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

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I also fail to see how a secular government infringes on religious freedom by allowing gay marriages. Yes if the government starts requiring a religious figure to conduct the marriage that's one thing but I have yet to see it.

[Peikko 1,575]

World history isn't relevant to this discussion, so the only reason to insert it is so you can ignore American history. In American history, legitimizing gay marriage would be a major redefinition of marriage and a substantive culture shift.

I wish you folks would stop ofuscating; it's so gauche.

Obfuscating? This from the women who says that she only objects to the gay community using the the word marriage to describe their union, that in fact you are not against gay civil unions that bestow the same legal benefits to the partners but all the while continuing to insist that there is some calamity set to befall society should gay civil unions be given the right to call their civil unions marriage, presumably legally as I don't quite know how anyone would 'police' how the people themselves describe their union. It's almost as if you are using semantics to hide your bigotry, continuing to insist that 'marriage' is constitutionally sanctified as a union between one man and one woman because, and I'll paraphrase you; the inalienable rights are god given (even though marriage isn't one of them) and god does not approve of gay marriage. In your mind this translates as a citizen of the US has the right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness so long as that life, liberty and happiness conforms to your personal interpretation of what god would approve of. Um, no.

Regardless, you have no objection to civil gay partnerships, but yet you object to the idea of these partnerships having legal status (one wonders at this point what your 'non objection' amounts to, as you readily admit that gay civil partnerships are some intangible threat to society) and that the 'majority' should indeed continue to vote against giving gay partnerships legal status not only because it's their moral duty, but because the homosexual is not simply a minority in numbers (and no self respecting heterosexual would vote for same sex unions unless they are, oh the horror, a spineless hedonistic liberal who has no morals or principals) but is bestowed special minority status by liberals merely because of silly political correctness so that voting to allow gay couples to form civil gay partnerships enjoying the same rights and responsibilities as a heterosexual marriage is foisting the wishes of a minority, that doesn't deserve any status onto the protesting moral majority.

If that's not an emotionally charged bunch of hog wash, I really don't know what is.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Obfuscating? This from the women who says that she only objects to the gay community using the the word marriage to describe their union, that in fact you are not against gay civil unions that bestow the same legal benefits to the partners but all the while continuing to insist that there is some calamity set to befall society should gay civil unions be given the right to call their civil unions marriage, presumably legally as I don't quite know how anyone would 'police' how the people themselves describe their union. It's almost as if you are using semantics to hide your bigotry, continuing to insist that 'marriage' is constitutionally sanctified as a union between one man and one woman because, and I'll paraphrase you; the inalienable rights are god given (even though marriage isn't one of them) and god does not approve of gay marriage. In your mind this translates as a citizen of the US has the right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness so long as that life, liberty and happiness conforms to your personal interpretation of what god would approve of. Um, no.

Regardless, you have no objection to civil gay partnerships, but yet you object to the idea of these partnerships having legal status (one wonders at this point what your 'non objection' amounts to, as you readily admit that gay civil partnerships are some intangible threat to society) and that the 'majority' should indeed continue to vote against giving gay partnerships legal status not only because it's their moral duty, but because the homosexual is not simply a minority in numbers (and no self respecting heterosexual would vote for same sex unions unless they are, oh the horror, a spineless hedonistic liberal who has no morals or principals) but is bestowed special minority status by liberals merely because of silly political correctness so that voting to allow gay couples to form civil gay partnerships enjoying the same rights and responsibilities as a heterosexual marriage is foisting the wishes of a minority, that doesn't deserve any status onto the protesting moral majority.

If that's not an emotionally charged bunch of hog wash, I really don't know what is.

Very well said.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

gay lovers: 0 unless you count "feelings". Those were some seriously piss poor responses, not grounded in reality or historical perspective. Is it considered analytical these days to disregard anything other than how you want thongs to be when considering a question?

I want my thong to not be riding up the crack of my a$$.

[Wyld Blu 35]

Obfuscating? This from the women who says that she only objects to the gay community using the the word marriage to describe their union, that in fact you are not against gay civil unions that bestow the same legal benefits to the partners but all the while continuing to insist that there is some calamity set to befall society should gay civil unions be given the right to call their civil unions marriage, presumably legally as I don't quite know how anyone would 'police' how the people themselves describe their union. It's almost as if you are using semantics to hide your bigotry, continuing to insist that 'marriage' is constitutionally sanctified as a union between one man and one woman because, and I'll paraphrase you; the inalienable rights are god given (even though marriage isn't one of them) and god does not approve of gay marriage. In your mind this translates as a citizen of the US has the right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness so long as that life, liberty and happiness conforms to your personal interpretation of what god would approve of. Um, no.

Regardless, you have no objection to civil gay partnerships, but yet you object to the idea of these partnerships having legal status (one wonders at this point what your 'non objection' amounts to, as you readily admit that gay civil partnerships are some intangible threat to society) and that the 'majority' should indeed continue to vote against giving gay partnerships legal status not only because it's their moral duty, but because the homosexual is not simply a minority in numbers (and no self respecting heterosexual would vote for same sex unions unless they are, oh the horror, a spineless hedonistic liberal who has no morals or principals) but is bestowed special minority status by liberals merely because of silly political correctness so that voting to allow gay couples to form civil gay partnerships enjoying the same rights and responsibilities as a heterosexual marriage is foisting the wishes of a minority, that doesn't deserve any status onto the protesting moral majority.

If that's not an emotionally charged bunch of hog wash, I really don't know what is.

So, in layman's terms, God must think homosexuality is fine because society as we know it (and of course is ever changing) hasn't collapsed into total anarchy and destruction for the thousands of years homosexualty has existed. No, this will ONLY happen when gay people are allowed to classify their unions as marriage??? Hehehehe...OMG...this is too amusing to me.

-Blu-

[Peikko 1,575]

So, in layman's terms, God must think homosexuality is fine because society as we know it (and of course is ever changing) hasn't collapsed into total anarchy and destruction for the thousands of years homosexualty has existed. No, this will ONLY happen when gay people are allowed to classify their unions as marriage??? Hehehehe...OMG...this is too amusing to me.

-Blu-

It's only convoluted because VW insists that she has 'no objection' to civil unions between gay couples, when in reality she objects vociferously to their actuality.

Gay civil unions are perfectly fine as long as they remain purely an intellectual exercise.

[Susita 175]

Obfuscating? This from the women who says that she only objects to the gay community using the the word marriage to describe their union, that in fact you are not against gay civil unions that bestow the same legal benefits to the partners but all the while continuing to insist that there is some calamity set to befall society should gay civil unions be given the right to call their civil unions marriage, presumably legally as I don't quite know how anyone would 'police' how the people themselves describe their union. It's almost as if you are using semantics to hide your bigotry, continuing to insist that 'marriage' is constitutionally sanctified as a union between one man and one woman because, and I'll paraphrase you; the inalienable rights are god given (even though marriage isn't one of them) and god does not approve of gay marriage. In your mind this translates as a citizen of the US has the right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness so long as that life, liberty and happiness conforms to your personal interpretation of what god would approve of. Um, no.

Regardless, you have no objection to civil gay partnerships, but yet you object to the idea of these partnerships having legal status (one wonders at this point what your 'non objection' amounts to, as you readily admit that gay civil partnerships are some intangible threat to society) and that the 'majority' should indeed continue to vote against giving gay partnerships legal status not only because it's their moral duty, but because the homosexual is not simply a minority in numbers (and no self respecting heterosexual would vote for same sex unions unless they are, oh the horror, a spineless hedonistic liberal who has no morals or principals) but is bestowed special minority status by liberals merely because of silly political correctness so that voting to allow gay couples to form civil gay partnerships enjoying the same rights and responsibilities as a heterosexual marriage is foisting the wishes of a minority, that doesn't deserve any status onto the protesting moral majority.

If that's not an emotionally charged bunch of hog wash, I really don't know what is.

FTW

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, in layman's terms, God must think homosexuality is fine because society as we know it (and of course is ever changing) hasn't collapsed into total anarchy and destruction for the thousands of years homosexualty has existed.

God is the creator of man. That inculdes the homosexuals, doesn't it? Or are they somehow created by someone other than God? And if so, who would that someone be? God's evil twin?

[Wyld Blu 35]

It's only convoluted because VW insists that she has 'no objection' to civil unions between gay couples, when in reality she objects vociferously to their actuality.

Gay civil unions are perfectly fine as long as they remain purely an intellectual exercise.

Ok, I can't do this now, because I am at work and VJ is about the only thing I can get away with here...surfing the net, not so much.

But since we cannot get Sofiyya to cite instances where societies have been affected negatively in the wake of gay marriages, can anyone find references where gay marriages (meaning unions that have the SAME benefits whether the couple is gay or straight) are legal and have had any negative, or ANY affect on the society that allows them. Not all societies call these unions marriages, so I am just using "same benefits" as a term to reflect the same "contract".

-Blu-

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

...can anyone find references where gay marriages (meaning unions that have the SAME benefits whether the couple is gay or straight) are legal and have had any negative, or ANY affect on the society that allows them.

Sure. Sodom and Gomorrah.

[Wyld Blu 35]

Sure. Sodom and Gomorrah.

I KNEW I should have specified...lol...ok, not RELIGIOUS references, but rather HISTORICAL references.

-Blu-

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You know for someone who seems to make so many 'historic' knowledge claims, you fail to mention/realize that homosexuality has pretty much been around since the dawn of recorded time...

Let's just ignore that fact though.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I KNEW I should have specified...lol...ok, not RELIGIOUS references, but rather HISTORICAL references.

-Blu-

Actually there is evidence that both cities were burned to the ground with a napalm like substance.

You know for someone who seems to make so many 'historic' knowledge claims, you fail to mention/realize that homosexuality has pretty much been around since the dawn of recorded time...

Let's just ignore that fact though.

Oh but didn't you hear, we are supposed to ignore thousands of years for an American History of two centuries.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Sousuke

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You say lots of incoorect things. You don't need to be married to have these benefits. The same thing can be achieved thru civil unions. Gays aren't straights. They don't need to treated like straights to make their unions legal.

Btw, lots of employers offer NO bennies.

Really? As stated by a previous poster, many employers do not grant the same life/health benefits to gay couples as they do married couples. Many hospitals will not release any information to the next of kin, if that next of kin happens to be the gay partner. I know of one couple where one person was very ill in the hospital and his life partner of 20+ years was not allowed into see him, as the hospital had a policy of family only. There are many other instances where what you just said is completely incorrect. This is what we are trying to correct.

-Blu-

[Peikko 1,575]

God is the creator of man. That inculdes the homosexuals, doesn't it? Or are they somehow created by someone other than God? And if so, who would that someone be? God's evil twin?

I tried to ask yesterday what exactly homosexuals are meant to do, in the eyes of those that consider homosexuality a sin, and any sexual union between homosexuals a sinful act.

If one accepts, and nowadays most do, that homosexuality is not an effort of will, but a condition of birth, in the same way that blue eyes, or blond hair are conditions of birth what sort of life is the homosexual meant to live? Presumably the homosexual has either to choose to live 'as if he were' a heterosexual and somehow 'block out' the homosexuality (somewhat like Victorian society demanded) with all the duplicitousness that that entails (which hardly seem either moral or ethical) or he can live as celibate, not because one chooses to live a life of purity or chastity, but because one has no choice as the alternate is to willfully sin. What they can't do, is live as their nature dictates.

Presumably, it's another one of 'gods' tests, something one is born with in order to test one's faith as that seems to be the catch all for any situation that appears to be intrinsically unfair, or goes against the notion that one is supposed to hold true, that god is all loving. Suffering is, it would seem, a blessing (I can find no rationality in such a supposition, but that does appear to be how suffering is meant to be viewed). Presumably then, homosexuals are special, and will be given pride of place in heaven as they are constantly striving against their own natures in order to live as 'normal people' do with no effort, simply by virtue of being born heterosexual.