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

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

Give me one example of a person who is posting in this thread who is without morals and standards? I really don't care if you want to 'live seperately' from those you believe you are superiour to, that's entirely up to you, but to suggest that your morals and standards are somehow better, or that you are one of some elite few who even has any? That's idiotic and disrespectful and what's more, I would suggest it goes against those beliefs you purport to uphold, but hey, go right ahead, I'm sure your god is very pleased with you.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

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.

There is nothing disrespectful in acknowledging the fact that gays are a minority because they like to ** the same sex.

I know lots of gays who not only do not support gay marriage, but are opposed to forcing it on a society that has declined populist attempts to legalise it thru voting.

Just as there is no right to marriage in the Constitution, there is no limit to who may marry whom. That has been a provision allowed to the states, and the only way Leftists can defeat it is by government tryanny.

Why do you so blithely reject the slippery slope? Because you can't imagine it? Perhaps that is because you don't fully grasp how the perversity of the Left feeds into the ongoing demonization of the Right.

Homos will never gain equal footing with hetros. Society will collaspe before that happens.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

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

You fail to recognize your feelings about/against gay marriage are prejudice. That prejudice is for you to justify, cultivate and keep or discard per your own free will. But it is prejudice. Society will not end, and you have studiously avoided as far as I can see, how gay marriage would affect you in any way. It wouldn't beyond offending you in your deeply held prejudice.

QUOTE (Sofiyya @ Mar 2 2010, 10:47 PM) 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.

Talk about a poor tactic to attempt to end debate. You really are something else...

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Give me one example of a person who is posting in this thread who is without morals and standards? I really don't care if you want to 'live seperately' from those you believe you are superiour to, that's entirely up to you, but to suggest that your morals and standards are somehow better, or that you are one of some elite few who even has any? That's idiotic and disrespectful and what's more, I would suggest it goes against those beliefs you purport to uphold, but hey, go right ahead, I'm sure your god is very pleased with you.

Those who support gay marriage because it doesn't affect them. Morals are not relative; "opposing morals" (an oxymoron) cannot be equal.

You fail to recognize your feelings about/against gay marriage are prejudice. That prejudice is for you to justify, cultivate and keep or discard per your own free will. But it is prejudice. Society will not end, and you have studiously avoided as far as I can see, how gay marriage would affect you in any way. It wouldn't beyond offending you in your deeply held prejudice.

Talk about a poor tactic to attempt to end debate. You really are something else...

I freely admit I have prejudices, Everyone does, but some refuse to admit it, freigning superiority over those who do admit it. You are one of those.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Those who support gay marriage because it doesn't affect them. Morals are not relative; "opposing morals" (an oxymoron) cannot be equal.

I freely admit I have prejudices, Everyone does, but some refuse to admit it, freigning superiority over those who do admit it. You are one of those.

I am not feigning anything. It is you who have clearly delineated by your words that your position is morally superior and so right all others are immoral and wrong to disagree. At least you don't feign. But your tactics for argument, and holier than though posts, are all smokescreens for failing to answer the repeated question:

How does approval of gay marriage 1. affect you? 2. wreck society?

Quit playing the games, and answer those two questions.

I support your right to feel gay relationships are wrong, and even your personal feeling gay marriage is wrong, but only to the extent we all have bias towards certain things. I don't believe it is wrong to recognize our bias attitudes and work to change or overcome them. I also realize this particular issue creates a personal crisis between your religious beliefs and attempting to evolve an attitude of acceptance that sometimes others do things we personally would not, but when those actions of others truly don't affect us we have little right to impose our prejudices on others.

Gay marriage or no, the sex acts, the in your mind 'immoral' relationships, the acts which offend you so will continue to occur.

Edited March 3, 2010 by ready4ONE

[Peikko 1,575]

There is nothing disrespectful in acknowledging the fact that gays are a minority because they like to ** the same sex.

I know lots of gays who not only do not support gay marriage, but are opposed to forcing it on a society that has declined populist attempts to legalise it thru voting.

Just as there is no right to marriage in the Constitution, there is no limit to who may marry whom. That has been a provision allowed to the states, and the only way Leftists can defeat it is by government tryanny.

Why do you so blithely reject the slippery slope? Because you can't imagine it? Perhaps that is because you don't fully grasp how the perversity of the Left feeds into the ongoing demonization of the Right.

Homos will never gain equal footing with hetros. Society will collaspe before that happens.

Redefining marriage on the basis of who you like to ** is fvcked up.

That was what I was responding to, your contention that gays want to have their rights recognized simply because of who they like to ####. That is complete rubbish. As is I suspect are all these so called 'gay friends' who reject the notion of gay marriage, not that that is meaningful in anyway even were it to be true. Just because there are some gay people who don't want to get married, doesn't mean that renders the opinion of those gays who would like to be able to enjoy the same marital rights as hetrosexuals as somehow null and void.

My rejection of the 'slippery slope' was clearly argued, your statement that my rejection of it is blythe is incorrect. Your reasons why I might reject it are quite wrong.

You keep going on and on about the damage to society that homosexual marriage poses, and now this is going to cause the complete collapse of society. All very dramatic, but you still have not provided one jot of evidence that homosexual relationships jeapordise the fabric of society in any way, let alone would lead to wholesale destruction simply because these ongoing relationships are given the same rights as those who enjoy rights derived from marriage.

I don't think anyone has argued that they only support gay marriage because 'it doesn't effect them'. Perhaps you could point out where you saw that little gem.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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.

Hey Scott,

By no means was I making the claim that all who oppose gay marriage are homophobic. However, lets be realistic, many of them are. Marriage as defined by the Constitution, is a civil right and gay marriage is about civil rights. Although I do believe that a marriage can be a sacred union, that doesn't give religion exclusive rights over the definition of marriage, just like religion cannot dictate whether two single people can sleep together, or live together, have children together...at least not legally. So why are some religious folk up in arms over gays wanting their marriages recognized legally? Do you see what I mean? There's an incredible inconsistency coming from some religious people over protesting this on grounds of morality. If their objection comes from moral convictions then they'd be fighting to make it illegal to sleep with someone outside of marriage. There's probably millions of people in this country currently living together and not married. There are also millions of people who get divorced and remarry as often as they change socks. Making this a moral issue just looks awfully selective and peculiar in the context of all the other moral issues regarding relationships and fidelity.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I assume that you have also noticed that the position of the supporters of gay marriage is that they are morally superior in that they are non-judgemental, open-minded, secular and minding their own business. According to them, people like me are judgemental, close-minded, coldly religious, and interfering with the freedom of consenting adults to do as they please.

So what if I also, and I emphasize also, believe my position is morally superior and holier than thou? Gay marriage pushers do, too.

I have answered those questions more than once. If you don't get it, read again until you do.

In fact, I am not repulsed by gays. I've said that more than once, too, but still read about how I find them offensive. I'm just honest about how their minority status is obtained by who they prefer to **. That's a fact, and the foundation of the empathy that compels some to want to protect them. If they didn't want to ** the same sex, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

My event planner is gay, conservative and against gay marriage. I've mentioned this before. We travel together and work together most days. It doesn't bother me in the least that he is gay, anymore than it bothers him that I am a Muslima. I've been around gays all of my life, and have a realistic view of them as people. Leftists see them as a political and social cause and a weapon to wield against the Right. I don't.

I have no intent of overcoming my prejudice against gay marriage. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, and I have enough problems with Muslims who disagree with that to be annoyed by you who want gays to marry, even if they don't want to themselves.

Liberals impose their desires on others. It's not enough to want something, you must insist that others want it as much as you do, or they're bad. I'm not out to change anything. Marriage should stay as it is. Those of us who think this way will continue to, despite incurring the wrath and the self-righteous indignation of the narcissistic Left.

I am not feigning anything. It is you who have clearly delineated by your words that your position is morally superior and so right all others are immoral and wrong to agree. At least you don't feign. But your tactics for argument, and holier than though posts, are all smokescreens for failing to answer the repeated question:

How does approval of gay marriage 1. affect you? 2. wreck society?

Quit playing the games, and answer those two questions.

I support your right to feel gay relationships are wrong, and even your personal feeling gay marriage is wrong, but only to the extent we all have bias towards certain things. I don't believe it is wrong to recognize our bias attitudes and work to change or overcome them. I also realize this particular issue creates a personal crisis between your religious beliefs and attempting to evolve an attitude of acceptance that sometimes others do things we personally would not, but when those actions of others truly don't affect us we have little right to impose our prejudices on others.

Gay marriage or no, the sex acts, the in your mind 'immoral' relationships, the acts which offend you so will continue to occur.

Hey Scott,

By no means was I making the claim that all who oppose gay marriage are homophobic. However, lets be realistic, many of them are. Marriage as defined by the Constitution, is a civil right and gay marriage is about civil rights. Although I do believe that a marriage can be a sacred union, that doesn't give religion exclusive rights over the definition of marriage, just like religion cannot dictate whether two single people can sleep together, or live together, have children together...at least not legally. So why are some religious folk up in arms over gays wanting their marriages recognized legally? Do you see what I mean? There's an incredible inconsistency coming from some religious people over protesting this on grounds of morality. If their objection comes from moral convictions then they'd be fighting to make it illegal to sleep with someone outside of marriage. There's probably millions of people in this country currently living together and not married. There are also millions of people who get divorced and remarry as often as they change socks. Making this a moral issue just looks awfully selective and peculiar in the context of all the other moral issues regarding relationships and fidelity.

FYI, Steven. Marriage is not defined by the Constitution.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Sofiyya

[one...two...tree 2,762]

FYI, Steven. Marriage is not defined by the Constitution.

I've brought this up before... (from the Supreme Court ruling of 1967 Loving v. Virginia)

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

....

Now you can argue that such remarks are judicial activism but then you'd run into the problem of how the Supreme Court was able to even tell the states who they could or couldn't allow to marry if it isn't a constitutional protection.

[Peikko 1,575]

No you have not explained in any way how society suffers as a result of gay relationships. You have simply made statements that it does and claimed that there is no way that it could not. I am not sure how someone as well educated as you claim to be could be ignorant of how making a claim that something is a certain way can not be miscontstrued as an explanation of how it is that way.

As for this proposprous notion that the only reason there is a discussion concerning the validity of providing homosexuals with the same marital rights as heterosexuals is because of interfering busybody liberals who want to foist this upon an unwilling homosexual community? How did you get there? Does the spectre of librals so fill you with dread and terror you simply lose all sense of reason? This attempt to portray this as a liberal pet cause is disingenuous at best, ignorant at worst. Homosexuals would like to be able to get married because of a genuine commitement to their partner. It is no more about how they want to #### than your marriage is.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I've brought this up before... (from the Supreme Court ruling of 1967 Loving v. Virginia)

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

....

Now you can argue that such remarks are judicial activism but then you'd run into the problem of how the Supreme Court was able to even tell the states who they could or couldn't allow to marry if it isn't a constitutional protection.

That is not the Constitution. That is an interpretation of the Constitution, and, as I have shown, the Supremes have erred in the past. They reference the unsupportable notion of racial classifications, but sexual orientation is not so easily dismissed as nebulous. Besides, Loving is based on the specifics of racial classifications, not sexual orientation, and it should not be assumed that this ruling is automatically applicable to the other.. I have no doubt that the Supremes will be more mindful than wreckless Leftists before determining that a part of the social fabric must be ripped apart. The populace is in no mood for more government impositions.

No you have not explained in any way how society suffers as a result of gay relationships. You have simply made statements that it does and claimed that there is no way that it could not. I am not sure how someone as well educated as you claim to be could be ignorant of how making a claim that something is a certain way can not be miscontstrued as an explanation of how it is that way.

As for this proposprous notion that the only reason there is a discussion concerning the validity of providing homosexuals with the same marital rights as heterosexuals is because of interfering busybody liberals who want to foist this upon an unwilling homosexual community? How did you get there? Does the spectre of librals so fill you with dread and terror you simply lose all sense of reason? This attempt to portray this as a liberal pet cause is disingenuous at best, ignorant at worst. Homosexuals would like to be able to get married because of a genuine commitement to their partner. It is no more about how they want to #### than your marriage is.

You say I haven't, but I know I have. Enough already.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

Is your argument this disingenuous? You object to the word marriage? OMG,that is inane.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Is your argument this disingenuous? You object to the word marriage? OMG,that is inane.

To you, it is inane. To me, it is not.

[Peikko 1,575]

That is not the Constitution. That is an interpretation of the Constitution, and, as I have shown, the Supremes have erred in the past. They reference the unsupportable notion of racial classifications, but sexual orientation is not so easily dismissed as nebulous. Besides, Loving is based on the specifics of racial classifications, not sexual orientation, and it should not be assumed that this ruling is automatically applicable to the other.. I have no doubt that the Supremes will be more mindful than wreckless Leftists before determining that a part of the social fabric must be ripped apart. The populace is in no mood for more government impositions.

You say I haven't, but I know I have. Enough already.

No, you really did not. I have no idea what you find so objectionable now, nor how society crumbles merely because you do not want to call a same sex civil union 'marriage'. I really do not give two hoots what name is given to the union of same sex couples, and I am quite sure they do not care either, as long as the legal rights are the same. Why you must be so precious about the word marriage though? Beyond rational.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Peikko 1,575]

To you, it is inane. To me, it is not.

Obviously something distresses you, but I have no idea what it is. Marriage is just a convenient word to use to describe a legal contract. Oh well.