Supreme Court To Decide Gay Marriage

[WinePusher]

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage in the state of California.

Question: What are the implications if the court rules in favor of gay marriage? What are the implications if the court rules against gay marriage? Will the issue finally be settled after the ruling, or will the battle continue on after?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 58:

It can't be that you're just an evil ... can it?

Typical leftist tactic, criminalize political disagreement by calling it evil. I guess everyone has been evil on this subject the last 5,000 or so years, huh?

If such a condition leads one to the conclusion I'm being all "leftist tacticty", it is my firm conviction they are suffering a "typical 'rightist' inability to see any other context than their own".

I find your position here quite ironic, given that I was railing against another's tactic of accusing folks of some grand conspiracy.

But yeah, stick with that whole "leftist tactic" 'til you're blue in the face. It still says nothing of the validity of the argument one is obviously incapable of, or actively refusing to even try, understanding the full context with which it has has been presented.

Alas, the "'rightist' inability to analyze a situation with anything remotely akin to rationality" is on full display.


And how cute is it, the linking of the criminal with the evil, when it's those scared of some "evil" god or demon who seek to enact criminal legislation in an effort to thwart it?

How cute is it that those on the 'right' consider homosexual acts 'evil', to the point of 'criminalizing' it (if only historically), but then ya ask 'em to ponder maybe it ain't them being all evil, well that's just a "leftist tactic" that the next result of is to criminalize the thoughts of those on the 'right'?

I declare argumentum ad goofium with a splashing of the argumentum ad persecutuous complexium .

Projection, thy name is Christianity!

[dianaiad]

From Post 49:

...gays as a class have never been politically disenfranchised...

LOL

This entire thread speaks of how disenfranchised they are.

Joey, do you know what the definition of 'disenfranchised' IS?

[dianaiad]

From Post 52:

...
We don't want to be forced to recognize them, RELIGIOUSLY, after someone ELSE does!

I repeat my challenge for you to show one real or proposed piece of legislation that says you must recognize your fellow humans.

Joey.

Do you recognize that in the USA, court decisions have as much force in law as legislation? Indeed, that in the USA, it is the courts which decide, finally, what a specific piece of legislation MEANS?

Do you recognize the many court cases that have come up...and gone AGAINST, the freedom of religion in this matter?

It doesn't matter whether you think those decisions are correct. Do you recognize that they exist?

given this, don't you think that your specious demand for LEGISLATION is not only disingenuous, it is deliberately and specifically so?

[Clownboat]

IMHO this should be handled on a state level, not by judicial fiat as Roe v. Wade was wrongly done. Although it wouldn't surprise me if the SCOTUS went along with the farce known as gay marriage, they usually do what the elites want.

You are probably right. After all, they went along with the other farces and now women can vote and we can marry people from another race.

The horror!

Here is my prophecy. You, and others like you will pass, just like those that fought against woman's rights and interracial marriages. I know this because God told me.

[Clownboat]

When was it proven it wasn't a choice? If it's not a choice what is it? Is it a potential mental condition?

Let's keep this simple. If it's a choice, can you choose to get aroused by a person of the same sex? I cannot, therefore it seems to not be a choice to me. Convince me otherwise.

Now, let's assume for the sake of argument that it is found to be a choice. Do homosexuals deserve to be punished for it?

[charles_hamm]

When was it proven it wasn't a choice? If it's not a choice what is it? Is it a potential mental condition?

Let's keep this simple. If it's a choice, can you choose to get aroused by a person of the same sex? I cannot, therefore it seems to not be a choice to me. Convince me otherwise.

Now, let's assume for the sake of argument that it is found to be a choice. Do homosexuals deserve to be punished for it?

http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html

Looks like this Dr. disagrees with you. I will let him convince you.

As for punished, I don't see a punishment involved. Do polygamist deserve to be punished? What about people in incestial relationships? What about people who do bestiality? Society has laws and at least sometimes those laws are based on societal morals.

[Goat]

From Post 49:

...gays as a class have never been politically disenfranchised...

LOL

This entire thread speaks of how disenfranchised they are.

Politically?

Yes, .. among other places.

In many places in the U.S... people can be fired, kicked out of apartments, have their children taken way, have their domestic abuse situation ignored, etc etc, just because they are gay.

That is being politically disenfranchised. That is being put into a second class citizen. That is being discriminated against by a bunch of red neck bully bigots

[Alchemy]

I believe that in 10 years time, we will be looking at this argument the same way we now look at the argument of segregation and interracial marriage. People who held public views against interracial marriage are now social outcasts, an embarrassment to their family and community.

You may be right, we may go the way of Sodom and Gammorah, but my morality isn't decided by what 51% of the latest poll of finite, fallen human beings think. Let God be true and every man a liar. We will bear the full brunt of God's judgement if we go down this path of rejecting God, IMHO we have already felt some of it, i.e. wars that don't go so sell, bad economy, drought. The same methods used to bring OT Isreal to repentence.

For the most part, arguments against gay marriage are interchangeable with arguments against interracial marriage. Just change the words gay and black.

Nonsense, speaking from a Christian perspective (this IS a religion forum), racial discrimination is against the teachings of the NT (There is neither Jew nor Greek, all are one in Christ, etc.), while God's standard for sex is between on man and one woman in a marriage relationship.

The idea that someone one is not allowed to marry the person they love because of what SOMEONE ELSE believes is one of the most abhorrent, vile and disgusting notions we have today.

Careful, you're making a moral judgement there. What right do you have to force your morality on everyone?

Obviously (or at least I thought so), I’m not saying anyone who argues against gay marriage is also arguing against interracial marriage. I’m saying the arguments are analogous. The arguments we are having about gay marriage are the exact same arguments we had about interracial marriage. It was thought to be the end of the world if we allowed interracial marriage and all the same slippery slope fallacies were trotted out that are being used now. Then one day we woke up and rationality won. Now if someone ever found evidence that you were against interracial marriage, you’d be drummed out of town. It’s my opinion that the same will be true of gay marriage.

As for ‘forcing my morality on everyone’, are you able to show me just exactly who my morality is being forced on? I can show that you are trying to force your morality on everyone, I’d be quite interested in you trying to do the same to me.

[Alchemy]

Yes. It is.

Unfortunately, that stinky fish is being dragged across the path by the folks who are pointing fingers and shouting at the OTHER side for stinking up the place. Those who oppose gay marriage are not afraid of being forced to perform them. That's YOU GUY'S bug bear. We don't want to be forced to recognize them, RELIGIOUSLY, after someone ELSE does!

It's not the wedding, in other words.
It's being forced to allow gay married couples to live in married housing in wholely church owned schools.
It's being forced to provide religious and religiously owned services to gay married couples that the church does not provide to anybody IT does not count as 'married.'

It's being forced to publicly approve of something that deeply violates doctrine. It is, frankly, forcing the Christians to worship at the altar of Zeus, or forcing Muslims to light candles at the shrines of Catholic Saints. It is forcing an atheist to pray. It is making a law respecting an establishment of religion, and prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There IS a way to fix this so that gays may have the rights...INCLUDING the right to marry, and still have everybody retain their religious freedom. Nobody here will listen.

Because the civil rights plus the right to marry is NOT the first priority here for the gay rights crowd. Not really...and that is incredibly obvious.

No one is forcing you to recognise them religiously.

No one is forcing the church to publicly approve of anything that violates it’s doctrine.

All that is being asked for is that someone be allowed to marry the person they love. Just like you did, just like I did. It is really that simple. It does not affect anyone else’s marriage, it doesn’t affect any church, in fact, the only people who are affected are the two people who love each other very much and would like the same rights as other people. No religion has to recognise it or have anything to do with it.

Does two blokes getting married in Canada change anything for you? What’s the difference if two blokes in the USA get married? How does that change anything for you?

[dianaiad]

I believe that in 10 years time, we will be looking at this argument the same way we now look at the argument of segregation and interracial marriage. People who held public views against interracial marriage are now social outcasts, an embarrassment to their family and community.

You may be right, we may go the way of Sodom and Gammorah, but my morality isn't decided by what 51% of the latest poll of finite, fallen human beings think. Let God be true and every man a liar. We will bear the full brunt of God's judgement if we go down this path of rejecting God, IMHO we have already felt some of it, i.e. wars that don't go so sell, bad economy, drought. The same methods used to bring OT Isreal to repentence.

For the most part, arguments against gay marriage are interchangeable with arguments against interracial marriage. Just change the words gay and black.

Nonsense, speaking from a Christian perspective (this IS a religion forum), racial discrimination is against the teachings of the NT (There is neither Jew nor Greek, all are one in Christ, etc.), while God's standard for sex is between on man and one woman in a marriage relationship.

The idea that someone one is not allowed to marry the person they love because of what SOMEONE ELSE believes is one of the most abhorrent, vile and disgusting notions we have today.

Careful, you're making a moral judgement there. What right do you have to force your morality on everyone?

Obviously (or at least I thought so), I’m not saying anyone who argues against gay marriage is also arguing against interracial marriage. I’m saying the arguments are analogous. The arguments we are having about gay marriage are the exact same arguments we had about interracial marriage. It was thought to be the end of the world if we allowed interracial marriage and all the same slippery slope fallacies were trotted out that are being used now. Then one day we woke up and rationality won. Now if someone ever found evidence that you were against interracial marriage, you’d be drummed out of town. It’s my opinion that the same will be true of gay marriage.

As for ‘forcing my morality on everyone’, are you able to show me just exactly who my morality is being forced on? I can show that you are trying to force your morality on everyone, I’d be quite interested in you trying to do the same to me.

Interracial marriage =/= gay marriage. There has always been interracial marriage. Some places made them illegal, but they were possible. There has been no argument, with anybody, about that. The folks against it didn't say it couldn't be, but rather, that it SHOULDN'T be. Not the same argument at all.

Religious folk who are against gay marriage aren't saying 'look, these guys are inferior beings who shouldn't get married." They are saying...look, it's not POSSIBLE for them to be married, because same sex joinings simply are not marriage. Period.

The arguments are different. Whether you agree with either one, they are very different.

For one thing, proponents of 'interracial marriage' (and there IS no such thing), could always point to many historical examples where such marriages were condoned...even celebrated. Shoot, the bible is full of 'em; some approved and some not....but even if they weren't approved, exactly, they were recognized AS marriages.

But nobody can point to an historical nation or group (with the possibility of some small tribes somewhere) in which same sex marriage was OK. Not even in ancient Greece, where 'marriage' was for children only and women were fifth and sixth class humans--when they were acknowledged to be humans--and homosexual relationships were considered to be preferable in a warrior society. Even then and there, those relationships were not marriage.

But go ahead; you give me one civilization (that is, one which has left a written record) in which same sex relationships were viewed as marriage.

The last fifty years or so doesn't count, just in case you are wondering; that's begging the question.