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

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Well, it happened before. My marriage would have been met with much prejudice a few decades ago. The prejudice dissipated after the Supreme Court ruled on the issue. Not immediately but it did eventually. Point is that the court ruled while the prejudice still existed and it was subsequently wiped out.

Don't be naive. Prejudice still exists. It is merely covert rather than overt.

[Peikko 1,575]

I have posted dozens of explanations on this thread. Is it too much for me to ask someone to post a rational and non-emotional view of how a redefinition of marriage does not affect society? No, it isn't.

No, you have not posted anything that constitutes a rational for how the social order would be disrupted by extending marriage rights to gay couples. You keep repeating that this is a redifinition of marriage, and therefore for that reason alone society will be negatively impacted, but that doesn't make it true. There is no good reason to suppose that allowing gay couples these rights will have any impact whatsoever let alone a negative one. Just because one substitutes 'man and woman' for man and man or woman and woman does not mean that the sky will fall. Indeed, in states and societies where it is available, the sky hasn't fallen, the social order hasn't been damaged.

The institution of marriage plays a social role, of course it does. We see stability in couples, but it is in the implicit monogamy of a couple that the stability lies, not in the fact that one of the couple is a man and the other one in the couple is a woman. We no longer define women by their wombs, women have a role outside of the raising of offspring and men instituitionally play a more active role in parenting. This is generally regarded as a positive step forward. For that reason, there is no reason to believe that should the couple bring up children, no matter how these children are brought into the family, that they will be damaged by having same sex parents. Research has been done in this area, and none of it has concluded that the raising of offspring by same sex couples has a damaging effect, nor does it promote homosexuality, children brought up in same sex couple homes do not 'turn gay'.

As far as property and inheritence is concerned, one of the key legal componants of the marriage contract (in fact, historically, this part was the main reason behind marriage, and explains why those without property rarely concerned themselves with a legal marriage) there is no reason to suppose that property would somehow end up in the 'wrong hands' simply because gay couples could rely on the marriage contract for the assumption of property inheritance, in fact the very opposite is true.

So, again I ask, what is it that you fear will happen to the social order should same sex couples be afforded the same rights?

Edited March 3, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Actually, my point involves the use of "homophobe" as an attempt through ad hominem to shut up one's opponent. If one believes homosexuality is wrong, they are branded a "homophobe", and thus their views can be simply discounted. But we don't do that with other things, such as the examples I gave. And my value system does consider **-sexual relations to be wrong, as it holds that the essence of marriage (as created and instituted by God, btw) is not a "loving-relationship," but the one-flesh union of a man and a woman.

This tactic is a result of the very educational indoctrination they deny exists.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Where is the will of the governed in that? Cali voted more than once against gay marriage, indicating clearly that they don't want it. Does your joy in the rise of activist courts end when they enact laws you object to; that violates your standards, if you have any? That is when your hypocrisy will be clear to even you. You call Ted a conservative, but a true conservative doesn't believe in circumventing the will of the people thru the tryanny of the government.

That's the thing with the Constitution. It doesn't really bend easily to the governed. It also doesn't bend easily to those that govern. Which is why it largely still is the document that was written over two centuries ago. If the governed want to change the Constitution, they elect a government that undertakes this effort. No tyranny as far as I can see. One of the things the Constitution does is protect minorities from being tyrannized by the majority.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

-Blu-

I dunno why the system is no longer picking up all the quotes, as it used to.

I am fine with gays having civil unions and being given legal standing as couples. I am vehemently against equating their status as marriage. Marriage is not gay.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Don't be naive. Prejudice still exists. It is merely covert rather than overt.

One in 15 marriages is between people of different races today. Sure, out in the sticks there are still prejudices and they will remain. There will always be backwards people. They're not my problem, however. Overall, acceptance of interracial marriage is about as close to universal as it will ever get. There's more such acceptance here than in most countries around the world. And it all started with the Supreme Court making it clear in 1967 that under the US Constitution, interracial couples cannot be denied the right to enter into marriage in any state of the Union.

[Wyld Blu 35]

This has been a very interesting, slightly scary and certainly entertaining thread. But it is time for me to actually get some sleep. I will be very interested in seeing where this progresses, IF it progresses to anywhere. Goodnight VJ people.

-Blu-

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yeah, I'll have to turn in too. Night y'all.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

In order for my explanations to be rational to you, I would have to agree with you. I don't, so you don't see my views as rational.

I would argue that the social order in those societies that have granted gay marriage was already damaged, which allowed for the widespread acceptance of gay marriage.

Redefining marriage on the basis of who you like to ** is fvcked up. It won't stop with gays because the arguments for gay marriage can and will open the door for other kinds of unions. You cannot rationally argue that they won't. Gays are merely a tool for the Left. They will not be satisfied until they have ruined society for everyone.

No, you have not posted anything that constitutes a rational for how the social order would be disrupted by extending marriage rights to gay couples. You keep repeating that this is a redifinition of marriage, and therefore for that reason alone society will be negatively impacted, but that doesn't make it true. There is no good reason to suppose that allowing gay couples these rights will have any impact whatsoever let alone a negative one. Just because one substitutes 'man and woman' for man and man or woman and woman does not mean that the sky will fall. Indeed, in states and societies where it is available, the sky hasn't fallen, the social order hasn't been damaged.

The institution of marriage plays a social role, of course it does. We see stability in couples, but it is in the implicit monogamy of a couple that the stability lies, not in the fact that one of the couple is a man and the other one in the couple is a woman. We no longer define women by their wombs, women have a role outside of the raising of offspring and men instituitionally play a more active role in parenting. This is generally regarded as a positive step forward. For that reason, there is no reason to believe that should the couple bring up children, no matter how these children are brought into the family, that they will be damaged by having same sex parents. Research has been done in this area, and none of it has concluded that the raising of offspring by same sex couples has a damaging effect, nor does it promote homosexuality, children brought up in same sex couple homes do not 'turn gay'.

As far as property and inheritence is concerned, one of the key legal componants of the marriage contract (in fact, historically, this part was the main reason behind marriage, and explains why those without property rarely concerned themselves with a legal marriage) there is no reason to suppose that property would somehow end up in the 'wrong hands' simply because gay couples could rely on the marriage contract for the assumption of property inheritance, in fact the very opposite is true.

So, again I ask, what is it that you fear will happen to the social order should same sex couples be afforded the same rights?

That's the thing with the Constitution. It doesn't really bend easily to the governed. It also doesn't bend easily to those that govern. Which is why it largely still is the document that was written over two centuries ago. If the governed want to change the Constitution, they elect a government that undertakes this effort. No tyranny as far as I can see. One of the things the Constitution does is protect minorities from being tyrannized by the majority.

Gay marriage hasn't come about thru elections. It has been forced upon the masses by a few. Wherever it is legal, that is how it has happened.

[Ban Hammer 14,273]

I dunno why the system is no longer picking up all the quotes, as it used to.

ewok recently changed it to quote only the last one.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

One in 15 marriages is between people of different races today. Sure, out in the sticks there are still prejudices and they will remain. There will always be backwards people. They're not my problem, however. Overall, acceptance of interracial marriage is about as close to universal as it will ever get. There's more such acceptance here than in most countries around the world. And it all started with the Supreme Court making it clear in 1967 that under the US Constitution, interracial couples cannot be denied the right to enter into marriage in any state of the Union.

Interracial marriage didn't redefine marriage. Gay marriage does. And, there remains prejudice against both.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Peikko 1,575]

Actually, my point involves the use of "homophobe" as an attempt through ad hominem to shut up one's opponent. If one believes homosexuality is wrong, they are branded a "homophobe", and thus their views can be simply discounted. But we don't do that with other things, such as the examples I gave. And my value system does consider **-sexual relations to be wrong, as it holds that the essence of marriage (as created and instituted by God, btw) is not a "loving-relationship," but the one-flesh union of a man and a woman.

The one flesh union? What do you think that means? It doesn't mean a whole lot to me, beyond that in your opinion, sex should only occurr between men and women and you believe that opinion is validated by what your intepretation of what 'god' would wish to be true is. That leaves way to much in the realm of belief in something that can't be proved, but of course you are perfectly free to believe that if you so wish. I don't believe everyone that views the fitness of sex in this way as a homophobe but it doesn't provide for an explanation of those who engage in homosexual acts as anything other than sexual perverts, despite the fact that there is nothing that the gay person can do to change their sexual preference. You have therefore to condemn these people to a life of complete sexual abstinence, and a life long fight against this perversion, or they are simply asigned a seat beside satan, their souls are undredeamable. I do not find that very satisfactory at all. Why should someone born with a different sexual preference be subject to such prejudice? What does it achieve?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

ewok recently changed it to quote only the last one.

That sucks.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

This has been a very interesting, slightly scary and certainly entertaining thread. But it is time for me to actually get some sleep. I will be very interested in seeing where this progresses, IF it progresses to anywhere. Goodnight VJ people.

-Blu-

I think it's scary too. I makes me wish that those of us with morals and standards could live apart from those without them. But, God challenges us in our diversity.

[Peikko 1,575]

In order for my explanations to be rational to you, I would have to agree with you. I don't, so you don't see my views as rational.

I would argue that the social order in those societies that have granted gay marriage was already damaged, which allowed for the widespread acceptance of gay marriage.

Redefining marriage on the basis of who you like to ** is fvcked up. It won't stop with gays because the arguments for gay marriage can and will open the door for other kinds of unions. You cannot rationally argue that they won't. Gays are merely a tool for the Left. They will not be satisfied until they have ruined society for everyone.

Gay marriage hasn't come about thru elections. It has been forced upon the masses by a few. Wherever it is legal, that is how it has happened.

No, I don't see an argument, rational or irrational. I see statements but that's not the same thing. You have now stated that in order for same sex marriage to be granted the same status as hetrosexual marriage, the society has to be damaged but you are not providing any evidence of that damage. What is the damage you are talking about?

Clearly, you do not understand what it is to be gay. Gay people don't want to be married simply because they like to #### people of the same sex, that's purile and disrepsectful.

The slippery slope angle is also facile, the institution of marriage enshrines principals of monogomy. There really is no need to get married unless one wants to formalise a monogomous relationship, that's the raison d'etre.

No one is suggesting that we revisit the age at which children attain maturity - while it's true there is no state standard for this. However, to suggest that somehow society will clamour for age limits to be removed and can be rationalized because homosexuals have been granted equal footing with hetrosexuals is absurd.