also, not sure why you do that anyway since he never denied the name change, nor used it as a mechanism to conceal who he was. He's not the only one who changed his name here (including others on this board who have changed their names to hide from others in the big scary internet), but he is the only one you seem compelled to call out on subject. So, why don't you cut it out right flipping now, m'kay? :)
Chris
-
I know you think you're being witty by calling him out with a name he hasn't used in years, but you're only making the conversation confusing for people who don't know his previous screenname and are probably wondering who the fsck you're talking about. Also, not sure why you do that anyway since he never denied the name change, nor used it as a mechanism to conceal who he was. He's not the only one who changed his name here (including others on this board who have changed their names to hide from others in the big scary internet), but he is the only one you seem compelled to call out on subject. So, why don't you cut it out right flipping now, m'kay? :)
Chris
You seem to be taking this pretty seriously, for just using someone's former screen name. ??? I don't recall anybody getting lectured for calling me "tactical pantload," or other fun names members have used on one another in the past. Is this something new?
-
No, you didn't answer the question. Screaming procreation doesn't explain why a same sex couple shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Does allowing gay marriage reduce procreation? Or are legal entitlements like shared property, end of life decision making, etc somehow only valuable to people who plan to have children?
At some level you must recognise how irrational this need to disadvantage gays is.
I'm sorry that you feel so disadvantaged.
-
I'm sorry that you feel so disadvantaged.
Tallpine, you know I love you, right?
Low blow. Very low.
-
You seem to be taking this pretty seriously, for just using someone's former screen name. ??? I don't recall anybody getting lectured for calling me "tactical pantload," or other fun names members have used on one another in the past. Is this something new?
Balog's use of DS's previous SN is not "in jest", but an attempt to call him out on something he feels DS is concealing. It's not a pet name.
People change their names here all the time, frequently for some very legitimate reasons. Unless they're attempting to conceal who they are, I see no reason we shouldn't abide by their wishes. DS has been DS for longer than he was SS, but people seem to bring up his former moniker from time to time. Not sure why other than to prove a point with a particular poster because it doesn't happen with others.
Chris
-
Balog's use of DS's previous SN is not "in jest", but an attempt to call him out on something he feels DS is concealing. It's not a pet name.
People change their names here all the time, frequently for some very legitimate reasons. Unless they're attempting to conceal who they are, I see no reason we shouldn't abide by their wishes. DS has been DS for longer than he was SS, but people seem to bring up his former moniker from time to time. Not sure why other than to prove a point with a particular poster because it doesn't happen with others.
Chris
That's still not a convincing reason, but whatever. I'll just call him Bruce. :P
-
Mtnbkr is being incredibly lenient here.
Yes, this is a touchy subject, but if you're getting worked up, whichever of the many sides of it you're on, step away from the computer, calm down, and then come back and post without resorting to name calling. And I'm not just referring to former usernames here. Otherwise this thread gets locked.
-
Uh. De Selby's former username is not an insult. It's a name he, at one time, chose to go by. How did it become the third rail?
Sincerely,
fistful/Scapegoat/Mr. Tactical Pants
-
Uh. De Selby's former username is not an insult. It's a name he, at one time, chose to go by. How did it become the third rail?
Sincerely,
fistful/Scapegoat/Mr. Tactical Pants
And I'm not just referring to former usernames here.
-
Uh. De Selby's former username is not an insult. It's a name he, at one time, chose to go by. How did it become the third rail?
Sincerely,
fistful/Scapegoat/Mr. Tactical Pants
Mocking the mods usually doesn't end well.
-
Courts on 1.
On the second, how is that any different from saying "it should be this way because this is how many people did it?"
Arguing that we should keep discriminating because lots of societies have engaged in a particular kind of discrimination is no argument at all. Just think of how many cultures have practiced racism - is that a good argument for it?
Marriage being between a man and a woman is not discrimination.
It is what the institution is, not because it says so in the dictionary. The dictionary agrees because it is defining the word as it has been used.
There are hundreds of years of jurisprudence and thousands of years of religious and cultural meaning contained in the word that the court is trying to redefine by fiat.
You will always have to say "gay" marriage because it is an absurdity that has only just relatively recently been foisted upon us.
-
Mocking the mods usually doesn't end well.
https://youtu.be/LLrTPrp-fW8?t=17s
-
Mocking the mods usually doesn't end well.
Well, somebody could explain the issue, I guess. Or not. I don't object to rules I don't understand, but being expected to follow unwritten ones I didn't know about seems a little odd.
I've changed my name a few times, just for fun. I don't see why anyone would be embarrassed about it. I may have used his former name recently, but I didn't know it would be a problem. I'll try to remember the guy's current name. [shrug]
-
Mocking the mods usually doesn't end well.
Heh.
I think mocking requires more than making points of fact. Or it used to mean more than that. Who knows nowadays. Maybe recalling the past is a microaggression or micromocking.
-
Even though I rarely agree with him I still don't understand the frustration felt towards DeSelby.
Oftentimes he is just articulating the position held by many in the center and left of the political spectrum. He comes here and does it without personal insults or attacks and does a pretty good job of it considering it is usually 10 to 1 against him.
Arguing with him is healthier and more fun than sitting around the echo chamber stroking our egos in a philosophical circle jerk.
-
Well, no, I guess he doesn't attack. I think we'd all prefer verbal attacks to his brand of condescension. Well, that and the trolling.
-
Even though I rarely agree with him I still don't understand the frustration felt towards DeSelby.
Oftentimes he is just articulating the position held by many in the center and left of the political spectrum. He comes here and does it without personal insults or attacks and does a pretty good job of it considering it is usually 10 to 1 against him.
Arguing with him is healthier and more fun than sitting around the echo chamber stroking our egos in a philosophical circle jerk.
(Cue obligatory jokes re: ego size.)
Agree with the above. De Selby is an engaging practice dumm, er, debate foil, if seemingly sometimes obdurate and obtuse in his argument.
-
I think mocking requires more than making points of fact. Or it used to mean more than that. Who knows nowadays. Maybe recalling the past is a microaggression or micromocking.
Funny, you were one I had in mind regarding old usernames and not bringing them up. Seems you had a relevant reason for changing yours and not tying it to your new name publicly. That scenario is exactly what I had in mind when I pointed out the repeated use of De Selby's old name.
Chris
-
Even though I rarely agree with him I still don't understand the frustration felt towards DeSelby.
Oftentimes he is just articulating the position held by many in the center and left of the political spectrum. He comes here and does it without personal insults or attacks and does a pretty good job of it considering it is usually 10 to 1 against him.
Arguing with him is healthier and more fun than sitting around the echo chamber stroking our egos in a philosophical circle jerk.
I should have just walked away last night ... =( My apologies to the other members here.
My frustration is not with disagreement over a topic, but the changing direction of discussion whenever he is asked to support an argument. It's like trying to argue with a cloud. :facepalm:
-
Well, no, I guess he doesn't attack. I think we'd all prefer verbal attacks to his brand of condescension. Well, that and the trolling.
Is it really trolling? Or, do you call it trolling because you don't agree with him and because he attacks your core beliefs? I don't see it as trolling. He does have a interesting way to expressing his counter points and it does get you worked up.
-
Is it really trolling? Or, do you call it trolling because you don't agree with him and because he attacks your core beliefs? I don't see it as trolling. He does have a interesting way to expressing his counter points and it does get you worked up.
He comes off as disingenuous and condescending. Don't know whether he means to or not, but I suspect he does. He's smart enough to know what he does is rude and he consistently chooses to do it anyway.
He's not interested in an honest back and forth discussion using reason or facts. His MO is to lob an absurdity into a reasonable discussion and expect others to prove the ridiculousness of it. If anyone bothers, he doesn't give serious consideration to their points, he just ignores them and lobs in different absurdity.
His usual strategy for debating his opponents is to derail the discussion. The more his opponents try to make salient points, the more he tries to throw the discussion off track. It's highbrow method of shouting down people he disagrees with rather than addressing the merits of their positions.
In real life that's called "stirring up *expletive deleted*it". In da innernetz that's called trolling. It's cleverer trolling than most, subtler, but it's still just trolling.
-
What's most ironic about the turn this thread has taken is that it's gone to discussing personalities, methods of debate, the definition of trolling, etc...everything except how the issue of gay marriage is somehow other than a religious or dictionary (or majority survey of ancient peoples) question.
The mere suggestion that maybe, just maybe there isn't much beyond "I was raised to disapprove of gays and the bible backs me" to the Supreme Court bashing has led to some incredibly emotional reactions. It should give the posters behind the rants pause for thought.
-
What's most ironic about the turn this thread has taken is that it's gone to discussing personalities, methods of debate, the definition of trolling, etc...everything except how the issue of gay marriage is somehow other than a religious or dictionary (or majority survey of ancient peoples) question.
The mere suggestion that maybe, just maybe there isn't much beyond "I was raised to disapprove of gays and the bible backs me" to the Supreme Court bashing has led to some incredibly emotional reactions. It should give the posters behind the rants pause for thought.
No, it was a distraction, like most of your arguing tactics. Just as this one is. You successfully derailed the thread. Congratulations.
Personally, I find the arguing style quite telling. Mr. De Selby is practicing his craft on us and it's interesting to note the evading and avoiding. Always coming back with questions rather than fleshing out his point.
The style seems to be attempting to win the argument without proving the point. I must assume it's a technique taught in law schools to forever avoid the point and attack the opposing argument rather than taking the opposing arguments seriously and providing counter points to them.
-
Balog's use of DS's previous SN is not "in jest", but an attempt to call him out on something he feels DS is concealing. It's not a pet name.
People change their names here all the time, frequently for some very legitimate reasons. Unless they're attempting to conceal who they are, I see no reason we shouldn't abide by their wishes. DS has been DS for longer than he was SS, but people seem to bring up his former moniker from time to time. Not sure why other than to prove a point with a particular poster because it doesn't happen with others.
Chris
So he's trans-nomenclatured? Am I micro-agressing him? Is my privilege in need of checking here?
I mostly do it so people can find his old posts, he has quite a history under that moniker. But, whatever. Your board your rules and all that.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Fsmileys%2Fsmiley-eatdrink062.gif&hash=6351767d570339129b1d7a62ffad11efc1c95342)
-
He comes off as disingenuous and condescending. Don't know whether he means to or not, but I suspect he does. He's smart enough to know what he does is rude and he consistently chooses to do it anyway.
He's not interested in an honest back and forth discussion using reason or facts. His MO is to lob an absurdity into a reasonable discussion and expect others to prove the ridiculousness of it. If anyone bothers, he doesn't give serious consideration to their points, he just ignores them and lobs in different absurdity.
His usual strategy for debating his opponents is to derail the discussion. The more his opponents try to make salient points, the more he tries to throw the discussion off track. It's highbrow method of shouting down people he disagrees with rather than addressing the merits of their positions.
In real life that's called "stirring up *expletive deleted*it". In da innernetz that's called trolling. It's cleverer trolling than most, subtler, but it's still just trolling.
My feelings towards HTG are pretty well established, but this is an excellent post and exactly correct.
-
No, it was a distraction, like most of your arguing tactics. Just as this one is. You successfully derailed the thread. Congratulations.
Personally, I find the arguing style quite telling. Mr. De Selby is practicing his craft on us and it's interesting to note the evading and avoiding. Always coming back with questions rather than fleshing out his point.
The style seems to be attempting to win the argument without proving the point. I must assume it's a technique taught in law schools to forever avoid the point and attack the opposing argument rather than taking the opposing arguments seriously and providing counter points to them.
Okay, well let's try this. I'll summarise the arguments against the Supreme Court decision here. Tell me where I've gone wrong.
1. Most societies prohibit gay marriage
2. The dictionary adopts this prohibition in its definition of marriage
3. Procreation - only relationships that could result in biological children of the married deserve legal protection
4. There is no discrimination against gays to remedy because they could choose to enter straight marriages
5. There is no legal difference between marriage and some fancy contract
Therefore: banning gay marriage is fine and the Supreme Court got it wrong.
It looks to me like every single one of those points has been addressed explicitly and directly here.
-
[...]everything except how the issue of gay marriage is somehow other than a religious or dictionary (or majority survey of ancient peoples) question.
The mere suggestion that maybe, just maybe there isn't much beyond "I was raised to disapprove of gays and the bible backs me" to the Supreme Court bashing has led to some incredibly emotional reactions.
Personally, my sole objection to homosexual marriage per se is that it has historically been and assuredly will continue to be used as a club to attack people and businesses for their religious beliefs. I wouldn't like it if people got away with suing Jewish and Muslim butchers for not carrying bacon either. If I were reasonably convinced that it would not I wouldn't have an issue with states changing their laws to allow it. Truthfully this complaint has more to do with the application (and indeed existence) of laws against discrimination than with homosexual marriage specifically.
As for this particular ruling, my objection is that the court has taken an issue that is rightly the provenance of States and wrongly (in my opinion) turned it into a Constitutional issue.
-
What's most ironic about the turn this thread has taken is that it's gone to discussing personalities, methods of debate, the definition of trolling, etc...everything except how the issue of gay marriage is somehow other than a religious or dictionary (or majority survey of ancient peoples) question.
The mere suggestion that maybe, just maybe there isn't much beyond "I was raised to disapprove of gays and the bible backs me" to the Supreme Court bashing has led to some incredibly emotional reactions. It should give the posters behind the rants pause for thought.
Well, De Selby, perhaps that is because you refuse to engage in any actual discussion. For example, you have yet to tell me what you believe the purpose of the .gov recognizing marriage for anyone is. But I don't really expect you to do so.
-
What's most ironic about the turn this thread has taken is that it's gone to discussing personalities, methods of debate, the definition of trolling, etc...everything except how the issue of gay marriage is somehow other than a religious or dictionary (or majority survey of ancient peoples) question.
The mere suggestion that maybe, just maybe there isn't much beyond "I was raised to disapprove of gays and the bible backs me" to the Supreme Court bashing has led to some incredibly emotional reactions. It should give the posters behind the rants pause for thought.
Why? Why is the "I was raised to disapprove of gays any less "emotional" than a "I was raised to approve of gays" an emotional reaction??
And since when has being "backed by the bible" become anathema?
The good book says "woe to those who call evil good and good evil."
Don't you believe the Bible contains God's word?
>:D
The bible also says; "first thing let's do, let's kill all the lawyers."
:facepalm:
Ooooops. That was Shakespeare. Oh well......he was almost as smart. :angel:
-
Well, De Selby, perhaps that is because you refuse to engage in any actual discussion. For example, you have yet to tell me what you believe the purpose of the .gov recognizing marriage for anyone is. But I don't really expect you to do so.
Sorry, I thought that was addressed by pointing out that marriage grants some legal rights between the married couple that are unobtainable by other means, and many that would require extensive and difficult to execute contracts by default.
So why recognise marriage? So your spouse can make decisions about your medical care if you're out, automatically inherit your wealth if you die, and rightfully deal with your shared property without question. Among other major differences from an unrecognised relationship.
Whatever importance you attach to those things, they are not more or less important just because the couple is same sex or not.
-
Why? Why is the "I was raised to disapprove of gays any less "emotional" than a "I was raised to approve of gays" an emotional reaction??
And since when has being "backed by the bible" become anathema?
The good book says "woe to those who call evil good and good evil."
Don't you believe the Bible contains God's word?
>:D
The bible also says; "first thing let's do, let's kill all the lawyers."
:facepalm:
Ooooops. That was Shakespeare. Oh well......he was almost as smart. :angel:
The issue isn't that the bible is wrong or right, it's that not every believes in it, yet everyone is bound by our laws. Hence our laws shouldn't force people to behave a certain way just because the bible says so.
-
Sorry, I thought that was addressed by pointing out that marriage grants some legal rights between the married couple that are unobtainable by other means, and many that would require extensive and difficult to execute contracts by default. .......
Oh geeeesh, contracts are hard to do.Boo-hoo. Let's make things EASIER for 1.5% of the population by disrupting 98.5% of the population.
It isn't as though anything worthwhile should require a little work........
-
Oh geeeesh, contracts are hard to do.Boo-hoo. Let's make things EASIER for 1.5% of the population by disrupting 98.5% of the population.
It isn't as though anything worthwhile should require a little work........
How does allowing gay marriage disrupt 98 percent of the population?
-
The issue isn't that the bible is wrong or right, it's that not every believes in it, yet everyone is bound by our laws. Hence our laws shouldn't force people to behave a certain way just because the bible says so.
In as much our proscription against murder is Biblically based, then let's do away with that as well......it would make some things in life so much easier to deal with.
Such as some politicians and lawyers....for example.... >:D
-
How does allowing gay marriage disrupt 98 percent of the population?
I said 98.5, not 98%
Wait and see.
-
Sorry, I thought that was addressed by pointing out that marriage grants some legal rights between the married couple that are unobtainable by other means, and many that would require extensive and difficult to execute contracts by default.
So why recognise marriage? So your spouse can make decisions about your medical care if you're out, automatically inherit your wealth if you die, and rightfully deal with your shared property without question. Among other major differences from an unrecognised relationship.
Whatever importance you attach to those things, they are not more or less important just because the couple is same sex or not.
Wills and powers of attorney are extensive and difficult to execute? Is that what you tell your clients to justify your billing hours?
But no, that is in no way addressing my question. I didn't ask what the effects are of having a marriage get recognized by the state, nor did I ask why it might be desirable for a couple to have their relationshjip recognized. I asked what the compelling interest is for the .gov to recognize marriage in the first place. What is the basis for .gov recognizing this particular type of relationship? The .gov's interest, not the person's.
-
Wills and powers of attorney are extensive and difficult to execute? Is that what you tell your clients to justify your billing hours?
But no, that is in no way addressing my question. I didn't ask what the effects are of having a marriage get recognized by the state, nor did I ask why it might be desirable for a couple to have their relationshjip recognized. I asked what the compelling interest is for the .gov to recognize marriage in the first place. What is the basis for .gov recognizing this particular type of relationship? The .gov's interest, not the person's.
It is generally not possible to recreate a marriage by will, poa, or contract, so no. I would tell them to get married if they wanted to have all the same rights and powers towards each other that married people do - there isn't another way to do it.
The government's interest is in giving its citizens the reality of the relationship they want to have. If no one cared about being married, there would be no government interest in recognising marriage. But that's not the world we live in - people do want those rights.
-
Okay, well let's try this. I'll summarize the arguments against the Supreme Court decision here. Tell me where I've gone wrong.
1. Most societies prohibit gay marriage
Most societies don't address it because it is an absurdity calling something by what it really isn't.
2. The dictionary adopts this prohibition in its definition of marriage
The dictionary currently just provides a historically accurate definition of the custom. It doesn't create the custom by fiat.
3. Procreation - only relationships that could result in biological children of the married deserve legal protection - Nobody wants to deny legal protection, as has been pointed out legal protection is provided outside of the bounds of matrimony for those who seek it out.
4. There is no discrimination against gays to remedy because they could choose to enter straight marriages - if observing reality is considered discrimination then maybe you have a point
5. There is no legal difference between marriage and some fancy contract - On the contrary there is also millennia of cultural and moral dimensions that preclude same sex arrangements falsely being called a marriage.
Therefore: banning gay marriage is fine and the Supreme Court got it wrong.
Correct
-
How does allowing gay marriage disrupt 98 percent of the population?
Sorry, I gotta back DS here.
-
One issue I see here is comparing it to a driver's license in terms of recognition by all states, and using that as justification for forcing states to allow it.
What would happen if a state refused to issue driver's licenses at all? Assume they honor all other states' licenses, just don't issue any themselves, allowing their residents to drive within the state without a license but not providing them any way to drive elsewhere legally unless/until some adjoining state starts offering non-resident licenses. Also assume they do offer a state ID card, so there's no valid argument on that point. Would the Federal government then be justified in forcing them to return to issuing driver's licenses?
-
This could never happen we are told
But it took very lil time
The camels nose
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Well, De Selby, perhaps that is because you refuse to engage in any actual discussion. For example, you have yet to tell me what you believe the purpose of the .gov recognizing marriage for anyone is. But I don't really expect you to do so.
Which is a point I made much earlier in this thread.
I don't think .gov should be involved in any marriage.
However, as the laws currently stand, .gov is involved and as long as it is, the .gov definition of marriage must be all inclusive.
-
The issue isn't that the bible is wrong or right, it's that not every believes in it, yet everyone is bound by our laws. Hence our laws shouldn't force people to behave a certain way just because the bible says so.
This SCOTUS decision does just that. Forces folks to toe the gay marriage line. Forces people to adhere to situations that for whatever reasons they do no want to adhere to: cake making, performing marriages etc...
Just wait. There will be an outcry for criminal penalties for those who do not want anything to do with gay marriage. And there is the problem. Forcing people to accept what they do not find acceptable.
The gay movement with regards to gay marriage has shot itself in the foot on this. "Don't you worry what we do in our bedroom", to "you will accept, recognize and celebrate what we do in our bedroom"
-
if observing reality is considered discrimination then maybe you have a point
Apparently it is in current society.
This could never happen we are told
Same as everything that is an obvious consequence of whatever idiocy is in vogue at the moment. Then when each thing happens, it becomes "oops, so we were wrong once, but that doesn't mean any of the other consequences will happen." Lather, rinse, repeat as they do.
-
This could never happen we are told
But it took very lil time
The camels nose
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
This isn't clear if they're going to force an RC church, or a different Lutheran synod one to perform gay marriage. I strongly suspect it's the Folkekirken, or Danish state Lutheran church, because if it's the state church, and gay marriage is legal/approved there, I fail to see how the state church can refuse to perform it.
There was a similar kerfluffle a year or two ago from another Scandinavian country over this, and it was the same thing. The article was either assuming the reader knew the implied scope of the decision, or it was intentionally vague to upset people.
-
Sorry, I gotta back DS here.
I've tried to avoid the slippery slope argument but there is an 800lb gorilla in the room. This is the cudgel that will be used to destroy religious liberty, actually liberty of conscience, in the USA.
Teaching children that homosexuality is immoral will bring state intrusion into religious institutions.
Freedom of association, gone
Freedom of speech, gone
Freedom of conscience, gone
There is plenty at stake allowing government to redefine cultural institutions based on egalitarianism.
Individual liberty and radical egalitarianism are mutually exclusive.
-
Whatever importance you attach to those things, they are not more or less important just because the couple is same sex or not.
Let's suppose this is true (it's not). If true, why did marriage (or marriage-like arrangements, if you prefer) spring up around opposite-sex relationships in every culture on Earth, but this did not happen with same-sex couples? What could explain that? It can't be religion, as this spans some very different belief systems. Any ideas?
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html
Gay or not, that suit should be justification for stoning.
-
1. Most societies prohibit gay marriage
Most societies don't address it because it is an absurdity calling something by what it really isn't.
2. The dictionary adopts this prohibition in its definition of marriage
The dictionary currently just provides a historically accurate definition of the custom. It doesn't create the custom by fiat.
3. Procreation - only relationships that could result in biological children of the married deserve legal protection - Nobody wants to deny legal protection, as has been pointed out legal protection is provided outside of the bounds of matrimony for those who seek it out.
4. There is no discrimination against gays to remedy because they could choose to enter straight marriages - if observing reality is considered discrimination then maybe you have a point
5. There is no legal difference between marriage and some fancy contract - On the contrary there is also millennia of cultural and moral dimensions that preclude same sex arrangements falsely being called a marriage.
Therefore: banning gay marriage is fine and the Supreme Court got it wrong.
Correct
Ron is right. Gay marriage isn't prohibited historically, it's false historically. Marriage is what it is, and isn't what it isn't. Objective truth may be passe these days, but it's still as true as it always has been.
Marriage is heterosexual not because of its definition or its legal prohibitions and permissions, but because of the basic realities of human nature, society, and biology. Those realities were recognized across the ages and and across all societies because they are fundamentally true and right.
Changing the definition of marriage won't change the reality of marriage. At best all it does is institutionalize stupidity. At worst, consequences. We'll all see them soon enough.
-
More of " don't worry it will never happen"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/gay-couple-sue-church-of-england_n_3714609.html
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Okay, well let's try this. I'll summarise the arguments against the Supreme Court decision here. Tell me where I've gone wrong.
1. Most societies prohibit gay marriage
2. The dictionary adopts this prohibition in its definition of marriage
3. Procreation - only relationships that could result in biological children of the married deserve legal protection
4. There is no discrimination against gays to remedy because they could choose to enter straight marriages
5. There is no legal difference between marriage and some fancy contract
Therefore: banning gay marriage is fine and the Supreme Court got it wrong.
It looks to me like every single one of those points has been addressed explicitly and directly here.
If you replace the word "explicitly" with "superficially", I'll agree 100%.
Further, you did not answer Balog's question. You answered with a result, not a reason.
That's like me asking you why you shot the deer and you respond with "so the deer would be shot". He asked why the government has chosen to acknowledge certain relationships and why, by extension, the government should now include homosexual relationships with that reasoning.
The laws around marriage have grown up for at least hundreds of years (I'm limiting this to English Common Law, although I could argue for thousands) within the common law and legislation for a relationship between a man and a woman. Now, with the grafting of homosexual relationships to this ancient institution, we now have laws applying to people for whom the organic growth did not apply.
We've done as my quote from Mr. Chesterton warned: who cares why these laws exist. I say they are unfair because they only existed because of DISCRIMINATION!11!!!1eleventy!
Also, bravo, you've gotten me answering your questions as though you are arguing in good faith. That takes some doing- excellent change in tactics.
-
proscription against murder is Biblically based
There is no proscription against murder in Buddhist countries? Or are theirs also Biblical based, even though they have no Bible?
This could never happen we are told
But it took very lil time
The camels nose
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
This has been discussed here many times. Denmark has a state church that is actually run by their government. So, yes, it could not happen here.
More of " don't worry it will never happen"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/gay-couple-sue-church-of-england_n_3714609.html
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Church of England.
You know they aren't governed by our laws, right?
-
When they made gay marriage legal in both places they/we were assured that there would be no worries about churches being forced to marry gay couples. In particular churches that are opposed to gay marriage. It took how long to happen?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I LIKE BACON.
-
I LIKE BACON.
How about a bacon pie?
-
BACON!!!!!!!!
-
I LIKE BACON.
So why don't you marry it?
-
You know they aren't governed by our laws, right?
Care to wager on how long it will be before similar lawsuits are brought in the US?
Sorry, I gotta back DS here.
Would you or De Selby like to make the above wager?
-
So why don't you marry it?
because once you eat it, it turns to poop. :)
-
It is generally not possible to recreate a marriage by will, poa, or contract, so no. I would tell them to get married if they wanted to have all the same rights and powers towards each other that married people do - there isn't another way to do it.
The government's interest is in giving its citizens the reality of the relationship they want to have. If no one cared about being married, there would be no government interest in recognising marriage. But that's not the world we live in - people do want those rights.
Is this some type of thing where the words you are using are some ozzie variant that mean a different thing, because that sentence makes no sense.
-
Which is a point I made much earlier in this thread.
I don't think .gov should be involved in any marriage.
However, as the laws currently stand, .gov is involved and as long as it is, the .gov definition of marriage must be all inclusive.
So it should include non-romantic relationships?
-
Care to wager on how long it will be before similar lawsuits are brought in the US?
It will happen right after USA gets a state church.
Care to wager on when that will happen?
-
It will happen right after USA gets a state church.
Care to wager on when that will happen?
Does your church ever allow weddings outside of its congregation? Congrats, you're now a public accomodation! Etc
-
It will happen right after USA gets a state church.
Care to wager on when that will happen?
Just to be clear, you don't believe that non-state-sponsored, US churches will be sued to compel them to violate their beliefs on homosexual marriage. Is that an accurate representation of your position?
-
Funny, except for Ladypine changing her last name on her drivers license, I don't recall ever presenting our marriage certificate to anyone in nearly 34 years. We just file taxes jointly, go to the doctor/hospital together when necessary, put both of our names on deeds and titles, bought two houses together, etc etc etc.
We could have just jumped a broom out under an oak tree and no one would know any difference.
So I'm somewhat dubious of all of the "hardships" that same sex couples claim to have ;/
-
Funny, except for Ladypine changing her last name on her drivers license, I don't recall ever presenting our marriage certificate to anyone in nearly 34 years. We just file taxes jointly, go to the doctor/hospital together when necessary, put both of our names on deeds and titles, bought two houses together, etc etc etc.
Depends on the state's common law marriage definition; here, jointly owning property, living together for a few months and presenting yourselves as married will meet the requirements.
The odd part comes if you want to make it more official; you can file a declaration of common law marriage so it's on the books, but if you want a real marriage certificate you'll have to move out for, IIRC, 90 days and dispose of jointly owned property to dissolve the common law marriage before you can apply for a marriage license.
-
Depends on the state's common law marriage definition; here, jointly owning property, living together for a few months and presenting yourselves as married will meet the requirements.
The odd part comes if you want to make it more official; you can file a declaration of common law marriage so it's on the books, but if you want a real marriage certificate you'll have to move out for, IIRC, 90 days and dispose of jointly owned property to dissolve the common law marriage before you can apply for a marriage license.
Oh, we have a proper marriage license and signed certificate. It's just been tucked away in a file drawer for thirty years. Nobody other than the DMV ever asked to see it. More and more couples don't even change her last name, so who knows?
Here's another one: back then, Colorado required the woman to have a blood test within 30 days before issuing a marriage license. I don't know if any state still does that, but if so - which same sex partner gets stuck in the arm ??? :P
-
It will happen right after USA gets a state church.
Care to wager on when that will happen?
I think you can be assured that gay activists will attempt to do it here. It won't be quite the same justification, but they will come up with something. I won't bet against them winning. Courts can be screwy these days.
-
Homosexuals wanting to get "married" in a church makes about as much sense as blacks wanting to join the KKK =|
-
Already here
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/20/idaho-citys-ordinance-tells-pastors-to-marry-gays-/
-
Does your church ever allow weddings outside of its congregation? Congrats, you're now a public accomodation! Etc
Our church has a few things that are for parishioners only. If it were to limit weddings this way, it would only make sense.
Just to be clear, you don't believe that non-state-sponsored, US churches will be sued to compel them to violate their beliefs on homosexual marriage. Is that an accurate representation of your position?
They may be sued, but I don't think the suits will be successful.
So I'm somewhat dubious of all of the "hardships" that same sex couples claim to have ;/
It's really not that hard to find stories where people were denied inheritance, thrown out of their homes, or denied hospital visitation. Since neither of you has died, and you don't have family that would be willing to create problems for you along those lines, it's hardly surprising you haven't seen these issues firsthand.
This is a lot like people who have never needed to defend themselves being dubious about guns being necessary.
Already here
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/20/idaho-citys-ordinance-tells-pastors-to-marry-gays-/
This again...
Once again, this has been discussed many times - this is a commercial wedding chapel, a business, not a real church.
Seriously, how many times are you going to bring up the same three completely irrelevant things?
-
So it should include non-romantic relationships?
Sure.
Why not?
Furthermore, the possible abuses (which I think are going to happen) that are the result of .gov being given the power to define marriage is irrelevant to the question of if gays should be allowed to legally marry.
Those abuses are made possible by other laws (most of which are actually unconstitutional) and the emphasis should be on those rather than who should be allowed to marry.
You guys keep bring these things up as a reason to not allow gays to marry when the system that exists (obamacare providing coverage for spouses, churches potentially being sued for discrimination, businesses ordered to provide services) is already being abused in the name of marriage.
-
I guess I'll have to take my gay lover on down to the local wedding chapel. The ceremony will have a Confederate battle flag theme.
-
I guess I'll have to take my gay lover on down to the local wedding chapel. The ceremony will have a Confederate battle flag theme.
Holy *expletive deleted*it that would be the troll of the decade.
Two black guys trying to get married with a confederate themed wedding......
:rofl:
-
Holy *expletive deleted*it that would be the troll of the decade.
Two black guys trying to get married with a confederate themed wedding......
:rofl:
Needs a flaming cross and white bed sheets for the table cloths.
-
Actually, we both identify as black women. But we feel strongly that Confederate lives matter.
-
Just to be clear, you don't believe that non-state-sponsored, US churches will be sued to compel them to violate their beliefs on homosexual marriage. Is that an accurate representation of your position?
Which is the actual line in the sand that everyone here should be able to agree on, no matter our individual positions on same-sex marriage otherwise.
European state churches are not a bellwether of any kind for the U.S. scenario, since we don't have state churches.
I'm sure that by careful judge shopping, and finding the right area, Berkeley CA, Madistan WI, Austin TX, or whatever... they'll even get a few low-level "wins". I'll take notice when it actually reaches Federal appellate court. Everything before that is just posturing, however much it may suck for the individual churches that have gotten sued.
-
There is no proscription against murder in Buddhist countries? Or are theirs also Biblical based, even though they have no Bible?
I was not refering to Buddhist countries, and I have no idea what they base proscriptions on murder on.
Is this important for some reason?
Ask a Buddhist.
-
Which is the actual line in the sand that everyone here should be able to agree on, no matter our individual positions on same-sex marriage otherwise.
Why that and not the baker example?
-
Why that and not the baker example?
Exactly, the line has been crossed already.
Granted they were small expeditionary missions but the full assault is coming. The intel gained from the skirmishes will used along with the added firepower of the SC decision.
For those who think the constitution is going to protect the corporate churches of America have you been living under a rock?
If tax exempt status for orthodox churches survives half a decade I'll be surprised.
Christians won't take up arms over this but will finally realize their government isn't interested in protecting them any more than it is interested in protecting truly persecuted Christians around the world.
There will continue to be corporate churches towing the line serving mammon and perversity. But there will also be small assemblies meeting in homes and the like and the church will continue on, maybe even creating its own black market for goods and services.
-
Why that and not the baker example?
That's the level I kind of get irritated at.
I'm an atheist. I DO NOT care if Joe and Jim or Sue and Sally want to get "married" I really DO NOT CARE. If that is what they want to do, who am I to judge. If I'm wrong and there is a creator that cares about such stuff then that's who they will have to reckon with.
Being an atheist however does not make me antagonistic towards folks of a religious bent (so long as they don't try to force their religious strictures on me).
I fully support anyone's right to refuse service to someone based on their moral/religious tenants. I am vehemently opposed to those that seek to force someone at the point of a gun, (and that is what it really boils down to isn't it?) to violate their deeply held religious beliefs.
This crap of gays going to an obviously Christian owned business, bakery, photographers and such, and insisting they participate in something that is more or less known to be against their religious beliefs and then using the power of government to destroy their lives because they don't "celebrate" your gayness is abhorrent to me.
It is my opinion that simply declining to participate in something that goes against your moral/religious beliefs is in fact the free exercise of religion and therefore a protected action under the 1st Amendment.
-
Is this important for some reason?
Yes.
The proscription is not at all uniquely Biblical, and there is no reason to think it is.
US law is not Biblical law. 4 of the 10 Commandments are in direct contradiction to the Constitution.
-
Which 4 would those be?
-
Yes.
The proscription is not at all uniquely Biblical, and there is no reason to think it is.
US law is not Biblical law. 4 of the 10 Commandments are in direct contradiction to the Constitution.
I never said it was "uniquely Biblical."
And I also never said US Law was biblical. American jurisprudence was based on Judeo-Christian ethics, not the Bible.
I would be interested in knowing which commandments are in contradiction to the Constitution.
-
Why that and not the baker example?
Religious freedom ends if you own a business apparently.
-
It seems like we've settled on the risk of some Christians being forced to countenance gays at their businesses being the only remotely plausible argument against the new decision.
In response I'll point out that there are racist churches doing fine right this moment - no blacks allowed. The people who are so worried about gays asking for religious or business services can maybe just reach out to them and copy their model for practicing discrimination in the post 14th amendment world. That freedom is still definitely available.
In every day life, marriage is legally important to couples. There are rights they get that aren't obtainable by other means. To deny it to gays means they are in fact disadvantaged compared to other couples, and I can't see any good reason why that should be.
The "government interest in procreation" and the dictionary combined do not amount to anything more than a restatement of old prejudices. I'm happy not having the bible be my law.
-
The "government interest in procreation" and the dictionary combined do not amount to anything more than a restatement of old prejudices. I'm happy not having the bible be my law.
So, which completely Gay tolerant, modern religion do you subscribe to?
-
It seems like we've settled on the risk of some Christians being forced to countenance gays at their businesses being the only remotely plausible argument against the new decision.
In response I'll point out that there are racist churches doing fine right this moment - no blacks allowed. The people who are so worried about gays asking for religious or business services can maybe just reach out to them and copy their model for practicing discrimination in the post 14th amendment world. That freedom is still definitely available.
In every day life, marriage is legally important to couples. There are rights they get that aren't obtainable by other means. To deny it to gays means they are in fact disadvantaged compared to other couples, and I can't see any good reason why that should be.
The "government interest in procreation" and the dictionary combined do not amount to anything more than a restatement of old prejudices. I'm happy not having the bible be my law.
Now you drag racism into this argument. How many different unrelated topics have you dragged into this thread so far?
See if you can drag Star Wars into this also...or maybe adoption. =D
(https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/11709645_10153091835758473_6893386040012551930_n.jpg?oh=3a78229d847221b112d37397d3da3304&oe=56191DB3)
-
So, which completely Gay tolerant, modern religion do you subscribe to?
My money's on Cthuhlu or FSM worship.
-
See if you can drag Star Wars into this also...or maybe adoption. =D
:lol:
My money's on Cthuhlu or FSM worship.
Sanctimony included at no extra charge.
-
seriously? WTH?
why can't you guys stop with the low and nasty?
-
Hey look BSL, DeSelby is using your tactic of attempts at shaming :lol:
Besides the shared antipathy for historic Christian values he also kind of likes the wide latitude the 14th gives government, just like you ;)
-
Hey look BSL, DeSelby is using your tactic of attempts at shaming :lol:
Besides the shared antipathy for historic Christian values he also kind of likes the wide latitude the 14th gives government, just like you ;)
Yeah, good for you. Real Christian of you to join in on this impolite behavior.
-
Yeah, good for you. Real Christian of you to join in on this impolite behavior.
Just an observation; what was impolite?
If you were to ask DeSelby about me he would probably be hard pressed to recall any time I've attacked him personally. I always attempt to stay on topic and answer his points.
-
seriously? WTH?
why can't you guys stop with the low and nasty?
I dislike his methods. Trying to drag racism or mistreatment of women into an argument when neither applies. You can decide for yourself why. He might as well come out and ask "when did you stop beating your wife"? I like the seeing his arguments on different topics, but sometimes it is like watching the Ancient Aliens or UFO guys on cable.
That and I really didn't see it as impolite. Just a joke really. I saw the picture earlier and decided it was as good a time as any to drag it in.
-
No surprise there, equal right for everyone.
One thing to expect is a lot more fanatical Republican candidates tanking elections for the GOP.
Maybe. We're going to see plenty of Republicans embrace this fanatical new ruling. I don't know how much it will hurt them, just yet.
-
Just an observation; what was impolite?
If you were to ask DeSelby about me he would probably be hard pressed to recall any time I've attacked him personally. I always attempt to stay on topic and answer his points.
I don't think you have attacked me at all and we've actually developed a bit of info here about our respective positions.
I brought up racism because it's the most obvious example of people being free to practice their religion despite 14th amendment rulings prohibiting legal bias. It's proof that the fears about being forced to have gay weddings are overblown.
-
I dislike his methods. Trying to drag racism or mistreatment of women into an argument when neither applies. You can decide for yourself why. He might as well come out and ask "when did you stop beating your wife"? I like the seeing his arguments on different topics, but sometimes it is like watching the Ancient Aliens or UFO guys on cable.
That and I really didn't see it as impolite. Just a joke really. I saw the picture earlier and decided it was as good a time as any to drag it in.
Well, when did you stop beating your wife?
And Ron, obviously, I was not amused. Don't play dumb. My " antipathy" is not for historical Christian values. It is for those who are deluded into thinking I, or anyone else, should abide by them, regardless of personal beliefs.
-
It seems like we've settled on the risk of some Christians being forced to countenance gays at their businesses being the only remotely plausible argument against the new decision.
Isn't a Christian baker or photographer or clergy being forced to participate in a ceremony they find morally repugnant enough of a reason? Just one. And it's not like they are the only baker or photographer or clergyman available, gay activists are seeking out ones that will be hurt by this, and taking them to court to punish them for their deeply-held religious beliefs.
-
The bible (or more properly, beliefs about the bible which bear little to no relationship to its authors' beliefs) is/are not a sound basis for law making. The framers didn't write canonical laws into the constitution for a reason - many of them weren't even Christian. You don't have to be a Christian to enjoy rights.
I'm happy not having the bible be my law.
This is the trolling we're talking about.
Until DeSelby, no one in this thread said anything about the Bible defining marriage (because that's irrelevant). DeSelby brought it up several pages ago, and got someone to take that position (thanks, TommyGunn). So he introduced the topic just to use it as a straw man. He's been told very plainly why the Bible can't be credited with the heterosexuality of marriage traditions around the world, but he keeps going on about it. Here we are, six pages later. At some point, it's plain dishonesty.
But, again, lies work.
-
Well, when did you stop beating your wife?
And Ron, obviously, I was not amused. Don't play dumb. My " antipathy" is not for historical Christian values. It is for those who are deluded into thinking I, or anyone else, should abide by them, regardless of personal beliefs.
So if the government doesn't recognize your lesbian wedding, that would be telling you to abide by Christian values? You realize that could happen in a whole lot of not-remotely-Christian countries, right?
-
I brought up racism because it's the most obvious example of people being free to practice their religion despite 14th amendment rulings prohibiting legal bias. It's proof that the fears about being forced to have gay weddings are overblown.
Right. I am sure that was the reason you brought it up. ;)
We are not far from churches that are open to anyone being declared public accommodations. Also pretty sure that if a black or mixed couple with a lawyer really wanted to make trouble for a racist church they could do so. Are you aware of any case law regarding racist churches turning away black wedding parties or something similar, or is this a largely untested arena?
Finally, I seem to recall a black-owned bakery in ... Georgia maybe? ... that was sued by the KKK to force them to bake a Klan cake. That seems to be more analogous and equally repugnant to me. So, De Selby, why do you support the Klan? :'(
-
So if the government doesn't recognize your lesbian wedding, that would be telling you to abide by Christian values? You realize that could happen in a whole lot of not-remotely-Christian countries, right?
You do realize this ISN'T any of those countries or a Christian one either, right?
Government is not the church. I could honestly care less what any church says about my big lesbian wedding. I care what the Government says about it, especially if they are handing out marriage licenses to straight folk.
-
I don't think you have attacked me at all and we've actually developed a bit of info here about our respective positions.
I brought up racism because it's the most obvious example of people being free to practice their religion despite 14th amendment rulings prohibiting legal bias. It's proof that the fears about being forced to have gay weddings are overblown.
Dragging racism into this is like breaking Godwins law, everyone rolls their eyes.
Even if the race reference was applicable (it's not) it was still guaranteed to be dismissed out of hand as a shaming tactic.
I hope you are correct about the protection of churches but I'm afraid you are wrong. There is blood in the water. Obama the natural ally is only in office for a short period of time and there is a real concern on the left a Republican will replace him. Now is the time to strike the death blow to the religious rights power base (churches) and fracture the Republicans further.
-
It seems like we've settled on the risk of some Christians being forced to countenance gays at their businesses being the only remotely plausible argument against the new decision.
In the real world, the ACLU no longer favors RFRA.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-should-amend-the-abused-religious-freedom-restoration-act/2015/06/25/ee6aaa46-19d8-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html
Also in the real world, the U.S. Solicitor General has conjectured that some churches might lose tax-exempt status over this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/04/28/could-religious-institutions-lose-tax-exempt-status-over-supreme-courts-gay-marriage-case/
But other than that, and other such examples already brought up in this thread, it's just the hyperventilating of conservatives.
-
You do realize this ISN'T any of those countries or a Christian one either, right?
Government is not the church. I could honestly care less what any church says about my big lesbian wedding. I care what the Government says about it, especially if they are handing out marriage licenses to straight folk.
I'm sorry you were unable to process what I said. Please feel free to come back and think about it later. I think you'll eventually get it.
-
You do realize this ISN'T any of those countries or a Christian one either, right?
Government is not the church. I could honestly care less what any church says about my big lesbian wedding. I care what the Government says about it, especially if they are handing out marriage licenses to straight folk.
Since marriage is between a man and woman it makes sense that they would "hand them out" to straight couples.
-
Mocking the mods usually doesn't end well.
No, but modding the mocs could be a new business model for Monkeyleg.
-
I'm sorry you were unable to process what I said. Please feel free to come back and think about it later. I think you'll eventually get it.
No, I get it. I really actually do get it. You do, too. You just will not let it go.
If I want my relationship validated by the State, and the State refuses due to the sex of my partner while validating others because of the sex of their partners, then the State is not providing equal services to me. Which is the problem.
Religion has no input into this conversation except for the fact that people like you find the State granting LBGT equal marriage rights to be offensive.
It's not the Government forcing Christian values, it's the Christains using the force of the Government to uphold Christian values.
-
Since marriage is between a man and woman it makes sense that they would "hand them out" to straight couples.
Since marriage is whatever the flipping hell a given society says it is, it would make sense that it gets handed out to whoever that society says it should.
Guess what? the good old USA is chalk full of society that says gay people can get married!
-
Since marriage is whatever the flipping hell a given society says it is, it would make sense that it gets handed out to whoever that society says it should.
Guess what? the good old USA is chalk full of society that says gay people can get married!
Er, I thought there was one poll that says it was about half-full. Maybe I've missed a few.
More importantly, there you are defending anti-miscegenation laws again.
-
Since marriage is whatever the flipping hell a given society says it is, it would make sense that it gets handed out to whoever that society says it should.
Guess what? the good old USA is chalk full of society that says gay people can get married!
I agree the USA is descending into absurdity.
-
No, I get it. I really actually do get it. You do, too. You just will not let it go.
If I want my relationship validated by the State, and the State refuses due to the sex of my partner while validating others because of the sex of their partners, then the State is not providing equal services to me. Which is the problem.
Actually, it is providing equal services. The problem, clearly, would be...you.
Religion has no input into this conversation except for the fact that people like you find the State granting LBGT equal marriage rights to be offensive.
It's not the Government forcing Christian values, it's the Christains using the force of the Government to uphold Christian values.
Another rant devoid of logic. Governments generally are not in the habit of recognizing marriages that, due to the sex of one of the partners, are not marriages.
-
Since marriage is whatever the flipping hell a given society says it is, it would make sense that it gets handed out to whoever that society says it should.
Guess what? the good old USA is chalk full of society that says gay people can get married!
If by "chock full" , you mean 5 tyrants in robes, I agree.
And are you really supporting the idea that if the majority of society supports something, it's automatically OK?
Why even have laws ;/
-
Here is Roberts' dissent.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556#writing-14-556_DISSENT_4
If you're a "gay marriage" proponent that wants to understand the reasoned opposition to it, this is a good summation.
-
I agree!
The USA is descending into absurdity.
and it can go to hell in a handbasket, if it wants too.
I don't care which side of the fence the morality comes from, be it SJWs or moral conservatives, you don't legislate it.
The Government in this country must be amoral to work. The Christians have been running the show for a long time now, and look at what's happened to you. You're getting slammed. The SJWs have now learned your tricks and are using them better than you ever did.
The blind squirrels found a nut in gay marriage. I doubt they will find another. Thanks to the oh so moral Christian Conservatives, now we are all screwed.
Thank you.
-
Actually, it is providing equal services. The problem, clearly, would be...you.
Another rant devoid of logic. Governments generally are not in the habit of recognizing marriages that, due to the sex of one of the partners, are not marriages.
If you can't even get passed the whole definition of marriage we did like five pages back (and every single flipping thread ever involving gay marriage) then why are we even having this conversation?
So, like, everyone, like, does not, like agree with your, like, definition of marriage.
maybe if I say it in vally girl, you might get it.
-
If you can't even get passed the whole definition of marriage we did like five pages back (and every single flipping thread ever involving gay marriage) then why are we even having this conversation?
So, like, everyone, like, does not, like agree with your, like, definition of marriage.
maybe if I say it in vally girl, you might get it.
You don't get to redefine words simply to suit your position.
-
You don't get to redefine words simply to suit your position.
Get a big group of people in one room, from every cultural/subcultural in the USA, and ask them to define marriage.
If they all give the same answer, than you can have your definition. If they don't, well, your definition is not the valid one from a legal .gov stance.
since I'm betting you can't get all the same answers, I'm going to go with there is no one, definitive definition. I am not the one doing the defining. You are.
-
Sooooo
Anyone got a good recipe for cornbread?
-
Sooooo
Anyone got a good recipe for cornbread?
only if I can brand the Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia into it.
-
and we done.