It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Montrovant]

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.

As I have said, of course this was about homosexual couples. However, if there nothing preventing heterosexuals from entering into a same sex marriage, then by your own reasoning, same sex marriage is not about sexuality. You argued that opposite sex marriage is not about a person's sexuality because homosexuals could enter into an opposite sex marriage.

From what I've seen the Obergefel ruling was about equal access to marriage law. That homosexuals were the ones being denied that access does not suddenly make marriage all about sexuality. The ruling neither made homosexuality a requirement for same sex marriage nor any sort of sexuality a requirement or barrier to marriage between two consenting adults.

Marriage has changed many times throughout history. Polygamy is the first type of marriage discussed in the Bible I believe. It's been pointed out that there have been changes in marriage based on race, religion, finances, etc.. None of those changes led to sudden, extensive expansion of marriage to various types of groupings, did they?

We are talking about marriage as it stands today and as you think it will be in the future. How is the origin of marriage particularly relevant to that?

The court did not redefine marriage, as it was already defined as between two consenting adults of any gender in much of the country before the Obergefel ruling. It isn't as though marriage was only between a man and a woman throughout the entire US and its territories before Obergefel.

 

[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.

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.

In what way did I demand you show me the ruling defeats itself? I'd like a quote, but even a paraphrase would do. I asked you to show what part of the ruling supports your claims. If your claims are counter to the ruling, that isn't my fault, nor does it make the ruling self-defeating.

We aren't ruled by a court, but the USSC is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of laws. As I've already said, if you disagree with the ruling, you are free to push for a constitutional amendment to change things.

 

[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?

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

Do you realize that our laws are not the same as the Bible's laws? I ask this honestly because I get the impression you might not.

 

[Boss]

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

Doesn't matter what you think, your sig line illustrates you're an idiot. I pay no attention to what idiots think. If you happen to run across any of these racist Christians, I'll be happy to school them on the bible passages they've taken out of context.

 

[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.

In what way did I demand you show me the ruling defeats itself? I'd like a quote, but even a paraphrase would do. I asked you to show what part of the ruling supports your claims. If your claims are counter to the ruling, that isn't my fault, nor does it make the ruling self-defeating.

We aren't ruled by a court, but the USSC is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of laws. As I've already said, if you disagree with the ruling, you are free to push for a constitutional amendment to change things.

Well, my claim was that the ruling will open the door for other similar groups to lobby for marriage based on their sexual lifestyles. I can't show you where that is in the SCOTUS ruling because it's not in there... they don't say what the ramifications of their new law is... they never do.

The SCOTUS is not the "final arbiter" of any goddamn thing. I don't know why liberals believe this. It's certainly nowhere in the Constitution I've read. If this were the case, we'd still have slavery and blacks would still be property, women would still be unable to vote, schools would still be segregated, on and on and on. The SCOTUS can only make a ruling in a case... that doesn't have any legislative authority.

As for an amendment to the Constitution, you might very well get what you wish for there.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Doesn't matter what you think, your sig line illustrates you're an idiot. I pay no attention to what idiots think. If you happen to run across any of these racist Christians, I'll be happy to school them on the bible passages they've taken out of context.

And you can just as quickly be schooled on how you're taking bible passages out of context. You'd disregard it just like they would.
You're both wrong and sure you're right. That's what bigots do...be they racist or anti gay.

 

[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.

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.

In what way did I demand you show me the ruling defeats itself? I'd like a quote, but even a paraphrase would do. I asked you to show what part of the ruling supports your claims. If your claims are counter to the ruling, that isn't my fault, nor does it make the ruling self-defeating.

We aren't ruled by a court, but the USSC is the final arbiter of the constitutionality of laws. As I've already said, if you disagree with the ruling, you are free to push for a constitutional amendment to change things.

Well, my claim was that the ruling will open the door for other similar groups to lobby for marriage based on their sexual lifestyles. I can't show you where that is in the SCOTUS ruling because it's not in there... they don't say what the ramifications of their new law is... they never do.

The SCOTUS is not the "final arbiter" of any goddamn thing. I don't know why liberals believe this. It's certainly nowhere in the Constitution I've read. If this were the case, we'd still have slavery and blacks would still be property, women would still be unable to vote, schools would still be segregated, on and on and on. The SCOTUS can only make a ruling in a case... that doesn't have any legislative authority.

As for an amendment to the Constitution, you might very well get what you wish for there.

Once a law is deemed unconstitutional by the USSC, is there any way for that law to be ruled constitutional other than through another USSC ruling or an amendment? That makes them the final arbiter. That does not give them the ability to create legislation, and they did not do that with Obergefel. Instead they found laws banning same sex couples from marrying to be unconstitutional. No new laws were written.

Calling the court the final arbiter does not mean any decision they make is set for all time, it means there are no other governmental bodies to appeal to after the Supreme Court when it comes to determining constitutionality of law. It is perhaps a poor phrase to use, sorry.

The Obergefel ruling is based on gender, not sexual lifestyle. A same sex couple could marry without ever having any sex. How can that be based on a sexual lifestyle?

 

[Boss]

And you can just as quickly be schooled on how you're taking bible passages out of context.

And I respectfully disagree.

 

[Boss]

That makes them the final arbiter.

Well... Sorry, no it doesn't.

 

[Boss]

The Obergefel ruling is based on gender, not sexual lifestyle.

Marriage is literally the marriage of male and female genders. That's what marriage IS. It can't be something else. SCOTUS made it something else in their ruling and now we will live by what they made it into.... which is a vehicle to legitimize your sexuality.

 

[Boss]

Calling the court the final arbiter does not mean any decision they make is set for all time, it means there are no other governmental bodies to appeal to after the Supreme Court when it comes to determining constitutionality of law. It is perhaps a poor phrase to use, sorry.

Calling the court the final arbiter does not mean any decision they make is set for all time...
Uhm... hey idiot... that's EXACTLY what it means!

...It is perhaps a poor phrase to use, sorry.
Yes, indeed it is!

 

[Boss]

That's what bigots do...be they racist or anti gay.

Or anti-Christian?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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..

Changes to marriage since the reformation in the Western world:

• As mentioned before- abolition of bans on mixed race marriage
• Marital rape is no longer legal
• Wives are no longer chattel as in not distinct legally from their husbands- but are now equal partners with husbands
• Divorce is now legal and acceptable
  
• Arranged marriages are no longer acceptable

And those are just the changes off the top of my head. I suspect that there are more.

Marriage is not static. If you had read any of the court cases regarding bans on same gender marriage you would have read about that.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

. 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..

Except that is not what the Supreme Court ruled.

You can of course believe whatever you want to- as you will continue to do.

Remember of course- this thread is about your rant about why looking back you believe Americans should never have let homosexual Americans have equal rights- apparently because you are upset about homosexuals being able to marry- and you fear they may force you to have sex with them.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Well I don't believe that- but if you believe your rights came to you by a Creator- then so did the rights of homosexuals.

And by the way- in a Constitutional Republic, this is exactly how things work.

Look to Dred Scott as an example.

Supreme Court made a horrible- and completely legal decision.
Americans corrected that decision with a Constitutional Amendment.

The Supreme Court also ruled that bans on mixed race marriages were unconstitutional- that ruling was not 'corrected' by a Constitutional Amendment- so is still in effect- and yes because of the Supreme Court now in the United States no State can ban marriages between mixed race couples- or same gender couples.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

No- and once again you misunderstand how the court ruled- and how a law being unconstitutional works.

Americans have a right to marriage- this has been confirmed by the Supreme Court repeatedly.


In Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

In Griswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"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."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

The court has ruled 3 times previously that State bans on marriages were unconstitutional- none of those created 'new rights'- they recognized that the States bans on those marriages were unconstitutional.

And that is exactly what happened with Obergefell. No 'new' right was established- the rights of same gender couples were recognized and laws were declared unconstitutional.

Obergefell has nothing to do with sexual behavior- despite your repeated claim that it does.

And no one is forcing Americans to get married to someone of the same gender because Obergefell- so your overblown rhetoric and religious victimhood is just idiotic.

 

[Montrovant]

The Obergefel ruling is based on gender, not sexual lifestyle.

Marriage is literally the marriage of male and female genders. That's what marriage IS. It can't be something else. SCOTUS made it something else in their ruling and now we will live by what they made it into.... which is a vehicle to legitimize your sexuality.

Marriage has more than one meaning. It is certainly not up to you alone to decide that marriage cannot mean anything else. You are not the authority on the definitions of words.

Marriage included same sex couples before the Obergefel ruling in some states. Therefore, the court did not make the definition of marriage something else than what it was, as it already included same sex couples.

Would you like links to dictionary definitions of marriage which include same sex couples? Or are you simply deciding on the definition of the word that you personally subscribe to and assuming that somehow must be the definition everyone uses?

 

[Syriusly]

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

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.

Oh the Bible......font of so much knowledge.

Christians for 200 years justified discrimination and segregation based upon quotes from the Bible. You know- like you do to support discrimination against homosexuals.

The Bible among other things forbids divorce and remarriage, tells Christians to obey authority, and condemns the worship of idols.

Yet we have legal divorce and remarriage, we have Christians who refuse to obey authority citing the Bible, and we have Christians who do business with idol worshippers without any concern for their soul.

The Bible is no justification for legal discrimination against Americans.

Ever.

 

[Montrovant]

Calling the court the final arbiter does not mean any decision they make is set for all time, it means there are no other governmental bodies to appeal to after the Supreme Court when it comes to determining constitutionality of law. It is perhaps a poor phrase to use, sorry.

Calling the court the final arbiter does not mean any decision they make is set for all time...
Uhm... hey idiot... that's EXACTLY what it means!

...It is perhaps a poor phrase to use, sorry.
Yes, indeed it is!

As someone who has both complained of being insulted and refused to acknowledge being wrong even when quotes prove it to be the case, you sure do toss around words like idiot a lot.

 

[Syriusly]

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..

Mixed race marriage bans were not denying blacks rights that others had- Virginia was quick to point that out in Loving v. Virginia.

Blacks had every right to marry another black person- and whites had every right to marry another white person. They just were forbidden by law from legally marrying each other.

Gays had every right to marry an opposite gender person- and straights have every right to marry an opposite gender person. They were just forbidden from legally marrying the same gender.

Marriage laws change. You don't have to approve- but that is no justification for your wholesale condemnation of homosexuals as in your OP.