It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[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.

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.

LOL.....why are you so damn ignorant?

You think that Buddhists don't get married?

Why do you always show your stupidity?

 

[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.

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.

Your claim is amazingly similar to what the opponents of Virginia's ban on mixed race marriage claimed.

They were wrong.

You are wrong.

Just your anti-homosexual bias coming through.

 

[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.

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.

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.

The Supreme Court is indeed the 'final arbiter' of what the Constitution says.

If we the people disagree with their interpretation- then we can change the Constitution- as we did with Dred Scott- but haven't done with Citizen's United.

Citizen's United- and Obergefel are in effect- whether you agree or disagree with either.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

That is your opinion.

It is not the reality.

Long before the Supreme Court ruled, same gender couples were legally marrying in the United States.

Courts first ruled in Massachusetts 11 years ago that bans on same gender couples marrying violated Massachusetts Constitution. Of course many other courts found the same thing.

Then we have voter initiatives and legislation which recognized the legality of same gender marriages.

You can believe whatever you want.

But marriage is not just the 'marriage of male and female genders"

 

[Syriusly]

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!

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

I think it is more and more obvious that the OP was really just butt hurt over homosexuals being allowed to legally marry- and a cry for Americans to return to the good old days of discriminating against homosexuals- in retaliation for 'gay marriage'

Once again the words of the OP- the call for action against homosexuals.

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 norm

 

[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.

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.

Oh there are tons more. Native Americans couldn't legally marry in most of the country until the 20th century. In Appalachia there was no formal law governing marriages and it was common for girls to be married before they turned 13. Polygamist made up most of the Mormon religion in Utah and there it was common to find men married to 4 or more wives. Remember... Marriage has always been a State regulated and controlled institution.

But beyond that, you know what else marriage has been in ALL the examples cited above, including your own examples? The union of male and female as husband and wife.

This IS what "Marriage" IS. It is NOT something else.

 

[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!

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The Court can SAY whatever they want. THEY are NOT the final arbiters. THE PEOPLE are.

 

[Boss]

...cry for Americans to return to the good old days of discriminating...

Hate to break it to you moron but you're never going to experience life in a society without discrimination. Especially if what you are doing is out of the ordinary. This is human nature and it is prevalent in every single one of us. YOU are the world's worst at discrimination because you are oblivious to it. ....No? You want to tell me how much actual honest time you've spent considering how homosexual marriage conflicts with the religious, moral and ethical views of others? Yes, you ARE discriminating, whether you acknowledge you are or not, doesn't change the facts. And before you pop off with some long-winded explanation of how you're NOT discriminating against the religious, I'll remind you that bigots can always justify their positions. ALWAYS!

 

[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.

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.

Oh there are tons more. Native Americans couldn't legally marry in most of the country until the 20th century. In Appalachia there was no formal law governing marriages and it was common for girls to be married before they turned 13. Polygamist made up most of the Mormon religion in Utah and there it was common to find men married to 4 or more wives. Remember... Marriage has always been a State regulated and controlled institution.

But beyond that, you know what else marriage has been in ALL the examples cited above, including your own examples? The union of male and female as husband and wife.

This IS what "Marriage" IS. It is NOT something else.

To paraphrase : Marriage has changed many times over the years. However, it cannot change in this particular way.....because I say so.

 

[Faun]

Marriage is literally the marriage of male and female genders. That's what marriage IS. It can't be something else.

WTF?? Says who?

 

[Faun]

...cry for Americans to return to the good old days of discriminating...

Hate to break it to you moron but you're never going to experience life in a society without discrimination. Especially if what you are doing is out of the ordinary. This is human nature and it is prevalent in every single one of us. YOU are the world's worst at discrimination because you are oblivious to it. ....No? You want to tell me how much actual honest time you've spent considering how homosexual marriage conflicts with the religious, moral and ethical views of others? Yes, you ARE discriminating, whether you acknowledge you are or not, doesn't change the facts. And before you pop off with some long-winded explanation of how you're NOT discriminating against the religious, I'll remind you that bigots can always justify their positions. ALWAYS!

You're fucking deranged.

People can discriminate ... the law cannot without compelling interest. The 14th Amendment guarantees that. Civil marriage is law and like all laws, cannot discriminate without a compelling interest. You might not have the balls to defend your rights but gays proved they do.

 

[EverCurious]

As a person who's not fond of organized religion, I am finding vast amounts of humor in the fact that they pushed and pushed to force their religion into our legal system, despite clear directive to keep them separate - and now it's totally biting them in the ass heh

 

[AmericanFirst1]

Marriage is literally the marriage of male and female genders. That's what marriage IS. It can't be something else.

WTF?? Says who?

God

 

[Seawytch]

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

And I respectfully disagree.

You can disagree all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that bigots interpret the bible to suit their prejudices. Racist bigots do it and there is disagreement with their passages justifying their bigotry. Anti gay bigots do it, and there is disagreement with their passages justifying their bigotry. Same bigots different targets.

 

[Faun]

Marriage is literally the marriage of male and female genders. That's what marriage IS. It can't be something else.

WTF?? Says who?

God

He doesn't make our laws. Not to mention, since when do Christians observe His words? G-d says we must observe the Passover, yet Christians don't.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque. There is no religious justification behind state marriage. It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not. The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage. As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws. In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age. This really is not rocket science. BTW, gays have been around as long as man has. This is not some new phenomenon.

 

[Boss]

Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque. There is no religious justification behind state marriage. It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights, such as making medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, whether that spouse be the same sex or not. The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage. As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws. In order to marry someone, they must be able to give their consent, which means they must be human and of age. This really is not rocket science. BTW, gays have been around as long as man has. This is not some new phenomenon.

...And yet, we've not ever in the history of man had state-sponsored same sex marriage.

Marriage by the state is not the same as marriage by your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque.
Then find another name to call it.

There is no religious justification behind state marriage.
Then you can call it something else and it shouldn't matter.

It is nothing more than a contract allowing partners to certain rights.
Then redefine the laws and call it that.

The problem that those like you have with this is that you believe that the state issuing a marriage certificate is the same as saying your church must support that marriage.
Well, that's funny because I don't have a church. I know a great deal about Christian religion and I do believe in a Spiritual Creator, but I am a Spiritualist and not a Religionist. The problem I have with all this is, as I have stated countless times, the role of government in dictating what we define as marriage. I am a very 'neutral' party in this but I am most often castigated by the left as being "anti-gay" or whatever. I am opposed to government involvement in the institution of marriage, particularly at the federal level. It's simply not their business and not within their constitutional authority to define marriage for everyone. At best, it is a State issue.... but even there, I don't condone the State telling ME what I can consider to be marriage. Whether gay or traditional. That should be left for ME to decide and if I want to put limitations or conditions on it with like-minded persons in my state, that should be done through the ballot box.

As for your idiotic thinking that the state in any way would someday support people marrying animals or 12 year olds, you seem to not have a basic understanding of our laws.
Twelve years ago, homosexuality was illegal in some states. At the time of the Loving decision, if anyone would have said that it would eventually lead to same-gender marriage, you would have been laughed out of the room. Yet, that is the 'go-to' case for gay marriage. I think it is YOU who lacks basic understanding of how our laws work. You see.... they can change!

Especially when you have allowed the precedent of permitting courts to legislate morality from the bench, taking it from the hands of the people to decide.

 

[Syriusly]

...cry for Americans to return to the good old days of discriminating...

Hate to break it to you moron but you're never going to experience life in a society without discrimination. Especially if what you are doing is out of the ordinary. This is human nature and it is prevalent in every single one of us. YOU are the world's worst at discrimination because you are oblivious to it. ..!

LOL- once again you just don't have a clue about me- do you?

You are the one who started a call for Americans to return to the good old days of legal discrimination.

I haven't called upon any Americans to be discriminated against- again that would be you.

Here is your OP again- in all of its strident 'glory'

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 norm

 

[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.

According to you.

Not according to me- not according to the law.

Not according to the majority of Americans.

So this whole rant is just about you being upset that gay Americans can now legally marry each other.

Oh there are tons more. Native Americans couldn't legally marry in most of the country until the 20th century. In Appalachia there was no formal law governing marriages and it was common for girls to be married before they turned 13. Polygamist made up most of the Mormon religion in Utah and there it was common to find men married to 4 or more wives. Remember... Marriage has always been a State regulated and controlled institution.

But beyond that, you know what else marriage has been in ALL the examples cited above, including your own examples? The union of male and female as husband and wife.

This IS what "Marriage" IS. It is NOT something else.

According to you.

Not according to me- not according to the law.

Not according to the majority of Americans.

So this whole rant is just about you being upset that gay Americans can now legally marry each other.