It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[AmericanFirst1]

Because there was no compelling reason to exclude them.

Okay, then there is no compelling reason to exclude other similar groups. Who decided that it is more "okay" to engage in homosexual behavior as opposed to pedophilia behavior? Or bestiality? Or S&M? Or any of the other countless sexual proclivities? Why is THAT behavior treated specially? --No reason-- It's a matter of morals, the same morals that opposed homosexual marriage. You've destroyed those morals now and made sexuality a right. Congratulations, enjoy the can of worms you opened.

You're a fucking imbecile. Homosexuality is not a "similar" group to incest, beastiality, pedophilia, or polygamy. What the fuck is wrong with you?

As far as your imaginary can of worms; no, it was not opened. None of those other deviant sex scts became legal even after gay sex became legal, so your twisted argument falls flat on its face. And they still remain illegal with no compelling argument to alter that.

The reality is that the bigoted right who fought, and lost, their battle to keep same-sex marriage illegal are the only ones promoting the slippery slope notion that same-sex mariage would lead to those other forms of marriage. And y'all did so with the hope that if you could lump gays in with other more distateful and illegal sex acts, as you just tried to do in your last post, you could get society on your side of the debate.

You lost that debate because society is not as stupid as you.

Gay is deviant. Just because the scotus ruled in favor of the few weirdos means society supports it? Stupid.

your bigotry is not anyone else's problem.

But someones sexual preference is everyone else's? Lopsided logic, typical for libtards.

someone is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex?

surely even you can understand the difference.

Typical libtard, comes up with the stupidest comment. did I say anything about being forced to marry a faggot dude? You are a moron.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

What marriage changed to include interracial couples, was that right granted to all others? Oh, but you might argue that interracial couples were still a man and a woman! While true, why do only certain changes to marriage law open up marriage to all, but not others? Something about sexual proclivity? That's been gone over and you've been shown how your own logic argues against it, even if you ignore the fact that the ruling did not have to do with sexual proclivity.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

All words have specific meanings. Why are the words you choose incapable of being changed or added to?

 

[Boss]

Why was marriage never specifically for heterosexuals?

Because marriage wasn't based on sexuality.

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.

Nonsense, or there would be no homosexuals who ever got married. It doesn't matter what you think the intent was.. it's irrelevant. The Biblical intent of marriage was to consummate man with woman who was created from man. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Gen. 2:24 Christians regard marriage as a sacred institution, or as a covenant to God. And that is the intent and reason marriage exists in western culture.

Is there anywhere that heterosexuals are prevented from marrying someone of the same sex?

You can't marry someone of the same sex... it's an oxymoron. Homosexuals joining in a union with same-sex partners is no more a "marriage" than me drawing hundred dollar bills with crayons is currency. We can PRETEND... have a fantasy... but that doesn't change what IS.

You are basically saying that same sex marriage is different than opposite sex marriage because you say so.

No, I am basically not saying that.

 

[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!

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..

But since the ruling doesn't actually say that- what you are saying is merely your opinion- an admittedly biased opinion.

What the courts recognized- essentially again:

• Americans have the right to marry
• States can only deny that right if States can provide a clear and concise purpose and benefit denying that right will achieve.
• Just as in each of the prior 3 marriage cases before the Supreme Court, States could provide no rational explanation as to why same gender couples should be denied their right to marry.
  
• Just as in each of the prior 3 marriage cases before the court- there is nothing in the ruling about accomodating sexuality- it is about recognizing Americans constitutional rights.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

You were the one who said that marriage is between a man and a woman. Now you want to add other conditions?

Lets list your new conditions:

• between a man and a woman
• both persons must consent
• neither person can already be married
• the two persons cannot be too closely related.

Clearly marriage is not just about being a man and a woman. That is but one of your own admitted criteria. In the past criteria might also include

• the two persons could not be of different races
• only with the legal consent of the woman's father or guardian
• only with the payment of the dowry or bride price
• only if the two are of the same religion
• neither of the two could owe any child support
• neither of the tow could be incarcerated

Marriage as an institution is whatever we say it is- with whatever criteria we make. However- when that criteria violates an Americans rights- such as in Obergefell and Loving- the Supreme Court correctly overturns such laws.

And now your friends can get married if they want to- or not- if they do not want to- the same choice my wife and I had.

And that is the way it should be.

 

[bodecea]

You're a fucking imbecile. Homosexuality is not a "similar" group to incest, beastiality, pedophilia, or polygamy. What the fuck is wrong with you?

As far as your imaginary can of worms; no, it was not opened. None of those other deviant sex scts became legal even after gay sex became legal, so your twisted argument falls flat on its face. And they still remain illegal with no compelling argument to alter that.

The reality is that the bigoted right who fought, and lost, their battle to keep same-sex marriage illegal are the only ones promoting the slippery slope notion that same-sex mariage would lead to those other forms of marriage. And y'all did so with the hope that if you could lump gays in with other more distateful and illegal sex acts, as you just tried to do in your last post, you could get society on your side of the debate.

You lost that debate because society is not as stupid as you.

Gay is deviant. Just because the scotus ruled in favor of the few weirdos means society supports it? Stupid.

your bigotry is not anyone else's problem.

But someones sexual preference is everyone else's? Lopsided logic, typical for libtards.

someone is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex?

surely even you can understand the difference.

Typical libtard, comes up with the stupidest comment. did I say anything about being forced to marry a faggot dude? You are a moron.

Well, I'm certainly glad to hear that. So....what is your complaint then?

 

[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!

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.

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.
.

Maybe you could find something in Obergefell to support your claims- anything?

Lets quote Dred Scott- look right there is reference to the civil rights of blacks

The doctrine of 1776, that all (white) men "are created free and equal," is univer-
sally accepted and made the basis of all our Institutions, State and National, and
the relations of citizenship— the rights of the individual— in short, the status of the
dominant race, is thus defined and fixed for ever.

But there have been doubts and uncertainties in regard to the negro. Indeed,
many (pcrhips most) American communities have latterly sought to include him
in the ranks of citizenship, and force upon him the status of the sup-Tior race.

The question then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro African race, at that time in this country, or who might afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endue him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State without their consent?

Really pretty sad- you comparing Obergefell to Dred Scott

Since Obergefell accomplished what we would agree that Dred Scott should have done- ensure the constitutional protections of Americans.

 

[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!

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.

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.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled over 11 years ago that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples marriage.

11 years later- still no sibling marriage- still no polygamous marriage.

Could your 'predictions' come true? Possibly- of course your predictions have no more weight than mine.

And my prediction is that Obergefell will no more lead to mothers marrying sons than Loving did.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

So you don't 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?

I haven't said I want to deny marriage to anyone- that would be you telling us that right should be denied to homosexual couples.

I have said all along- if States- and indeed if you- cannot provide any compelling reason why mothers should be forbidden from marrying their sons- then it should be illegal. I then have pointed to a judge pointing out what she considered to be a compelling reason against such marriages.

Do you have any compelling argument against a mother marrying her son- except 'tradition' or 'its icky'?

 

[Syriusly]

Why was marriage never specifically for heterosexuals?

Because marriage wasn't based on sexuality.

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.

Nonsense, or there would be no homosexuals who ever got married. It doesn't matter what you think the intent was.. it's irrelevant. The Biblical intent of marriage was to consummate man with woman who was created from man. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Gen. 2:24 Christians regard marriage as a sacred institution, or as a covenant to God. And that is the intent and reason marriage exists in western culture.
.

Since we don't base our laws on the Bible- why should base our marriage laws upon your interpretation of the bible?

Oh- and by the way- marriage existed in Western culture before Christianity even existed in Western culture.

 

[Syriusly]

You can't marry someone of the same sex... it's an oxymoron. Homosexuals joining in a union with same-sex partners is no more a "marriage" than me drawing hundred dollar bills with crayons is currency. We can PRETEND... have a fantasy... but that doesn't change what IS.t.

You keep saying that- but I have witnessed two men marrying each other- and it was legal and lovely.

That you don't approve doesn't make marriage invalid.

 

[Boss]

But since the ruling doesn't actually say that-

Rulings don't say everything that might be a consequence of the ruling. In the Korematsu ruling, they did not say interning Japanese-Americans violates their Constitutional rights but we're going to ignore that and do it anyway. The Dred Scott ruling didn't say, this ruling clearly violates the civil rights of blacks but we're going to allow it anyway. When they upheld segregation laws, they didn't say... this violates the rights of these people but it's alright in this case... those things were not said in the ruling.

 

[Montrovant]

Why was marriage never specifically for heterosexuals?

Because marriage wasn't based on sexuality.

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.

Nonsense, or there would be no homosexuals who ever got married. It doesn't matter what you think the intent was.. it's irrelevant. The Biblical intent of marriage was to consummate man with woman who was created from man. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." Gen. 2:24 Christians regard marriage as a sacred institution, or as a covenant to God. And that is the intent and reason marriage exists in western culture.

Is there anywhere that heterosexuals are prevented from marrying someone of the same sex?

You can't marry someone of the same sex... it's an oxymoron. Homosexuals joining in a union with same-sex partners is no more a "marriage" than me drawing hundred dollar bills with crayons is currency. We can PRETEND... have a fantasy... but that doesn't change what IS.

You are basically saying that same sex marriage is different than opposite sex marriage because you say so.

No, I am basically not saying that.

So you are the one to determine what marriages are based on? I think not.

Are we now discussing religion? I thought we were discussing a Supreme Court ruling and the repercussions you think will come from it. Now you've decided it's about religion? It's strange how, for someone who denies religious belief so much, you so often come back to it.

Legally, yes, you can marry someone of the same sex. You can complain about it, deny it all you like, it's still true. However, since you are apparently going to refuse to actually discuss the point, is there anything preventing heterosexuals from joining into a same sex legal union? If not, that would mean it is not about sexual proclivities any more than opposite sex unions, correct?

 

[Boss]

You were the one who said that marriage is between a man and a woman. Now you want to add other conditions?

No, there has always been "other conditions" but we weren't discussing those.

 

[Boss]

So you are the one to determine what marriages are based on? I think not.

I think not too... that's why I didn't say that.

 

[Montrovant]

But since the ruling doesn't actually say that-

Rulings don't say everything that might be a consequence of the ruling. In the Korematsu ruling, they did not say interning Japanese-Americans violates their Constitutional rights but we're going to ignore that and do it anyway. The Dred Scott ruling didn't say, this ruling clearly violates the civil rights of blacks but we're going to allow it anyway. When they upheld segregation laws, they didn't say... this violates the rights of these people but it's alright in this case... those things were not said in the ruling.

Rulings may not say everything that might be a consequence of the ruling, but neither have you provided evidence of how the ruling will be used to make the changes to marriage you predict, other than to tell us it will happen. You have not shown where in the wording of the ruling it will lead to any and all potential forms of marriage being recognized legally. You have not given examples of similar instances happening, neither in marriage law nor in any other law. In fact, you've admitted that many of the types of relationships you talk about are already prevented from becoming marriages based on consent laws, but for some reason you assume those laws are also going to change....again with no particular reasoning behind why that will happen.

In the end your arguments have boiled down to, "Because I say so".

 

[Boss]

Are we now discussing religion? I thought we were discussing a Supreme Court ruling and the repercussions you think will come from it. Now you've decided it's about religion? It's strange how, for someone who denies religious belief so much, you so often come back to it.

You indicated you didn't know what the "intent" of marriage was if it wasn't exclusively for heterosexuals. I explained the Biblical intent and what Christians believe to illustrate your idea of "heterosexual-only marriage" was not ever an intent.

I've never said that I deny religious belief. Where did you get that from? I've said that I am not a religious person and I don't personally subscribe to the religious beliefs of any organized religion. That doesn't translate to me denying religious belief.

 

[Boss]

Rulings may not say everything that might be a consequence of the ruling, but neither have you provided evidence of how the ruling will be used to make the changes to marriage you predict, other than to tell us it will happen.

Well, I think I did, so I guess we disagree.

 

[Montrovant]

So you are the one to determine what marriages are based on? I think not.

I think not too... that's why I didn't say that.

And yet here you are telling us that same sex marriage is based on sexuality, opposite sex marriage is not, and the word marriage is based on your interpretation of the Biblical definition of the word.