Major Blow to Homophobes: SCOTUS Refuses to Block Gay Marriage in DC

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Did you obtain approval from your state government who you may marry or did you get to make that decision yourself based on your preferences and in pursuit of your happiness?

I can't marry a woman here. We can, however, common law marry. Can you?

This is interesting to me. The original argument is whether a gay couple should be allowed, under the law, be married. Why you are trying to cloud this issue is telling. Two isn't a magical number, it is simple the number of people in a "traditionally described" marriage. Now when the argument becomes should polyamory be legal, we will have a whole other discussion. Please stick to the topic.

-Blu-

The topic is redefining marriageafter centuries of understanding that it is between a man and a woman to please a minority. Why is it off-topic to suggest that the redefining not stop at two people?

You offered procreation which I already debunked. You claimed some sort of personal impact which you failed to substantiate and then you pulled the state argument missing the point that the Constitution does contain a equal protection clause that applies to all states which is what the argument is really all about. What argument of yours have I missed?

I've offered more than just procreation in multiple posts. Perhaps the arguments are too nuanced for you to detect.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I can't marry a woman here. We can, however, common law marry. Can you?

So, I take that as a NO. You were actually afforded the right to chose your spouse. But your homosexual neighbor - don't take that literally, I am not interested on who lives next door to you - doesn't enjoy that right. That homosexual neighbor is no more responsible for being homosexual than you are for being heterosexual or the person down the street for being heterosexual but left handed. Why, then, do you and the heterosexual but left handed person down the street get to enjoy the benefits of having your partnership sanctioned by the government of your state while your homosexual neighbor does not?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Your objection is not that you personally find it offensive because it's a sin and immoral, but that it threatens the social order? How?

See, Cleo saw it.

How does it not threaten the social order when you redefine marriage? If it didn't why does the populace vote against it time and time again, and the courts, "knowing better than the folks" feel the need to shove it down our throats?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It's done every day. You ever heard of eminent domain? You can't shout fire in a crowded theater? Patriot laws?

Get serious.

Eminent Domain: See 5th Amendment. Kthx.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Since when is anyone forcing gay marriage on you specifically?

Your objection comes down to this. Its not "normal". And accepting it is somehow a violation of your rights to maintain what you feel is "normal".

You see it as normal and don't understand why anyone else wouldn't. How does that make you right and me wrong?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I've offered more than just procreation in multiple posts. Perhaps the arguments are too nuanced for you to detect.

I listed three arguments I remember you put forth but apparently you only read the first few words of my post. I haven't detected a lot nuance in your posts thus far but rather a lot of repeats and deflections from the issue at hand.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Oh my. Now is it a pissing contest of "I'm more passionate in my beliefs"?

Morality of religion should not have any bearing on the laws passed by a secular government.

Our government is only partially secular. Appeals to religion brought about the Civil Rights Bill. God is on our money and our federal and state buildings. We are only secular when some choose to be.

[Wyld Blu 35]

I can't marry a woman here. We can, however, common law marry. Can you?

The topic is redefining marriageafter centuries of understanding that it is between a man and a woman to please a minority. Why is it off-topic to suggest that the redefining not stop at two people?

Actually, the entire REASON for this issue is because it ISN'T everyone's understanding of marriage, it is the churches. Most of this thread has been dedicated to talking about recognizing a gay couple as married if they decide to make that distinction. You are the only one who has been deviating from that conversation.

If the government is to give a certain couple rights because they are considered married and won't give another couple the same rights because they aren't currently "allowed" to be married, that is wrong. You claim that you fear those of us not against gay marriage don't recognize ourselves as part of the greater civilization. I have similar concerns that people against it, have separated themselves from an entire portion of society for so-called "moral" reasons.

-Blu-

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Ah yes, you do not disappoint. well, a little, actually. You only covered incest and polygamy but failed to pull the bestiality card. Keeping that for later? Either way, I'm not interested in a discussion on either of the other issues bu would rather we stick to the debate at hand. If you can handle it.

One of my good friends is a woman named Clela Rorex. Look her up. She is a gay icon and the story of how she came to be involves bestiality.

Don't stop there....keep going ! ( hint : 1 Cor. 6:1-3 ).

No it didn't. It started with Adam and Eve. They had a garden wedding.

Is someone quoting the Bible now? How about the parts condemning man laying with man as he would a woman? God does some judging, yes.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It's done every day. You ever heard of eminent domain? You can't shout fire in a crowded theater? Patriot laws?

Get serious.

oh and just to add to this as well. (in addition to seeing the 5th amendment on Eminent Domain and public land use)

Just because "it's done every day" doesn't make it right.

Your logic fails completely here.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

So, I take that as a NO. You were actually afforded the right to chose your spouse. But your homosexual neighbor - don't take that literally, I am not interested on who lives next door to you - doesn't enjoy that right. That homosexual neighbor is no more responsible for being homosexual than you are for being heterosexual or the person down the street for being heterosexual but left handed. Why, then, do you and the heterosexual but left handed person down the street get to enjoy the benefits of having your partnership sanctioned by the government of your state while your homosexual neighbor does not?

I was afforded the privilege to choose my spouse among members of the opposite sex. I do not view marriage as a right.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Eminent Domain: See 5th Amendment. Kthx.

See Kelo v. City of New London You lose.

oh and just to add to this as well. (in addition to seeing the 5th amendment on Eminent Domain and public land use)

Just because "it's done every day" doesn't make it right.

Your logic fails completely here.

When you start applying logic, please let me know.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You see it as normal and don't understand why anyone else wouldn't. How does that make you right and me wrong?

Acceptance of homosexuals and the realization that the long practiced discrimination against this population in our society is wrong has undeniably occurred over the past decades. The very fact that homosexuals are, in many states, afforded the right to form 'civil unions' - state sanctioned relationships short of the full benefits of marriage - is a clear sign that the tide is shifting and that acceptance is growing. Homosexuality is a natural occurrence just as left handedness. We wouldn't think of affording left handed people less than the full benefits of marriage so why single out the group of homosexuals? It makes no sense whatsoever.

Churches may handle it whichever way they want. They're not bound by the Constitution just as government is not bound by any religious text.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

See Kelo v. City of New London You lose.

When you start applying logic, please let me know.

The constitution is not a "lose" situation...

When you're ready to actually read/understand the constitution, let me know..

To me it seems like you're trying to troll and find any excuse because you are a homophobe....

[Peikko 1,575]

See, Cleo saw it.

How does it not threaten the social order when you redefine marriage? If it didn't why does the populace vote against it time and time again, and the courts, "knowing better than the folks" feel the need to shove it down our throats?

I don't think simply saying 'how does it not?' is a good argument. I don't see any threat to social order in granting the rights afforded by marriage to gay couples. Perhaps you could explain how it does?