It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Syriusly]

The definition of marriage has changed many times prior to the Obergefell ruling and likely will again.

No, the definition of marriage has always been the union of a man and woman. The legal regulatory parameters of marriage has changed. And now it has been established marriage can be whatever we need it to be in order to accommodate our sexual urges. So yes... it's gonna change radically.

So marriage has never been, say, a man and multiple women?

But fine, marriage in the US has always been between men and women. For the past decade or more, that has been changing. States, territories, even native tribes had incorporated same sex marriage before Obergefell. Other nations have also allowed same sex marriages. I do not know of any instance in which same sex marriage has been used as a winning legal argument to grant another previously disallowed union to become a legal marriage. Have you heard of any such instances?

You say it has been established that marriage can be whatever we need it to be to accommodate sexual urges, but that's not based on the actual ruling. That ruling, so far as I am aware, did not mention sexual urges nor use them as the ruling's basis. Any later ruling which might use Obergefell as precedent could have a hard time if it makes claims about Obergefell which aren't there. Obergefell cited equal protection and gender. Did it say anything about accommodating sexual urges? You may think that is the obvious real meaning of the ruling but I have seen no evidence that allowing same sex marriage leads to the various other forms of marriage you have talked about becoming legal. Can you cite a single instance of a state or territory or nation allowing same sex marriage and then using that decision to allow pedophilia? Zoophilia? Necrophilia? Immediate family marriages? How about even polygamy?

There are a number of other nations where same sex marriage is legal. In the Netherlands it has been legal since 2001, and before that they apparently had something like civil unions starting from 1995. Polygamy remains illegal in the Netherlands. I'm going to guess that they also don't allow people to marry animals or corpses, etc.. If you are so certain that permitting same sex marriage will lead to these other forms of marriage getting state recognition, why doesn't it seem to have happened anywhere same sex marriage has become legal?

And- in no country where polygamous marriage is legal- are homosexuals given equal rights- or allowed to marry.

Generally any country which allows polygamous marriage is as bigoted against homosexuals as Boss is.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Judgement of homosexuality is in fact a taboo these days, while outright condemnation of those religious who oppose it is commonplace and acceptable. People who don't want to be judged are being the judges. Judging the beliefs of others.

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.

I have nothing wrong with someone being gay, with the exception that I think what they are and what they practice is a sin according to my faith. However, nobody should be treated differently in America, yet one of the demands the homosexual crowd makes is that they want to be accommodated... or treated differently... from everyone else. An irony to be sure.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now that they don't have the position of authority to tell decent people how they can live their lives they consider themselves big victims- but what they are are whiny assholes.

Now, the victims are doing the victimizing, doing the very thing they themselves were trying to escape from. Don't delude yourself into thinking you suddenly gained a position of authority, because you have none. You have no authority to force the tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality on anyone.

If I want to tolerate it or accept it, you let me do that. Stay out of my decision.

I've never once considered myself a victim because of someone being gay. I feel honored that I have the capability to be tolerant of them and have them as friends. In a world where one word can make an enemy of many, I chose to make friends with mine; where words, beliefs and preferences are respected. If only the world worked this way...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

WWe've bent over backwards to try and please them but they won't be satisfied.

You bent over backwards how? Did you bake any gay cakes? What about cupcakes? Did you photograph gay weddings and have to participate or else get shunned as a paahtay pooper?

Get real and honest. If you do have "several dear and sweet homosexual friends and family members who" you "love very much" then more's the pity for you. Them? I am sure if you are with them, as you present yourself here, they need nothing from you

 

[Boss]

But fine, marriage in the US has always been between men and women. For the past decade or more, that has been changing.

Things don't change what they are and always have been. What you mean is, people have been redefining marriage to include something else, mostly through court rulings and legislative acts in defiance of the people.

We're supposed to have a voluntary cooperative system, the genius of which is compromise. We have debates over ideas and resolve them through the process of give and take. We don't live in a dictatorship where one side forces it's viewpoint onto the rest of society and says... that's how it's going to be whether you like it or not... tough shit, we've got control of the court... fuck you!

 

[Boss]

If you are so certain that permitting same sex marriage will lead to these other forms of marriage getting state recognition, why doesn't it seem to have happened anywhere same sex marriage has become legal?

You answered it already, they don't have a 14th Amendment equal protection clause or SCOTUS.

 

[Montrovant]

But fine, marriage in the US has always been between men and women. For the past decade or more, that has been changing.

Things don't change what they are and always have been. What you mean is, people have been redefining marriage to include something else, mostly through court rulings and legislative acts in defiance of the people.

We're supposed to have a voluntary cooperative system, the genius of which is compromise. We have debates over ideas and resolve them through the process of give and take. We don't live in a dictatorship where one side forces it's viewpoint onto the rest of society and says... that's how it's going to be whether you like it or not... tough shit, we've got control of the court... fuck you!

We're not a system in which rights are supposed to be based on debates and compromise. The courts ruled that rights were being denies, specifically access to marriage laws. I understand that you disagree with that decision, but why does it so often seem that when people disagree with a USSC decision they suddenly feel the court is 'activist' and overstepping their powers? I don't think I've ever seen someone agree with the principle of a decision yet still call the court activist judges or tyrants or anything of the sort.

You are right, we don't live in a dictatorship. We do, however, live in a country with judicial review.

 

[Montrovant]

If you are so certain that permitting same sex marriage will lead to these other forms of marriage getting state recognition, why doesn't it seem to have happened anywhere same sex marriage has become legal?

You answered it already, they don't have a 14th Amendment equal protection clause or SCOTUS.

Only our system will lead from same sex marriage to various other forms of marriage? OK, what about the fact that SSM was first legalized in the US in 2004?

 

[Montrovant]

But fine, marriage in the US has always been between men and women. For the past decade or more, that has been changing.

Things don't change what they are and always have been. What you mean is, people have been redefining marriage to include something else, mostly through court rulings and legislative acts in defiance of the people.

We're supposed to have a voluntary cooperative system, the genius of which is compromise. We have debates over ideas and resolve them through the process of give and take. We don't live in a dictatorship where one side forces it's viewpoint onto the rest of society and says... that's how it's going to be whether you like it or not... tough shit, we've got control of the court... fuck you!

I'd also like to point out that while a majority of states have indeed had SSM legalized through the courts, a dozen or so did so through legislation. It certainly has not been just a case of the courts forcing their viewpoint onto the rest of society.

 

[Pop23]

The definition of marriage has changed many times prior to the Obergefell ruling and likely will again.

No, the definition of marriage has always been the union of a man and woman. The legal regulatory parameters of marriage has changed. And now it has been established marriage can be whatever we need it to be in order to accommodate our sexual urges. So yes... it's gonna change radically.

So marriage has never been, say, a man and multiple women?

But fine, marriage in the US has always been between men and women. For the past decade or more, that has been changing. States, territories, even native tribes had incorporated same sex marriage before Obergefell. Other nations have also allowed same sex marriages. I do not know of any instance in which same sex marriage has been used as a winning legal argument to grant another previously disallowed union to become a legal marriage. Have you heard of any such instances?

You say it has been established that marriage can be whatever we need it to be to accommodate sexual urges, but that's not based on the actual ruling. That ruling, so far as I am aware, did not mention sexual urges nor use them as the ruling's basis. Any later ruling which might use Obergefell as precedent could have a hard time if it makes claims about Obergefell which aren't there. Obergefell cited equal protection and gender. Did it say anything about accommodating sexual urges? You may think that is the obvious real meaning of the ruling but I have seen no evidence that allowing same sex marriage leads to the various other forms of marriage you have talked about becoming legal. Can you cite a single instance of a state or territory or nation allowing same sex marriage and then using that decision to allow pedophilia? Zoophilia? Necrophilia? Immediate family marriages? How about even polygamy?

There are a number of other nations where same sex marriage is legal. In the Netherlands it has been legal since 2001, and before that they apparently had something like civil unions starting from 1995. Polygamy remains illegal in the Netherlands. I'm going to guess that they also don't allow people to marry animals or corpses, etc.. If you are so certain that permitting same sex marriage will lead to these other forms of marriage getting state recognition, why doesn't it seem to have happened anywhere same sex marriage has become legal?

And- in no country where polygamous marriage is legal- are homosexuals given equal rights- or allowed to marry.

Generally any country which allows polygamous marriage is as bigoted against homosexuals as Boss is.

So one must equal the other?

Mutually exclussive thought is dangerous and not compelling argument.

 

[Syriusly]

The definition of marriage has changed many times prior to the Obergefell ruling and likely will again.

No, the definition of marriage has always been the union of a man and woman. The legal regulatory parameters of marriage has changed. And now it has been established marriage can be whatever we need it to be in order to accommodate our sexual urges. So yes... it's gonna change radically.

So marriage has never been, say, a man and multiple women?

But fine, marriage in the US has always been between men and women. For the past decade or more, that has been changing. States, territories, even native tribes had incorporated same sex marriage before Obergefell. Other nations have also allowed same sex marriages. I do not know of any instance in which same sex marriage has been used as a winning legal argument to grant another previously disallowed union to become a legal marriage. Have you heard of any such instances?

You say it has been established that marriage can be whatever we need it to be to accommodate sexual urges, but that's not based on the actual ruling. That ruling, so far as I am aware, did not mention sexual urges nor use them as the ruling's basis. Any later ruling which might use Obergefell as precedent could have a hard time if it makes claims about Obergefell which aren't there. Obergefell cited equal protection and gender. Did it say anything about accommodating sexual urges? You may think that is the obvious real meaning of the ruling but I have seen no evidence that allowing same sex marriage leads to the various other forms of marriage you have talked about becoming legal. Can you cite a single instance of a state or territory or nation allowing same sex marriage and then using that decision to allow pedophilia? Zoophilia? Necrophilia? Immediate family marriages? How about even polygamy?

There are a number of other nations where same sex marriage is legal. In the Netherlands it has been legal since 2001, and before that they apparently had something like civil unions starting from 1995. Polygamy remains illegal in the Netherlands. I'm going to guess that they also don't allow people to marry animals or corpses, etc.. If you are so certain that permitting same sex marriage will lead to these other forms of marriage getting state recognition, why doesn't it seem to have happened anywhere same sex marriage has become legal?

And- in no country where polygamous marriage is legal- are homosexuals given equal rights- or allowed to marry.

Generally any country which allows polygamous marriage is as bigoted against homosexuals as Boss is.

So one must equal the other?

Mutually exclussive thought is dangerous and not compelling argument.

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.

. However, nobody should be treated differently in America, yet one of the demands the homosexual crowd makes is that they want to be accommodated... or treated differently... from everyone else. An irony to be sure.

Odd you equate equal treatment with different treatment.

Lets use some examples- you as a Christian cannot be fired just for being a Christian- Federal law protects you from being fired based upon your religion.

But you as a homosexual can be fired for just being a homosexual- Federal law doesn't protect you from being fired based upon the gender you are attracted to.

I presume you are okay with Christians wanting to be 'accommodated' for your religion- and treated differently than everyone else.

Why do you think that homosexuals should not want equal treatment before the law?

 

[Boss]

We're not a system in which rights are supposed to be based on debates and compromise. The courts ruled that rights were being denies, specifically access to marriage laws. I understand that you disagree with that decision, but why does it so often seem that when people disagree with a USSC decision they suddenly feel the court is 'activist' and overstepping their powers? I don't think I've ever seen someone agree with the principle of a decision yet still call the court activist judges or tyrants or anything of the sort.

You are right, we don't live in a dictatorship. We do, however, live in a country with judicial review.

Anyone can present an argument their "right" is being denied! That is the point here... polygamists can claim they have a right... hebephiles can claim they have a right... incestophiles can claim a right... zoophiles can claim to have a right. We do not redefine marriage to include their behavior as a right. We don't find public indecency laws unconstitutional because an exhibitionist claims he has a right to expose himself in public. We don't find DUI laws unconstitutional because someone has a right to drive and a right to drink.

Access to marriage was fully available to every homosexual in America. There is not one case of any state denying a marriage license to anyone on the basis of homosexuality. But marriage is a certain thing... it doesn't morph and change into whatever it needs to be in order to accommodate something else. I can't go get a marriage license then go rape someone and claim... well, I was just trying to "marry" them and that's my right.... why are you trying to deny my rights? Yeah, I changed the definition of marriage, so what?

YES... even our rights are based on debates and compromise, all the way down to our 1st Amendment rights. Even our most sacred and fundamental rights were debated and compromises were made, terms and conditions may apply.

The SCOTUS is not our judicial dictator, that was never intended to be the case. The limits and parameters of our rights are to be determined by US... the people! The SCOTUS is supposed to uphold what WE decide. Our system is based on compromise. We decide these parameters together by debating and compromising... not judicial tyranny. Not Seth Rogen's "Fuck You" opinion.

 

[Boss]

Only our system will lead from same sex marriage to various other forms of marriage? OK, what about the fact that SSM was first legalized in the US in 2004?

Because the STATE did it and not the Federal government. We are a nation of states who have the authority and power to establish their own 'moral' boundaries through the ballot initiative process. My view is, the state does have the right to allow "same-sex marriage" but they don't have the right to call it "marriage" because it's not. Now, I suppose in the sense that it's defined as such it's kind of like "imitation crab" not being the same as "crab" but they still get to use the word. But nevertheless, we are still talking about the people and states making this decision through the process of debate and compromise and not by judicial tyranny or liberal fascist activism.

 

[Faun]

Sorry, but you're clearly too fucking deranged to understand. Gay marriage was illegal but homosexuality was not. Whereas incestuous marriage is illegal and incest is illegal.

Homosexuality was still illegal in some states as recently as 12 years ago.

Again... what IS or ISN'T legal is not an argument for compelling state interest.

So what? It's not illegal in any states now. Can't you make an argument grounded in reality? It appears not.

And you're beyond deranged to think legality is not a compelling interest to the state. A state cannot sanction a marriage between two people who are not legally allowed to be bound. Otherwise, the state would be sanctioning illegal behavior. For the same reason a married person cannot legally marry a third person; they do not qualify for marriage. Or a person wanting to marry a young child; the state cannot condone an illegal union.

Prior to Obergfell a same sex couple could not marry either.

You are making the exact same argument that kept blacks from marrying whites. Making you a racist and an idiot.

The illegal activity is what?

You realize that sex is not a qualification to marry, correct?

Because two people pledge to each other does not mean they intend sexual contact, or the States would disqualify family members from corporate membership altogether.

Do you never tire of running in circles?

Oh look... pops has exhausted all argument that he's reduced to parroting back what others say about him.

Earlier, I pointed out how his argument is taking him in circles, so now he tries to transfer is failures onto me.

"Do you get dizzy from running around in circles like that?" - Faun​

I hear projection is a sign of gay OCD, fits your clinical case to a tee.

Seek help

Too funny since you projected I'm the one running in circles after I pointed out that's what you're doing, huh?

Looks like you just came out of the closet since you just called your own behavior, "gay OCD."

 

[Faun]

Morality has two different definitions .
One refers to the principles of right and wrong. By this definition I can't see where is the moral fault: no one gets harmed in the act of having two same sex persons engaged .
On the other hand rejecting them because of their preferences does harm them, THAT is moraly incorrect and probably as ridiculous as rejecting someone because he splits eggs by the little end.*

Because homosexuality is sexual depravity. It's pervasiveness destroys family which is the cornerstone of society, thus it contributes to destroying society. We reject all manner of sexual behavior that doesn't harm us personally. Why is that "morally correct" in some cases and not in others? There is no difference, you've drawn an imaginary moral line one place and I've drawn it somewhere else but we've both drawn a moral line.

Why do you think it is that we expect people to control their sexual urges when it comes to all the assorted -philias, but not for homosexuality? Why do we run around changing definitions and modifying our laws to accommodate the sexual urges of one group to the exclusion of all others? We don't excuse pedophilia by reasoning they were just born that way and there is nothing they can do about it, so we must accept their sexual behavior and find a way to accommodate it in the name of their rights. We don't surmise that the exhibitionist isn't "harming anyone" by exposing themselves to others in public, therefore we have to accept their sexual deviancy and change all our laws to accommodate it. In virtually ALL other instances, including basic normal heterosexual behaviors, we expect people to be able to control their sexual urges.. .we're not monkeys in the zoo.

So now homosexuals are monkeys in a zoo?

They're some of his best friends, don'tcha know?

 

[Boss]

You bent over backwards how? Did you bake any gay cakes? What about cupcakes?

No, smart ass. First of all, we struck down the laws against sodomy because "what happens in the bedroom of consenting adults is not our business" and we disregarded those with moral objections.. in fact, we not only dismissed their opinion, we turned it into "homophobia" and made it abhorrent.

We allowed cities to hold "gay pride" parades all over the country. If anyone objected, it was viewed as bigotry and homophobia... hooted down and silenced. Everyone "bent over backwards" and cheered the trannies and queers celebrating their "coming out of the closet" deal... If you didn't want to be labeled a bigot and homophobe, that's what you had to support.

Then we passed "hate crime" laws after the death of Matthew Shepard, a gay man who was beaten to death, supposedly because he was a homosexual. So again, we all "bent over backwards" and decided that we would apply a harsher penalty than normal for someone who assaulted a gay person. So now, if someone mugs my mother on the way home from the market, they get to go do community service while the mugger of the homo gets 6 months in jail, mandatory sentence.

Then we "bent over backwards" by endorsing and supporting various actors and actresses portraying homosexual characters in movies and eventually television. Again, anyone who objected was hooted down as a bigot and homophobe.

So this is what I meant when I said society bent over backwards. And now you have managed to have SCOTUS redefine marriage to accommodate something that most of America doesn't recognize as marriage. What's more... that's not going to do the trick! You can already see that gay marriage people think this is some great victory they have won and it's not. The social stigma associated with homosexuality is still alive and well. You didn't change Biblical scriptures or religious beliefs, and you won't change them. Homosexuals are no closer to "legitimacy" than they ever have been, you just think they are now because of this perceived "victory" in a SCOTUS ruling. Some of you think this is a "sign that society is moving ahead" but it's not that either... it's a sign that our system has a problem. Society wasn't given a choice here... if it had been up to society marriage would be defined as a union of man and woman. DOMA was legislated by society... politicians representing their voters.

 

[Pop23]

Homosexuality was still illegal in some states as recently as 12 years ago.

Again... what IS or ISN'T legal is not an argument for compelling state interest.

So what? It's not illegal in any states now. Can't you make an argument grounded in reality? It appears not.

And you're beyond deranged to think legality is not a compelling interest to the state. A state cannot sanction a marriage between two people who are not legally allowed to be bound. Otherwise, the state would be sanctioning illegal behavior. For the same reason a married person cannot legally marry a third person; they do not qualify for marriage. Or a person wanting to marry a young child; the state cannot condone an illegal union.

Prior to Obergfell a same sex couple could not marry either.

You are making the exact same argument that kept blacks from marrying whites. Making you a racist and an idiot.

The illegal activity is what?

You realize that sex is not a qualification to marry, correct?

Because two people pledge to each other does not mean they intend sexual contact, or the States would disqualify family members from corporate membership altogether.

Do you never tire of running in circles?

Oh look... pops has exhausted all argument that he's reduced to parroting back what others say about him.

Earlier, I pointed out how his argument is taking him in circles, so now he tries to transfer is failures onto me.

"Do you get dizzy from running around in circles like that?" - Faun​

I hear projection is a sign of gay OCD, fits your clinical case to a tee.

Seek help

Too funny since you projected I'm the one running in circles after I pointed out that's what you're doing, huh?

Looks like you just came out of the closet since you just called your own behavior, "gay OCD."

Are you so desperate to find anyone that would find you attractive that you think everyone with OCD, gay?

Oh, I've made it clear many times, I am a male lesbian.

Turns you on, don't it?

 

[Faun]

So a question is not a sentence?

No, it's a question. A sentence is a sentence. It's why there are two different words.

You're fucking deranged.

question

a sentence*, phrase, or word that asks for information or is used to test someone's knowledge

(* = highlighted for the edification of the terminally stupid)

 

[Faun]

So what? It's not illegal in any states now. Can't you make an argument grounded in reality? It appears not.

And you're beyond deranged to think legality is not a compelling interest to the state. A state cannot sanction a marriage between two people who are not legally allowed to be bound. Otherwise, the state would be sanctioning illegal behavior. For the same reason a married person cannot legally marry a third person; they do not qualify for marriage. Or a person wanting to marry a young child; the state cannot condone an illegal union.

Prior to Obergfell a same sex couple could not marry either.

You are making the exact same argument that kept blacks from marrying whites. Making you a racist and an idiot.

The illegal activity is what?

You realize that sex is not a qualification to marry, correct?

Because two people pledge to each other does not mean they intend sexual contact, or the States would disqualify family members from corporate membership altogether.

Do you never tire of running in circles?

Oh look... pops has exhausted all argument that he's reduced to parroting back what others say about him.

Earlier, I pointed out how his argument is taking him in circles, so now he tries to transfer is failures onto me.

"Do you get dizzy from running around in circles like that?" - Faun​

I hear projection is a sign of gay OCD, fits your clinical case to a tee.

Seek help

Too funny since you projected I'm the one running in circles after I pointed out that's what you're doing, huh?

Looks like you just came out of the closet since you just called your own behavior, "gay OCD."

Are you so desperate to find anyone that would find you attractive that you think everyone with OCD, gay?

Oh, I've made it clear many times, I am a male lesbian.

Turns you on, don't it?

I never said being OCD is gay. You've once again posted your hallucinations as though they are as real to everyone else as they are to you. And no, nothing about you "turns me on." You only wish for that since you now reveal you are gay.

 

[Faun]

Access to marriage was fully available to every homosexual in America.

Repeating this 1000 times will never make it true.

Would marriage have been fully available to you had your only option been to marry another man?