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

[Dan J 277]

Hmmm...I KNEW someone would correct me, somewhere on this. LOL. I thought it began in the church. Where DID the ideas and ideals of marriage start?

-Blu-

The earliest known recorded marriage laws are in the code of Hammurabi. But the tradition probably started long before then.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

Some Gems:

If a man's wife be surprised (in flagrante delicto) with another man, both shall be tied and thrown into the water, but the husband may pardon his wife and the king his slaves.

If a man take a wife and she give this man a maid-servant as wife and she bear him children, and then this maid assume equality with the wife: because she has borne him children her master shall not sell her for money, but he may keep her as a slave, reckoning her among the maid-servants.

If she have not borne him children, then her mistress may sell her for money.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

As I said, I'm not interested in side-tracks. We're talking about homosexuals being denied their Constitutional rights.

Not a side track at all.

As has been already established, there is no Constitutional right to marry. You said that yourself, so why backtrack now?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Supreme Court, at one time, also saw Blacks as property, Native Americans as savages ready for slaughter, and more recently, sees your property as seizable to be given by local governments to a for profit, privately owned business. That is Constitutional to them. They are not alwats right.

No, they're not. But it has been instrumental when it comes to ending discrimination. I'm glad we have the Supreme Court - even though I sometimes find myself on the opposite side of their decisions - because they're not as bound by the pressures of the public opinion at any given time as they are by the Constitution of this great nation and it's pursuit of the ideals that are the foundation of it.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Not quite.

Please define inalienable rights in regards to our rights under the Constitution.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Hmmm...I KNEW someone would correct me, somewhere on this. LOL. I thought it began in the church. Where DID the ideas and ideals of marriage start?

-Blu-

Excuse me for being mixed up a bit..... The 'religious' side was in Eastern Cultures for bringing families together... and this wasn't always 'outside' of the family if you know what I mean, just so long as the same name wasn't shared.

In Western Culture is was for economic reasons, business practices, etc.. An agreement between families if you will.

The roles kind of flip-flopped eventually, but Western Culture was the first to have 'arranged' marriages in its original form...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

As has been already established, there is no Constitutional right to marry. You said that yourself, so why backtrack now?

No backtracking. I said there is no explicitly defined right to marry in the Constitution but have also pointed out that the Supreme Court has held time and again that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights of Americans under the Constitution. I'm sure you read that - you responded to it noting that the Supreme Court isn't always right. As long as the Supreme Court holds that marriage is a fundamental right under the Constitution, then it ought to be afforded to heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

[Wyld Blu 35]

The earliest known recorded marriage laws are in the code of Hammurabi. But the tradition probably started long before then.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

Some Gems:

I am SO gonna research this now. LOL. In any case, would you agree that the most recent definitions (right or wrong) of marriage have been developed by the church?

-Blu-

[Scott & Lai 12]

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

So, if someone believes homosexuality is wrong, they are a "homophobe"? I believe adultery is wrong, am I an adultery-phobe? I believe it's wrong for a man to sleep with his daughter, am I an incest-phobe? I believe gossip is wrong, am I a gossip-phobe? I believe theft is wrong, am I a theft-phobe?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Please define inalienable rights in regards to our rights under the Constitution.

Why?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Yeah, 20 years give or take a couple. It won't be another 20 before the still existing discrimination against homosexuals by the government will come to an end. You're 60 so you'll still see it happen. You might not like it but it'll happen all the same.

People are still claiming discrimination of Blacks and Hispanics, and their "plights" have been peddled longer than those of gays. Sorry, but gays will have a longer row to hoe. Rights based on who you prefer to ** don't attain cache easily.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I'm not a homophobe and I have not only read, but studied the Constitution for years. I carry a copy with me every day. I have creds.

I'm trying to get someone to explain how it doesn't.

Then you should understand the 5th amendment IF you have studied it....

and you should understand Full Faith & Credit as well.

But I suppose, you, like many others will always try and bend the meaning of the constitution to their way. Conservatives and Liberals are both very guilty of this.

I'm not trying to say anything bad against you, and it's perfectly fine if you are against gay marriage. I don't care. I'm against it and I'm anti-gay on a lot of things (i/e "out" in the military), but that doesn't mean that I don't understand the fallacies of only giving ONE GROUP the ability to benefit from a partnership via government. You can't do that. It's either civil unions for all or none at all..... and the 'pro-creation' argument (which I didn't see if you used or not) doesn't fit either because plenty of couples never pro-create, yet get the benefits just because they so happen to be the 'right' groiup of people.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, if someone believes homosexuality is wrong, they are a "homophobe"?

Of curse not.

[Dan J 277]

I am SO gonna research this now. LOL. In any case, would you agree that the most recent definitions (right or wrong) of marriage have been developed by the church?

-Blu-

I guess that depends who's definition. Marrying out of love is often not a part of religious definitions. Which is often built around family and reproduction.

The love aspect is definitely played on to sell diamonds and expensive weddings.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

People are still claiming discrimination of Blacks and Hispanics, and their "plights" have been peddled longer than those of gays. Sorry, but gays will have a longer row to hoe. Rights based on who you prefer to ** don't attain cache easily.

Well, I'll still be on VJ when it happens. I'll send you a "Told you So" note. Sooner than you think.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'm not a homophobe and I have not only read, but studied the Constitution for years. I carry a copy with me every day. I have creds.

I'm trying to get someone to explain how it doesn't.

You do realize that that is nonsensical?

That's like my asking you to explain why you feel frightened of the dark and you replying, "why shouldn't I be frightened of the dark?" There is no given that the dark is frightening, therefore only by your providing an explanation for what there is about it that you find frightening can I understand why you have that fear, simply saying that in your opinion there is no reason not to be frightened of the dark is without merit. There is no given that granting homosexual couples the same rights as hetrosexual couples will have any effect on the social order, let alone a detrimental one. If you want me to believe that there is one, you'll have to explain it, or your fear that it will have a bad effect is simply a fear of the unknown.