It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Boss]

..but for some reason you assume those laws are also going to change....again with no particular reasoning...

But I gave my reasoning. Same reasoning used to make homosexuality legal.

 

[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.

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.

No, I am telling you there is not a such thing as "same-sex marriage" and the meaning of marriage was altered to accommodate sexuality by SCOTUS. I explained to you the intent of marriage according to the original source for marriage in western culture.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

What I did was tried to show how your own reasoning refuted your argument about sexual proclivities being the basis for same sex marriage. Marriage is neither an exclusively Christian institution, nor an originally Christian institution, nor has it been a static institution. The origins of marriage are, for the most part, irrelevant to this discussion; we are talking about marriage as it pertains to the US today.

 

[paperview]

Why are y'all crying? ...Did I hurt your little gay feelings?

Best paragraph ever!

"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."

If I had a brain like yours...I'd be a freaky nutbag too.

lol.

Upon reading that ridiculous line in that flamingly queer OP, this was the first thing I flashed on:

Why Do All These Homosexuals Keep Sucking My Cock?

Look, I'm not a hateful person or anything–I believe we should all live and let live. But lately, I've been having a real problem with these homosexuals. You see, just about wherever I go these days, one of them approaches me and starts sucking my cock.

Take last Sunday, for instance, when I casually struck up a conversation with this guy in the health-club locker room. Nothing fruity, just a couple of fellas talking about their workout routines while enjoying a nice hot shower. The guy looked like a real man's man, too–big biceps, meaty thighs, thick neck. He didn't seem the least bit gay. At least not until he started sucking my cock, that is.

Where does this queer get the nerve to suck my cock? Did I look gay to him? Was I wearing a pink feather boa without realizing it? I don't recall the phrase, "Suck my cock" entering the conversation, and I don't have a sign around my neck that reads, "Please, You Homosexuals, Suck My Cock."

I've got nothing against homosexuals. Let them be free to do their gay thing in peace, I say. But when they start sucking my cock, then I've got a real problem.

Then there was the time I was hiking through the woods and came across a rugged-looking, blond-haired man in his early 30s. He seemed straight enough to me while we were bathing in that mountain stream, but, before you know it, he's sucking my cock!

What is it with these homos? Can't they control their sexual urges? Aren't there enough gay cocks out there for them to suck on without them having to target normal people like me?

Believe me, I have no interest in getting my cock sucked by some queer. But try telling that to the guy at the beach club. Or the one at the video store. Or the one who catered my wedding. Or any of the countless other homos who've come on to me recently. All of them sucked my cock, and there was nothing I could do to stop them.

I tell you, when a homosexual is sucking your cock, a lot of strange thoughts go through your head: How the hell did this happen? Where did this fairy ever get the idea that I was gay? And where did he get those fantastic boots?

It screws with your head at other times, too. Every time a man passes me on the street, I'm afraid he's going to grab me and drag me off to some bathroom to suck my cock. I've even started to visualize these repulsive cock-sucking episodes during the healthy, heterosexual marital relations I enjoy with my wife–even some that haven't actually happened, like the sweaty, post-game locker-room tryst with Vancouver Canucks forward Mark Messier that I can't seem to stop thinking about.

Things could be worse, I suppose. It could be women trying to suck my cock, which would be adultery and would make me feel tremendously guilty. As it is, I'm just angry and sickened. But believe me, that's enough. I don't know what makes these homosexuals mistake me for a guy who wants his cock sucked, and, frankly, I don't want to know. I just wish there were some way to get them to stop.

I've tried all sorts of things to get them to stop, but it has all been to no avail. A few months back, I started wearing an intimidating-looking black leather thong with menacing metal studs in the hopes that it would frighten those faggots off, but it didn't work. In fact, it only seemed to encourage them. Then, I really started getting rough, slapping them around whenever they were sucking my cock, but that failed, too. Even pulling out of their mouths just before ejaculation and shooting sperm all over their face, neck, chest and hair seemed to have no effect. What do I have to do to get the message across to these swishes?

I swear, if these homosexuals don't take a hint and quit sucking my cock all the time, I'm going to have to resort to drastic measures–like maybe pinning them down to the cement floor of the loading dock with my powerful forearms and working my cock all the way up their butt so they understand loud and clear just how much I disapprove of their unwelcome advances. I mean, you can't get much more direct than that.

 

[Montrovant]

..but for some reason you assume those laws are also going to change....again with no particular reasoning...

But I gave my reasoning. Same reasoning used to make homosexuality legal.

You have yet to show a single sodomy law which involved consent. Consent laws are going to be changed based on the right of consensual adults to privacy that was used to strike down sodomy laws?

 

[Boss]

Rulings may not say everything that might be a consequence of the ruling, but....

BUT nothing! Shut up trying to stupidly argue that the SCOTUS ruling is supposed to somehow self-defeat itself or else it's valid. It's like me saying... hey, SCOTUS didn't say in the Dred Scott ruling that slaves should have civil rights and not be considered property... so that must not be the case!

 

[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.

No, I am telling you there is not a such thing as "same-sex marriage" and the meaning of marriage was altered to accommodate sexuality by SCOTUS. I explained to you the intent of marriage according to the original source for marriage in western culture.

Are marriages only of a type described by the Bible? No.

Has marriage law changed in the past, redefining what marriage was legally? Yes.

Can heterosexuals join a same sex union as easily as homosexuals can join an opposite sex union? Yes.

Yet you think that this change in marriage law will open the floodgates where those in the past did not. You think this change in marriage law was based on accommodating sexuality, but none in the past. You think that homosexual unions are based on sexuality but heterosexual unions are not. Your rationale for opposite sex unions not being about sexuality is that homosexuals are able to enter into such unions, yet the fact that heterosexuals can enter into a same sex union doesn't fit the same criteria. Then you fall back on the Bible as though what the Bible says is the basis of US law.

There is such a thing as same sex marriage. You can deny it, but that doesn't change the facts. That may change, but at the moment, same sex couples can be legally married in this country (as well as others). Do you think your displeasure with the Obergefel ruling makes the marriage certificates of same sex couples invalid?

Oh, and considering there were same sex marriages before the Obergefel ruling, you're wrong that the meaning of marriage was altered by the SCOTUS. It had already been altered by state courts, state legislatures and state referendums.

You oppose same sex marriage. Anyone reading this gets that. Perhaps you should move on, or work toward a constitutional amendment changing things. Or maybe that's what this thread is? An attempt to sway people to your view through hyperbole, hoping that might eventually lead to changes in the law?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

 

[Montrovant]

Rulings may not say everything that might be a consequence of the ruling, but....

BUT nothing! Shut up trying to stupidly argue that the SCOTUS ruling is supposed to somehow self-defeat itself or else it's valid. It's like me saying... hey, SCOTUS didn't say in the Dred Scott ruling that slaves should have civil rights and not be considered property... so that must not be the case!

But nothing? What are you, 5?

Where have I argued that the ruling is supposed to be self-defeating? I've asked you to show where your predictions come from the Obergefel ruling. You have responded with such legally relevant responses as 'consent is easier to change than marriage' and 'the ruling was based on sexual proclivity' and provided no actual evidence of those things.

You want your opinions taken as true without having to provide any actual evidence.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I would be curious to see what you consider to be 'evidence'- feel free to provide a quote from one of your posts that is anything other than your opinion.

 

[Syriusly]

..but for some reason you assume those laws are also going to change....again with no particular reasoning...

But I gave my reasoning. Same reasoning used to make homosexuality legal.

'reasoning' is just your opinion.

You have yet to provide a single quote from any ruling that made homosexuality legal to support your opinion- or your reasoning.

The Ruling was Lawrence v. Texas.

What reasoning(i.e. an actual quote- not your interpretation of what someone told you Lawrence v. Texas said) is within Lawrence v. Texas that supports whatever 'reasoning' you are making now?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

No, I am telling you there is not a such thing as "same-sex marriage" and the meaning of marriage was altered to accommodate sexuality by SCOTUS. I explained to you the intent of marriage according to the original source for marriage in western culture.

'the original source of marriage in western culture'?

Really?

Marriage is defined by us- not defined for us.

50 years ago Americans said marriage did not include mixed race couples- even cited the Bible as 'evidence'- ultimately the courts rejected that.

Now the courts have rejected laws which prevented same gender couples from marrying.

Then and now what we still have is 'marriage'.

Not the marriage of Solomon. Not the marriage of Cicero. Not the marriage of King Henry the 8th.

But our marriage.

 

[Boss]

What I did was tried to show how your own reasoning refuted your argument about sexual proclivities being the basis for same sex marriage. Marriage is neither an exclusively Christian institution, nor an originally Christian institution, nor has it been a static institution. The origins of marriage are, for the most part, irrelevant to this discussion; we are talking about marriage as it pertains to the US today.

What you are doing is trying to act incredulous. You already have several pro-gay-marriage members here admitting this was ALL about allowing homosexuals something. As I said from the start, there is no other compelling reason for the change in definition of marriage if it's not about sexuality.

I never said it was "exclusively" anything. I presented the "intent" of marriage to you because you indicated you were confused as to the intent. And yes... in western culture, marriage has been pretty much a static institution since the 1500s and Protestant Reformation.

Marriage as it pertains to the US TODAY, at least according to SCOTUS, is a matter of public record... it can't be debated. Is THAT what you think we're doing? Am I somehow obligated to overturn a SCOTUS ruling in order to prevail in the argument? If so, I surrender, you win! Game over! I can't do anything about what SCOTUS has ruled and what has become law of the land. That has nothing to do with my argument. If that's the argument you THINK we're having, then you win... no question about it... the SCOTUS ruled that marriage can be redefined to accommodate homosexuals.

Again-- it has nothing to do with my argument.

 

[Boss]

Rulings may not say everything that might be a consequence of the ruling, but....

BUT nothing! Shut up trying to stupidly argue that the SCOTUS ruling is supposed to somehow self-defeat itself or else it's valid. It's like me saying... hey, SCOTUS didn't say in the Dred Scott ruling that slaves should have civil rights and not be considered property... so that must not be the case!

But nothing? What are you, 5?

Where have I argued that the ruling is supposed to be self-defeating? I've asked you to show where your predictions come from the Obergefel ruling. You have responded with such legally relevant responses as 'consent is easier to change than marriage' and 'the ruling was based on sexual proclivity' and provided no actual evidence of those things.

You want your opinions taken as true without having to provide any actual evidence.

No... I am the adult, you are the one who is acting 5.

You didn't "argue" that the ruling is supposed to be self-defeating... you demanded I show you where the ruling defeats itself and unless I could show you that, it means the ruling is correct. By this criteria, black people are still property and have no constitutional rights. The case was decided by the SCOTUS and that's that! But as we know, this is not how things work in a Constitutional republic. We're not ruled by a court. Our rights are endowed by our Creator.

 

[Boss]

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

But Obergefell doesn't do that. It creates a right that did not previously exist and confers it upon a specific group based on their sexual behavior. It actually violates the 1st Amendment rights of millions of Americans by restricting the free exercise of religion, as marriage is a seminal aspect of their beliefs.

 

[Boss]

50 years ago Americans said marriage did not include mixed race couples.

And yet... there were millions upon millions of "mixed-race" marriages all over America. As a matter of FACT... All four of my great grandparents were mixed-race marriages. What you had was a remnant of the era of segregation which explicitly denied blacks the rights that others were allowed. Again--homosexuals are not excluded from marriage between a man and woman and heterosexuals aren't allowed marriage between same-sex partners. No one was being discriminated against, especially on the basis of being a particular race.

I realize segregationists used the Bible to justify their positions. They were wrong. The Bible doesn't condone or support racism. The Bible does, however, condemn homosexuality.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Now you're confusing civil with religious marriage.

You can believe what you want, civil law doesn't have to reflect it.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

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.

No, I am telling you there is not a such thing as "same-sex marriage" and the meaning of marriage was altered to accommodate sexuality by SCOTUS. I explained to you the intent of marriage according to the original source for marriage in western culture.

Are marriages only of a type described by the Bible? No.

Has marriage law changed in the past, redefining what marriage was legally? Yes.

Can heterosexuals join a same sex union as easily as homosexuals can join an opposite sex union? Yes.

Yet you think that this change in marriage law will open the floodgates where those in the past did not. You think this change in marriage law was based on accommodating sexuality, but none in the past. You think that homosexual unions are based on sexuality but heterosexual unions are not. Your rationale for opposite sex unions not being about sexuality is that homosexuals are able to enter into such unions, yet the fact that heterosexuals can enter into a same sex union doesn't fit the same criteria. Then you fall back on the Bible as though what the Bible says is the basis of US law.

There is such a thing as same sex marriage. You can deny it, but that doesn't change the facts. That may change, but at the moment, same sex couples can be legally married in this country (as well as others). Do you think your displeasure with the Obergefel ruling makes the marriage certificates of same sex couples invalid?

Oh, and considering there were same sex marriages before the Obergefel ruling, you're wrong that the meaning of marriage was altered by the SCOTUS. It had already been altered by state courts, state legislatures and state referendums.

You oppose same sex marriage. Anyone reading this gets that. Perhaps you should move on, or work toward a constitutional amendment changing things. Or maybe that's what this thread is? An attempt to sway people to your view through hyperbole, hoping that might eventually lead to changes in the law?

"Are marriages only of a type described by the Bible? YES! Gods word. Why do libtards always show their stupidity? Idiot.

 

[Seawytch]

50 years ago Americans said marriage did not include mixed race couples.

And yet... there were millions upon millions of "mixed-race" marriages all over America. As a matter of FACT... All four of my great grandparents were mixed-race marriages. What you had was a remnant of the era of segregation which explicitly denied blacks the rights that others were allowed. Again--homosexuals are not excluded from marriage between a man and woman and heterosexuals aren't allowed marriage between same-sex partners. No one was being discriminated against, especially on the basis of being a particular race.

I realize segregationists used the Bible to justify their positions. They were wrong. The Bible doesn't condone or support racism. The Bible does, however, condemn homosexuality.

You think the racists are wrong. They are as certain of their biblical passages as YOU are. I think you're BOTH wrong.

 

[Seawytch]

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

But Obergefell doesn't do that. It creates a right that did not previously exist and confers it upon a specific group based on their sexual behavior. It actually violates the 1st Amendment rights of millions of Americans by restricting the free exercise of religion, as marriage is a seminal aspect of their beliefs.

Loving did the same thing then.