It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Boss]

I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what, maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this? Perhaps your behavior is inappropriate and wrong, and we have been foolish trying to condone it for all this time? Could we ever reach such a 'backlash' point? I think we can because inevitably it's where they are going to push us. They are bound and determined to turn America against them or die trying. Change your laws! Make marriage be about your sexual behaviors and not what it has traditionally meant for 5,000 years! Tolerate it in your face every day 24/7 or face being castigated as a bigot.

No... You can't enjoy your favorite TV show anymore, we're going to make you watch two men kissing because you are a bigot who needs it shoved in your face. No, you can't hold your own personal religious beliefs anymore, it violates our rights! We gay people demand you accept our sexually deviant behavior as "normal" and not compare us with other deviants because we're fucking special! You got that, bigot?

When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!

What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench to "find a right" for homos to publicly molest heterosexuals without fear of reprisal? Eventually, this is where this all leads because we can't ever give them what they want. They seek legitimacy for an abnormal sexual behavior which they know and realize is abnormal. What we are doing is encouraging and enabling their condition.... it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles. It's NEVER going to be enough!

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal.

...Let the flames begin!

Hmm, nice diatribe about gays wanting equal rights. Do you realize that if gays had all the rights that heterosexuals had and were not discriminated against constantly then they would not need to push for greater rights? Seriously, I have not ever heard a gay say they want laws to be passed so they can shove their penis in your mouth, although maybe that is what you need with your attitude toward them. Yours is just another typical rant against gays because you keep losing battle after battle against them.

Gays already had equal rights. Nowhere in our country was any law which excluded gay people.

People discriminate against each other all the time. I'm discriminated against here because I am Conservative. I will most likely discriminate against a liberal democrat when I vote for president. When I look for someone to cut my hair, I will discriminate against men or airhead young girls. Even when you picked your gay lover, I bet you discriminated against someone else.

This notion that you're ever going to live your gay life in a society that doesn't discriminate against you is quite foolish and impossible for us to create for you. I know that you seek validation and acceptance but you need to comprehend that isn't always going to happen for you. As for "winning battles" this isn't some kind of game or contest.

You're fucking deranged.

Gays did not have the same rights as straights to marry the person they love and with whom they wish to establish a life long marital bond. You can keep repeating your idiocy but it will never become true. It's no one else's fault you're too dumb to understand this; but it does go a long way in explaining why you're so perplexed with the Supreme Court ruling.

Gays had exactly the same rights to go out there and find a person to marry... marriage is the union of a man and woman. They DIDN'T have the right to find a person of the same gender and pretend that is the same as marriage, but heterosexuals didn't have that right either. No one had that right... hebephiles, zoophiles, pederasts or any other group. I am not questioning gays and their love or desire to spend their life with a partner of same gender. I support their right to do that if it's what they want to do. It's not marriage and won't ever be thought of as marriage by me or millions of people like me. You cannot force me to believe that.

I am not perplexed by the SCOTUS ruling. I understand the ramifications where most of you don't seem to think it's any big deal. Thing is, most of you probably won't live long enough to have to deal with the social consequences... when the hebephiles and zoophiles are pushing for their sexual proclivities to be legitimized through marriage, using your same arguments and SCOTUS rulings, citing your own case laws for same-sex marriage, having the legal barriers removed one by one the same way homosexuals did.... you'll be long gone. If some of you ARE still around, I am sure you will be right there on the front line, defending whatever immorality slaps at the face of Christianity, just as you are today. There is no limit to how low you will go.

 

[Faun]

I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what, maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this? Perhaps your behavior is inappropriate and wrong, and we have been foolish trying to condone it for all this time? Could we ever reach such a 'backlash' point? I think we can because inevitably it's where they are going to push us. They are bound and determined to turn America against them or die trying. Change your laws! Make marriage be about your sexual behaviors and not what it has traditionally meant for 5,000 years! Tolerate it in your face every day 24/7 or face being castigated as a bigot.

No... You can't enjoy your favorite TV show anymore, we're going to make you watch two men kissing because you are a bigot who needs it shoved in your face. No, you can't hold your own personal religious beliefs anymore, it violates our rights! We gay people demand you accept our sexually deviant behavior as "normal" and not compare us with other deviants because we're fucking special! You got that, bigot?

When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!

What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench to "find a right" for homos to publicly molest heterosexuals without fear of reprisal? Eventually, this is where this all leads because we can't ever give them what they want. They seek legitimacy for an abnormal sexual behavior which they know and realize is abnormal. What we are doing is encouraging and enabling their condition.... it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles. It's NEVER going to be enough!

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal.

...Let the flames begin!

Hmm, nice diatribe about gays wanting equal rights. Do you realize that if gays had all the rights that heterosexuals had and were not discriminated against constantly then they would not need to push for greater rights? Seriously, I have not ever heard a gay say they want laws to be passed so they can shove their penis in your mouth, although maybe that is what you need with your attitude toward them. Yours is just another typical rant against gays because you keep losing battle after battle against them.

Gays already had equal rights. Nowhere in our country was any law which excluded gay people.

People discriminate against each other all the time. I'm discriminated against here because I am Conservative. I will most likely discriminate against a liberal democrat when I vote for president. When I look for someone to cut my hair, I will discriminate against men or airhead young girls. Even when you picked your gay lover, I bet you discriminated against someone else.

This notion that you're ever going to live your gay life in a society that doesn't discriminate against you is quite foolish and impossible for us to create for you. I know that you seek validation and acceptance but you need to comprehend that isn't always going to happen for you. As for "winning battles" this isn't some kind of game or contest.

You're fucking deranged.

Gays did not have the same rights as straights to marry the person they love and with whom they wish to establish a life long marital bond. You can keep repeating your idiocy but it will never become true. It's no one else's fault you're too dumb to understand this; but it does go a long way in explaining why you're so perplexed with the Supreme Court ruling.

Gays had exactly the same rights to go out there and find a person to marry... marriage is the union of a man and woman. They DIDN'T have the right to find a person of the same gender and pretend that is the same as marriage, but heterosexuals didn't have that right either. No one had that right... hebephiles, zoophiles, pederasts or any other group. I am not questioning gays and their love or desire to spend their life with a partner of same gender. I support their right to do that if it's what they want to do. It's not marriage and won't ever be thought of as marriage by me or millions of people like me. You cannot force me to believe that.

I am not perplexed by the SCOTUS ruling. I understand the ramifications where most of you don't seem to think it's any big deal. Thing is, most of you probably won't live long enough to have to deal with the social consequences... when the hebephiles and zoophiles are pushing for their sexual proclivities to be legitimized through marriage, using your same arguments and SCOTUS rulings, citing your own case laws for same-sex marriage, having the legal barriers removed one by one the same way homosexuals did.... you'll be long gone. If some of you ARE still around, I am sure you will be right there on the front line, defending whatever immorality slaps at the face of Christianity, just as you are today. There is no limit to how low you will go.

You're fucking deranged.

 

[Montrovant]

Why did Obergefel have to be about sexual behavior? Because you say so? If it had to be or there would be no need to change marriage contract law, does that mean marriage is about sexual behavior? Or the only changes possible to marriage are based on sexual behavior? Or perhaps, you are just talking out of your ass......

Before Obergefel, marriage was simply the union of a man and woman in matrimony. It did not delineate sexuality of the man or woman or sexual behavior in general. The reason the criteria needed to be changed was to accommodate homosexuals practicing homosexual behavior... without that, there is no compelling reason to change it.

You want to be smug and obtuse... let's all pretend this wasn't about homosexuality. That's because you fully realize where this thing can go wonky in a hurry if marriage is now the catalyst for legitimizing sexual proclivities. Unfortunately, that is exactly what it has become, irrespective of your smug and obtuse nature.

I predict... using the very same legal arguments and Obergefel ruling as a basis...
In less than 10 years: Polygamy is legal and multi-partner marriage is a thing.
In less than 15 years: Incestuous relationships will be legal and able to marry.
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.
In less than 25 years: Zoophiles will no longer be denied their right to marry the pig they love!

It's ALL coming soon!

Obergefel did not 'delineate sexuality of the man or woman or sexual behavior in general', did it? Of course the ruling involved accommodating homosexuals.....just as before that, marriage was specifically for heterosexuals. You say I'm pretending this wasn't about homosexuality, but that's not true. I know this was about homosexuality. You, however, don't want to admit that marriage, prior to the Obergefell ruling, was for heterosexuals. Somehow, when marriage is between a man and a woman, sexuality has no bearing, but if marriage is between a woman and a woman, it's all about sexuality. That's based entirely on your own opinions, not the court's ruling, so far as I can tell. You certainly can't seem to provide any pertinent part of the ruling which proves your point, and in fact have gotten upset by being asked for such evidence, on the basis of this being just 'a philosophical discussion'.

You should get together with Silhouette and see if you can have a combined record of getting every legal prediction based on Obergefell wrong.

 

[Montrovant]

It had everything to do with two law abiding people being denied their right to marry each other while most everyone else was granted that right.

No other same sex couples were being allowed to marry. Marriage is a union between a man and woman. Anything other than this is NOT marriage. Putting your penis in a vagina is called "intercourse" and putting your penis in an anus is not intercourse. You can't call it what it isn't. Procreation is when a male combines his sperm cell with a woman's egg cell to form a human organism... nothing else is procreation. You can't call something else procreation.

Ah I see the problem here.

You somehow confuse marriage with procreation. You think marriage is just about sex.

Marriage is whatever we decide marriage is. In some cultures marriage is the union of a man and one or more women. In historical terms marriage has at times been limited by race or by religion or by class.

Women have been able to be sold into marriage- and were at times able to be sold from one 'marriage' to another.

Marriage is not the equal partnership between two persons who can give legal consent to their partnership- or as the Supreme Court put it so well once:


"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Ah I see the problem here.
You somehow confuse marriage with procreation. You think marriage is just about sex.

No, you clearly DON'T see the problem here because you're a simple-minded moron. I didn't confuse a damn thing, I gave you two examples of words that mean specific things, which can't mean anything else and can't be changed to include something else.

I can give you all kinds of examples... Electrical work isn't plumbing. We don't allow plumbers to obtain a license to be an electrician. It isn't because we're discriminating against the plumber. Grand larceny isn't an an occupation... we don't redefine "occupation" to include grand larceny because that's not what IS an occupation... has nothing to do with discrimination. Cats can't compete in the Westminster Dog Show... they are not eligible and don't meet the criteria because they are cats... it's not because they are being discriminated against. If you are a man, you can never BE Miss America.. sorry... not discrimination.

Rattling off what the SCOTUS said in their lawless ruling is not what is being debated here. I have no argument regarding what they have ruled, it's public record. SCOTUS is not some kind of Supreme Authority we are bound to follow for eternity... they have a long storied history of making some awful decisions... Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott, Korematsu.. the list goes on and on.

Marriage can't mean anything else or be changed to include anything else? When did you become the arbiter of all word definitions? The definition of marriage has already been changed throughout the years, yet suddenly you've decided the definition can't be changed or added to? Forgive those of us who don't accept your authority to decide what words mean for all time.

 

[Syriusly]

Tell me again why you think that the same argument can be made for a 40 year old man having sex with a 4 year old girl as can be made for two 40 year old men having sex with each other?

I haven't mentioned anything about 4 year olds. I seriously doubt we ever allow such a thing. Pedophilia and rape are probably the two exceptions which will not be codified through marriage.

You can't even keep your own claims straight.- here are your quotes on pedophilia and marriage.

Post #421
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.


#199
All of our silly laws which don't allow multiple marital partners, adults marrying brothers and sisters or underage kids or animals... all of that has to be accommodated.

#166
[responding to What is wrong is pedophilia and incest are crimes while homosexuality is not]
From a Constitutional rights perspective, how can you make one type of sexuality legitimate without making all sexuality legitimate?

#111
What's wrong with pedophiles marrying children?

After repeatedly inferring that allowing homosexuals to marry each other will lead to pedophiles marrying children- now you are saying you don't think it will happen?

Just a straw man you were throwing out there?

 

[Montrovant]

Tell me again why you think that the same argument can be made for a 40 year old man having sex with a 4 year old girl as can be made for two 40 year old men having sex with each other?

I haven't mentioned anything about 4 year olds. I seriously doubt we ever allow such a thing. Pedophilia and rape are probably the two exceptions which will not be codified through marriage. However, hebephilia... the sexual attraction to children 11-14, could certainly be legitimized and it wouldn't take all that much legal argumentation with the ruling in Obergefel. A little 'modification' in age of consent laws and we're there! No problem.... but hey... it won't effect your marriage one little bit, so you'll be totally cool with that, right?

And yet, you said homosexuality is similar to pedophilia. In your diseased brain, how can they be similar when gay marriage is legal but you say pedophilia will "probably" not be?

Similar in that it's a sexual proclivity or behavior. You said I "equated" it and that's not the case. Here, you're still trying to interject "4-year-olds" when I've not mentioned small children. Pedophilia is different because it involves small children who are under the age of reasonable consent or sexual maturity. It's doubtful we'll ever devolve morality to the point where that doesn't matter anymore, but... who knows? I am not shocked by anything liberals support anymore... hell, you people would "part out" small children on the black market through Planned Parenthood if you thought you could get away with it.

First of all, if homosexuality is a sexual proclivity, heterosexuality is a sexual proclivity, and both would be similar to pedophilia in that way.

Second, who are you to discuss what is a reasonable age of consent? According to you, consent laws can and will be changed at the drop of a hat! Now, suddenly, you want to argue that a change to age of consent is difficult?

 

[Syriusly]

Why did Obergefel have to be about sexual behavior? Because you say so? If it had to be or there would be no need to change marriage contract law, does that mean marriage is about sexual behavior? Or the only changes possible to marriage are based on sexual behavior? Or perhaps, you are just talking out of your ass......

Before Obergefel, marriage was simply the union of a man and woman in matrimony. It did not delineate sexuality of the man or woman or sexual behavior in general. The reason the criteria needed to be changed was to accommodate homosexuals practicing homosexual behavior... without that, there is no compelling reason to change it.

You want to be smug and obtuse... let's all pretend this wasn't about homosexuality. That's because you fully realize where this thing can go wonky in a hurry if marriage is now the catalyst for legitimizing sexual proclivities. Unfortunately, that is exactly what it has become, irrespective of your smug and obtuse nature.

You seem to be confusing being homosexual with sexual acts which are homosexual.

Obergefell said that two persons of the same gender had the same right to marriage as any other couple- and that the laws that were passed to prevent such marriages were intended to discriminate against homosexuals.

Obergefell had nothing to do with sexual behavior at all.

You can't even manage to come up with anything from Obergefell to support your claims- you just keep saying what Obergefell must have been about. Perhaps you should read the ruling and find out.

 

[Syriusly]

Why did Obergefel have to be about sexual behavior? Because you say so? If it had to be or there would be no need to change marriage contract law, does that mean marriage is about sexual behavior? Or the only changes possible to marriage are based on sexual behavior? Or perhaps, you are just talking out of your ass......

I predict... using the very same legal arguments and Obergefel ruling as a basis...
In less than 10 years: Polygamy is legal and multi-partner marriage is a thing.
In less than 15 years: Incestuous relationships will be legal and able to marry.
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.
In less than 25 years: Zoophiles will no longer be denied their right to marry the pig they love!

It's ALL coming soon!

That is what the homophobes have been saying since before the decision.

But what you- and everyone of your fellow travellers just are pointing out is that you don't understand what the Supreme Court said in Obergefel or Loving v. Virginia or Lawrence v. Texas.

 

[Syriusly]

Why did Obergefel have to be about sexual behavior? Because you say so? If it had to be or there would be no need to change marriage contract law, does that mean marriage is about sexual behavior? Or the only changes possible to marriage are based on sexual behavior? Or perhaps, you are just talking out of your ass......

Before Obergefel, marriage was simply the union of a man and woman in matrimony. It did not delineate sexuality of the man or woman or sexual behavior in general. The reason the criteria needed to be changed was to accommodate homosexuals practicing homosexual behavior... without that, there is no compelling reason to change it.

You want to be smug and obtuse... let's all pretend this wasn't about homosexuality. That's because you fully realize where this thing can go wonky in a hurry if marriage is now the catalyst for legitimizing sexual proclivities. Unfortunately, that is exactly what it has become, irrespective of your smug and obtuse nature.

I predict... using the very same legal arguments and Obergefel ruling as a basis...
In less than 10 years: Polygamy is legal and multi-partner marriage is a thing.
In less than 15 years: Incestuous relationships will be legal and able to marry.
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.
In less than 25 years: Zoophiles will no longer be denied their right to marry the pig they love!

It's ALL coming soon!

Holyfuckingshit!

Men and women who married weren't sexual before Obergefell??

I don't know whether they were or not, I'm not in everyone's bedroom. MARRIAGE was the matrimonial union of a man and woman of legal age. It did not exclude gay people or any other sexual proclivity. But Holyfuckingshit... NOW, marriage is something that can be used to legitimize almost any sexual behavior because the SCOTUS has pretty much made that case in their ruling.

Except of course- the Supreme Court did no such thing.

You can't even find a single quote from the ruling to support your claims.

 

[Montrovant]

Similar in that it's a sexual proclivity or behavior. You said I "equated" it and that's not the case. Here, you're still trying to interject "4-year-olds" when I've not mentioned small children. Pedophilia is different because it involves small children who are under the age of reasonable consent or sexual maturity. It's doubtful we'll ever devolve morality to the point where that doesn't matter anymore, but... who knows? I am not shocked by anything liberals support anymore... hell, you people would "part out" small children on the black market through Planned Parenthood if you thought you could get away with it.

You're the one who equated homosexuality with pedophilia. And despite your lame attempt to weasel out of your ridiculous claim that you did not equate the two, you merely stated they were similar...

equate

to make or regard as equivalent or similar, esp in order to compare or balance.​

Yes, and I explained the context in which they are similar.

Yet you denied equating them.

Meanwhile, you falsely claimed I questioned why pedophilia, and the other illegal perversions you equated with homosexuality, remained ilkegal.

I offered you ample opporunity to prove that absurd claim and as expected, you failed miserably to quote me since I never asked such a question. You simply lied because you're not man enough to admit it was you who actually questioned why they remain illegal.

I never said that and I am tired of arguing with you about what I never said.

Go fuck yourself.

You're fucking deranged.

I quoted you saying that and linked your post where you said it.

Boss seems to have a proclivity for posting something and then denying having done so.

 

[Syriusly]

Notice the word 'consensual'

Seems to be a word that gives a lot of Conservatives real difficulty.

Not as much as "marriage" seems to give Liberals!

I will state it again... Consent laws can be changed EASIER than marriage! In fact, consent laws in the US are different already from state to state. No reason these can't be changed the same as marriage was changed, either by law or by SCOTUS decree upon high.

Tell me how you expect consent to be changed to allow a 40 year old man to have consensual sex with a 4 year old girl?

The changes to marriage laws by the Supreme Court have happened 4 times- in each case the Supreme Court struck down unconstitutional marriage laws- you say that consent can be changed just as easily so that an 11 year old can 'consent' to have sex with a 60 year old man?

Tell me- do you see any philosophical or moral difference between 2 adults of the same gender having consensual sex- and a 40 year old man having 'consensual' sex with a 4 year old girl?

Since you claim 'consent' can so easily be changed.

 

[Syriusly]

It had everything to do with two law abiding people being denied their right to marry each other while most everyone else was granted that right.

No other same sex couples were being allowed to marry. Marriage is a union between a man and woman. Anything other than this is NOT marriage. Putting your penis in a vagina is called "intercourse" and putting your penis in an anus is not intercourse. You can't call it what it isn't. Procreation is when a male combines his sperm cell with a woman's egg cell to form a human organism... nothing else is procreation. You can't call something else procreation.

Ah I see the problem here.

You somehow confuse marriage with procreation. You think marriage is just about sex.

Marriage is whatever we decide marriage is. In some cultures marriage is the union of a man and one or more women. In historical terms marriage has at times been limited by race or by religion or by class.

Women have been able to be sold into marriage- and were at times able to be sold from one 'marriage' to another.

Marriage is not the equal partnership between two persons who can give legal consent to their partnership- or as the Supreme Court put it so well once:


"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Ah I see the problem here.
You somehow confuse marriage with procreation. You think marriage is just about sex.


Rattling off what the SCOTUS said in their lawless ruling is not what is being debated here. I have no argument regarding what they have ruled, it's public record. SCOTUS is not some kind of Supreme Authority we are bound to follow for eternity... they have a long storied history of making some awful decisions... Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott, Korematsu.. the list goes on and on.

And Dred Scott gives you your road map if you believe that a ruling is unconstitutional- you can fight for a constitutional amendment so that you can prevent homosexuals from marrying.

You were the one who equated marriage to procreation- if you don't like that pointed out- don't make that comparison.

 

[Syriusly]

I fully understand this thread will catch a lot of flack from the left but I don't care. I also want to say, I have several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who I love very much and it makes what I am about to say very difficult for me personally.

I am starting to think it would be easier for us to condemn homosexuality than to tolerate it. Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed. They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

We've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied. We've taught our kids to accept them, our pastors and ministers preach about being tolerant, love the sinner and hate the sin. We've allowed them the dignity of coming out of the closet but it seems no matter what efforts are made to try and accept their behavior, it's simply not enough. We're pushed and pushed even further. There is no end... it's becoming sheer madness.

One of these days, I look for some gay lobby to push for a law which allows gay men to openly shove their penis in your mouth or ass when in public, so as to accommodate their sexual urges... and IF you deny them that "right" you are a homophobic bigot! Don't laugh, it's where this kind of shit always ends because there is no giving them what they want. It will never be enough.

At what point does society STOP being tolerant and PC? When do we reach that tipping point where we say... ya know what, maybe it was a mistake to accept you people and tolerate this? Perhaps your behavior is inappropriate and wrong, and we have been foolish trying to condone it for all this time? Could we ever reach such a 'backlash' point? I think we can because inevitably it's where they are going to push us. They are bound and determined to turn America against them or die trying. Change your laws! Make marriage be about your sexual behaviors and not what it has traditionally meant for 5,000 years! Tolerate it in your face every day 24/7 or face being castigated as a bigot.

No... You can't enjoy your favorite TV show anymore, we're going to make you watch two men kissing because you are a bigot who needs it shoved in your face. No, you can't hold your own personal religious beliefs anymore, it violates our rights! We gay people demand you accept our sexually deviant behavior as "normal" and not compare us with other deviants because we're fucking special! You got that, bigot?

When does society stand up and say, you know what? We're done being nice! Go to hell and take your cock-sucking perverted friends with you! WE don't have to tolerate YOU... YOU have to tolerate US! --WE don't have to accept you being gay... you need to abandon that behavior or get help, but don't ask for special treatment anymore... we're done!

What will it take? Anthony Kennedy legislating from the bench to "find a right" for homos to publicly molest heterosexuals without fear of reprisal? Eventually, this is where this all leads because we can't ever give them what they want. They seek legitimacy for an abnormal sexual behavior which they know and realize is abnormal. What we are doing is encouraging and enabling their condition.... it's like offering kiddie porn to pedophiles. It's NEVER going to be enough!

Now, patiently we've tried for the past 30 years or so, to accept gay people and be tolerant of their lifestyles. We're no closer to appeasing them now than we've ever been and I don't know that we can ever appease them enough. It might just be easier to roll all this back and start over with the mindset that something is wrong with you gay people and we're not going to accept it into our culture anymore. If you don't like it, move to France or somewhere homosexuality is normal.

...Let the flames begin!

Hmm, nice diatribe about gays wanting equal rights. Do you realize that if gays had all the rights that heterosexuals had and were not discriminated against constantly then they would not need to push for greater rights? Seriously, I have not ever heard a gay say they want laws to be passed so they can shove their penis in your mouth, although maybe that is what you need with your attitude toward them. Yours is just another typical rant against gays because you keep losing battle after battle against them.

Gays already had equal rights. Nowhere in our country was any law which excluded gay people.

People discriminate against each other all the time. I'm discriminated against here because I am Conservative. I will most likely discriminate against a liberal democrat when I vote for president. When I look for someone to cut my hair, I will discriminate against men or airhead young girls. Even when you picked your gay lover, I bet you discriminated against someone else.

This notion that you're ever going to live your gay life in a society that doesn't discriminate against you is quite foolish and impossible for us to create for you. I know that you seek validation and acceptance but you need to comprehend that isn't always going to happen for you. As for "winning battles" this isn't some kind of game or contest.

You're fucking deranged.

Gays did not have the same rights as straights to marry the person they love and with whom they wish to establish a life long marital bond. You can keep repeating your idiocy but it will never become true. It's no one else's fault you're too dumb to understand this; but it does go a long way in explaining why you're so perplexed with the Supreme Court ruling.

Gays had exactly the same rights to go out there and find a person to marry... marriage is the union of a man and woman. They DIDN'T have the right to find a person of the same gender and pretend that is the same as marriage, but heterosexuals didn't have that right either. No one had that right... hebephiles, zoophiles, pederasts or any other group..

Here you go again- comparing homosexuals to 'pederasts'.

Wierdly enough- you keep insisting that marriage is the union between a man and a woman-

If that is the case- do you consider the union of a mother and son marriage?

That meets your criteria.

Your opinion on what marriage should be has been argued through the courts. Your opinion lost- not only in court- but has also lost in the court of public opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion- but not entitled for your opinion to be free of criticism.

 

[Syriusly]

Seriously, I have not ever heard a gay say they want laws to be passed so they can shove their penis in your mouth, although maybe...

No, I haven't heard that either... but when "gay marriage" doesn't deliver the validation and acceptance you seek, who knows what you'll demand next? You may seek to outlaw "homophobia" by forcing heterosexuals into involuntary participation?

I just think it's important to get things out in the open and understand that society is never going to be able to appease you. It's a futile effort.

There is no evidence that homosexuals are like Christians- in that homosexuals will attempt to pass legislation forcing criminalizing Christian behavior.

That of course is what Christians did to homosexuals. Passed laws criminalizing sex between two men or women. Passing laws to fire homosexuals from teaching jobs- because they were homosexuals.

Frankly, from your posts, it appears that Christianity is not deliverying the validation you are seeking, so you are retaliating against homosexuals.

I don't know whether society will ever be appease Christians- but we sure have been trying for decades.

And you still have it out for homosexuals.

 

[Boss]

Why did Obergefel have to be about sexual behavior? Because you say so? If it had to be or there would be no need to change marriage contract law, does that mean marriage is about sexual behavior? Or the only changes possible to marriage are based on sexual behavior? Or perhaps, you are just talking out of your ass......

Before Obergefel, marriage was simply the union of a man and woman in matrimony. It did not delineate sexuality of the man or woman or sexual behavior in general. The reason the criteria needed to be changed was to accommodate homosexuals practicing homosexual behavior... without that, there is no compelling reason to change it.

You want to be smug and obtuse... let's all pretend this wasn't about homosexuality. That's because you fully realize where this thing can go wonky in a hurry if marriage is now the catalyst for legitimizing sexual proclivities. Unfortunately, that is exactly what it has become, irrespective of your smug and obtuse nature.

I predict... using the very same legal arguments and Obergefel ruling as a basis...
In less than 10 years: Polygamy is legal and multi-partner marriage is a thing.
In less than 15 years: Incestuous relationships will be legal and able to marry.
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.
In less than 25 years: Zoophiles will no longer be denied their right to marry the pig they love!

It's ALL coming soon!

Obergefel did not 'delineate sexuality of the man or woman or sexual behavior in general', did it? Of course the ruling involved accommodating homosexuals.....just as before that, marriage was specifically for heterosexuals. You say I'm pretending this wasn't about homosexuality, but that's not true. I know this was about homosexuality. You, however, don't want to admit that marriage, prior to the Obergefell ruling, was for heterosexuals. Somehow, when marriage is between a man and a woman, sexuality has no bearing, but if marriage is between a woman and a woman, it's all about sexuality. That's based entirely on your own opinions, not the court's ruling, so far as I can tell. You certainly can't seem to provide any pertinent part of the ruling which proves your point, and in fact have gotten upset by being asked for such evidence, on the basis of this being just 'a philosophical discussion'.

You should get together with Silhouette and see if you can have a combined record of getting every legal prediction based on Obergefell wrong.

Let's walk through it slowly again... (keep your hand off my butt)
Obergefel doesn't have to delineate sexuality of anything for that to be the result or consequences of the ruling itself. Marriage has never been specifically for heterosexuals. Marriage is not about sexuality prior to Obergefel. Nowhere were gays prohibited from marrying someone of the opposite sex and in fact, many have done so. It is the ruling in Obergefel which suddenly redefines marriage based on accommodating a sexuality. NOW, marriage is about sexuality.... BEFORE, it wasn't. The ruling doesn't have to say that, it's the basis for the ruling and the case itself.

This is akin to arguing the Dred Scott decision didn't take away the civil rights of black people because the ruling doesn't say a word about taking the civil rights from black people. Or... Korematsu didn't violate the Constitutional rights of Japanese Americans because it doesn't mention their rights! What I am arguing is not going to be in the text of the Obergefel ruling.

My predictions are not wrong. Unless some subsequent ruling changes things, the precedent is set for marriage to be the right to legitimize your preferred sexuality. It was altered to accommodate homosexuals and it will be used to accommodate others as well. This hasn't happened yet because the ruling just happened. It takes time for a case to make its way up the ladder and be heard by SCOTUS... but rest assured, that day is coming soon. Polygamists are already challenging it and they will win. So will others. You can't stop it.

 

[Boss]

Wierdly enough- you keep insisting that marriage is the union between a man and a woman-

If that is the case- do you consider the union of a mother and son marriage?

That meets your criteria.

Hold on, there are several other criteria besides just being a man and woman... remember consent? I don't have the right to marry Kate Upton just because she is a woman. Kate and I have to meet a few other criteria... First, she has to consent. Next, she has to not already be married and I have to also not already be married. Next, we both have to be of legal age. Finally, we have to not be immediately related... this can vary from state to state, in some states we could be cousins. But above all else, we have to be a man and woman or what we're doing is not marriage.

 

[Boss]

Tell me how you expect consent to be changed to allow a 40 year old man to have consensual sex with a 4 year old girl?

I don't think it can be and I didn't argue it could be. As I told you yesterday... go fuck yourself, I am tired of arguing with you about what I DIDN'T say.

 

[Boss]

Tell me- do you see any philosophical or moral difference between 2 adults of the same gender having consensual sex- and....

Whoa.. When did a constitutional right to marry who you love become about philosophy and morals? It doesn't matter if you find something morally or philosophically wrong NOW... you've changed marriage and what it means. This is where you apparently think you can have your cake and eat it too... you can redefine marriage to include homosexual behavior because you approve of homosexuality.... but you want to deny that same "right" to others and adopt a moral and philosophical high ground which you just destroyed.

 

[Boss]

You were the one who equated marriage to procreation...

No, I didn't. You're lying again. I gave "procreation" as an example of a word that has a specific meaning. It cannot BE something it is NOT. If a gay couple wanted to "procreate" and they went to the hospital and stole a baby from the nursery and called that "gay procreation" we couldn't change the definition of "procreation" to include their behavior because that's NOT procreation. Of course... a ROGUE SCOTUS could RULE that to be the case... it still wouldn't be right.

 

[Montrovant]

Why did Obergefel have to be about sexual behavior? Because you say so? If it had to be or there would be no need to change marriage contract law, does that mean marriage is about sexual behavior? Or the only changes possible to marriage are based on sexual behavior? Or perhaps, you are just talking out of your ass......

Before Obergefel, marriage was simply the union of a man and woman in matrimony. It did not delineate sexuality of the man or woman or sexual behavior in general. The reason the criteria needed to be changed was to accommodate homosexuals practicing homosexual behavior... without that, there is no compelling reason to change it.

You want to be smug and obtuse... let's all pretend this wasn't about homosexuality. That's because you fully realize where this thing can go wonky in a hurry if marriage is now the catalyst for legitimizing sexual proclivities. Unfortunately, that is exactly what it has become, irrespective of your smug and obtuse nature.

I predict... using the very same legal arguments and Obergefel ruling as a basis...
In less than 10 years: Polygamy is legal and multi-partner marriage is a thing.
In less than 15 years: Incestuous relationships will be legal and able to marry.
In less than 20 years: Hebephiles will legally be able to marry pre-teens...
Pedophiles will probably have to wait a while longer.
In less than 25 years: Zoophiles will no longer be denied their right to marry the pig they love!

It's ALL coming soon!

Obergefel did not 'delineate sexuality of the man or woman or sexual behavior in general', did it? Of course the ruling involved accommodating homosexuals.....just as before that, marriage was specifically for heterosexuals. You say I'm pretending this wasn't about homosexuality, but that's not true. I know this was about homosexuality. You, however, don't want to admit that marriage, prior to the Obergefell ruling, was for heterosexuals. Somehow, when marriage is between a man and a woman, sexuality has no bearing, but if marriage is between a woman and a woman, it's all about sexuality. That's based entirely on your own opinions, not the court's ruling, so far as I can tell. You certainly can't seem to provide any pertinent part of the ruling which proves your point, and in fact have gotten upset by being asked for such evidence, on the basis of this being just 'a philosophical discussion'.

You should get together with Silhouette and see if you can have a combined record of getting every legal prediction based on Obergefell wrong.

Let's walk through it slowly again... (keep your hand off my butt)
Obergefel doesn't have to delineate sexuality of anything for that to be the result or consequences of the ruling itself. Marriage has never been specifically for heterosexuals. Marriage is not about sexuality prior to Obergefel. Nowhere were gays prohibited from marrying someone of the opposite sex and in fact, many have done so. It is the ruling in Obergefel which suddenly redefines marriage based on accommodating a sexuality. NOW, marriage is about sexuality.... BEFORE, it wasn't. The ruling doesn't have to say that, it's the basis for the ruling and the case itself.

This is akin to arguing the Dred Scott decision didn't take away the civil rights of black people because the ruling doesn't say a word about taking the civil rights from black people. Or... Korematsu didn't violate the Constitutional rights of Japanese Americans because it doesn't mention their rights! What I am arguing is not going to be in the text of the Obergefel ruling.

My predictions are not wrong. Unless some subsequent ruling changes things, the precedent is set for marriage to be the right to legitimize your preferred sexuality. It was altered to accommodate homosexuals and it will be used to accommodate others as well. This hasn't happened yet because the ruling just happened. It takes time for a case to make its way up the ladder and be heard by SCOTUS... but rest assured, that day is coming soon. Polygamists are already challenging it and they will win. So will others. You can't stop it.

Why was marriage never specifically for heterosexuals? Marriage law may not specifically say 'for heterosexuals only' but that is clearly the intent and result of making it only for men and women.

Is there anywhere that heterosexuals are prevented from marrying someone of the same sex? If not, then your own logic would indicate that same sex marriage is not about sexuality.

You are basically saying that same sex marriage is different than opposite sex marriage because you say so. You can point to no law or court ruling which indicates marriage is now about sexuality, you can point to no difference in marriage law for same sex couples and opposite sex couples which would differentiate one as being about sexuality and the other not, yet want people to accept that it is the case anyway. Your own arguments, such as that homosexuals were free to get married prior to Obergefel, just to members of the opposite sex, can apply to same sex marriage, yet you still claim it is somehow different without actually explaining how.

It's easy to say your predictions are not wrong. That's the thing about predictions and why they are so often intentionally vague. Until the time of the predictions come to pass, the person making the prediction can continue to claim they are correct. In this case, you've given a long enough time period that the odds are good none of the people reading them will still be in any contact with you when the time comes to pass.

You think a precedent has been set. That's fine. I disagree. Since you are unable to either quote any part of the ruling which supports your claims, nor any other cases which do so, I will be comfortable considering your supposed constitutional expertise invalid.

Oh, and as I've already said, polygamy is not a sexual proclivity or type of sexuality.