It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Pop23]

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.

You want me, anyone can see that. Can't blame you, most women do.

No need to deflect from you're clearly defeated argument. You can't come up with a single statute that requires sex as a qualifier for marriage.

We progressives have learned long ago that you traditionalist wing nuts will deflect every time you see that you are getting ass kicked.

 

[Pop23]

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?

YES, but I could have just NOT GOTTEN MARRIED!

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Anyone can argue their rights are being denied, sure. The problem is convincing the courts it is true. You continue to argue that because the courts ruled in favor of same sex marriage, somehow that obligates them to rule in favor of any sort of marriage. Why? It's possible some sorts of marriage arrangements currently not legal will one day become legal based on similar arguments to Obergefell, but it is not some sort of automatic decision. There are obvious differences between various arguments, including every one you've brought up. Consent is the big one you consistently shrug off as though it is unimportant, but for something like polygamy, current marriage laws would not cover many situations. For someone interested in marriage with an animal, animals cannot enter into contractual agreements. Close relation marriages bring up issues of authority figures and coercion. Just because the state was ruled not to have a compelling interest to prevent same gender couples equal access to marriage laws does not mean the same will be found for any couple or grouping.

Access to marrying a female was denied to a male based on their gender, and vice versa.

Marriage was a certain thing. It is something slightly different now. You don't like that but it doesn't change what civil marriage is in the United States today.

I will rephrase. Our rights are based on the US Constitution. Other than the original writing of the document and additional amendments, those rights are not up for compromise.

The SCOTUS is not a judicial dictator. Your disagreement with this particular decision does not mean they are suddenly overlords wielding uncontested power or anything of the sort. However, the court has long held the power of judicial review and determining whether laws fall within the guidelines of the constitution. That power was, I believe, something taken from English law, which makes its roots older than the country itself. There have been numerous USSC decisions over the years. Do you consider the ones you agree with to be judicial tyranny, or is it only when you don't like their decision that they suddenly are dictatorial?

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Again, you call this judicial tyranny, but I wonder if you feel the same about all USSC decisions? What makes this ruling tyranny but not others, or are they all tyrannical?

Words sometimes change or have additions to their definitions. You don't want that to be the case with marriage, but it is. In the law, in dictionaries, marriage has changed to include same sex couples.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Again, you call this judicial tyranny, but I wonder if you feel the same about all USSC decisions? What makes this ruling tyranny but not others, or are they all tyrannical?

Words sometimes change or have additions to their definitions. You don't want that to be the case with marriage, but it is. In the law, in dictionaries, marriage has changed to include same sex couples.

Not exactly true, the definitions you quote don't include all same sex couples, just the ones you think aren't icky.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Again, you call this judicial tyranny, but I wonder if you feel the same about all USSC decisions? What makes this ruling tyranny but not others, or are they all tyrannical?

Words sometimes change or have additions to their definitions. You don't want that to be the case with marriage, but it is. In the law, in dictionaries, marriage has changed to include same sex couples.

Not exactly true, the definitions you quote don't include all same sex couples, just the ones you think aren't icky.

Not all opposite sex couples are able to marry. Does that mean that prior to same sex marriage being legalized, defining marriage as the joining of a man and a woman would be incorrect?

Also, I didn't quote any definition there. Nor did I say anything about certain couples being 'icky'. Not that you let what someone actually says stand in your way.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Again, you call this judicial tyranny, but I wonder if you feel the same about all USSC decisions? What makes this ruling tyranny but not others, or are they all tyrannical?

Words sometimes change or have additions to their definitions. You don't want that to be the case with marriage, but it is. In the law, in dictionaries, marriage has changed to include same sex couples.

Not exactly true, the definitions you quote don't include all same sex couples, just the ones you think aren't icky.

Not all opposite sex couples are able to marry. Does that mean that prior to same sex marriage being legalized, defining marriage as the joining of a man and a woman would be incorrect?

Also, I didn't quote any definition there. Nor did I say anything about certain couples being 'icky'. Not that you let what someone actually says stand in your way.

Stating same sex couples can marry is all encompassing.

I will point out traditional wing nut positions every time I can.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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...

"We?" We? Give us a break. You did nothing yourself. I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't show up to protest every thing listed in your screed

The Courts had to step in you weirdo fuck

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We're not a system in which rights are supposed to be based on debates and compromise.

If you believe that is so, can you please explain .. The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Of course we use the courts, but we use the courts to settle debates

 

[Montrovant]

We're not a system in which rights are supposed to be based on debates and compromise.

If you believe that is so, can you please explain .. The Ninth Amendment (Amendment IX) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Of course we use the courts, but we use the courts to settle debates

I already changed the phrasing of that statement to be clearer in a subsequent post.

 

[Boss]

Anyone can argue their rights are being denied, sure. The problem is convincing the courts it is true. You continue to argue that because the courts ruled in favor of same sex marriage, somehow that obligates them to rule in favor of any sort of marriage. Why?

Well, it's called "case law" and it is often used by the SCOTUS in determining future cases. In fact, almost all cases. Justices don't wake up one morning and think... hmm, I've got to rule on this case today, let me see what the polls say and what Oprah thinks! They base their rulings on cases already on the books... like Ogeberfell.

I have repeatedly asked as others, what is now the "compelling interest" to deny same-sibling marriage? You want to present the very same compelling interests that were shot down in Ogeberfell. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are going to sanction same-sex marriage then you also have to sanction same-sibling marriage. The matter is complicated even further... now you have the potential of gay sibling marriage as well. Suddenly, the justifications regarding procreation risks are gone, two gay brothers can't reproduce. (Not that "sexual behavior" has anything to do with this anymore).

Marriage was a certain thing. It is something slightly different now. You don't like that but it doesn't change what civil marriage is in the United States today.

Unbelievable. Again, why do you and other nitwits on your side not comprehend that NO ONE HERE is arguing that SCOTUS did not make the 5-4 ruling in Ogeberfell! We all understand the SCOTUS ruled. We all understand what the law defines as civil marriage now. That is not something we can debate even if we want to. So why do you continue to try and make that the debate?

The SCOTUS is not a judicial dictator.

Well, in THIS case, they are.

For someone interested in marriage with an animal, animals cannot enter into contractual agreements. Close relation marriages bring up issues of authority figures and coercion.

And I have addressed both of these. Animals cannot give legal consent and are not subject to constitutional rights. That should not hamper the rights of the individual who owns the animal. It is not their fault the animal doesn't have constitutional rights and cannot give legal consent. On age of consent, you've presented no rational argument for why we have all the assorted and various arbitrary dates on a calendar to define when someone can give their consent. A "naturalist" would argue that human beings become sexually mature at about 12~13 years old, so any restrictions of their right to consent beyond that age is prohibitive of their rights. You present your barrage of "issues pertaining to this and that" as if that is not some kind of moral argument based on your own inhibitions. People opposed to gay marriage were "concerned about issues" as well... didn't fucking matter then! Your "concerns about issues" do not trump civil rights. That has been established.

 

[koshergrl]

Every time I scroll past the thread title on this I do a double-take because I read "It's easier to CONDOM homosexuality"

 

[Montrovant]

Well, it's called "case law" and it is often used by the SCOTUS in determining future cases. In fact, almost all cases. Justices don't wake up one morning and think... hmm, I've got to rule on this case today, let me see what the polls say and what Oprah thinks! They base their rulings on cases already on the books... like Ogeberfell.

The ruling of Obergefell does not cover the differences between same sex marriage and other types of relationships. You continue to talk about them as though they are exactly the same, as though no differences exist in the reasons for preventing them.

I have repeatedly asked as others, what is now the "compelling interest" to deny same-sibling marriage?

I have answered that at least 4 times now. Not that it is up to any of us, but I've given my opinion on what the courts might cite as a compelling state interest, others have done the same. More, it has been brought up that in at least one state, siblings are not allowed to marry under any circumstances while first cousins can so long as they cannot procreate. This indicates that procreation is not the only argument the state has against familial marriages.

I have also said that I consider the argument against grandparents or parents marrying children stronger than that of siblings. I don't expect siblings to be able to marry any time soon, but should the law be changed, I would guess it would happen for siblings and not parents and children.

Suddenly, the justifications regarding procreation risks are gone, two gay brothers can't reproduce.

Again, if procreation was the only reason to prevent sibling marriage, one might think that infertile siblings would be able to legally marry. Yet, they cannot.

Unbelievable. Again, why do you and other nitwits on your side not comprehend that NO ONE HERE is arguing that SCOTUS did not make the 5-4 ruling in Ogeberfell! We all understand the SCOTUS ruled. We all understand what the law defines as civil marriage now. That is not something we can debate even if we want to. So why do you continue to try and make that the debate?

You are the one who continues to make declaratives about what marriage is or is not. You said marriage is a certain thing. You've said before that marriage is between a man and a woman. In a discussion about civil marriage, when you declare marriage to be a certain way, why do you get upset when someone points out that the law disagrees with you? If you said, "I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman no matter what the law allows" it would be different. It sounds contradictory to say, "We all understand what the law defines as civil marriage now." and also say, "But marriage is a certain thing... it doesn't morph and change into whatever it needs to be in order to accommodate something else." and, "Marriage is literally the marriage of male and female genders. That's what marriage IS. It can't be something else.".

Well, in THIS case, they are.

You have an odd definition of dictator.

And I have addressed both of these. Animals cannot give legal consent and are not subject to constitutional rights. That should not hamper the rights of the individual who owns the animal. It is not their fault the animal doesn't have constitutional rights and cannot give legal consent. On age of consent, you've presented no rational argument for why we have all the assorted and various arbitrary dates on a calendar to define when someone can give their consent. A "naturalist" would argue that human beings become sexually mature at about 12~13 years old, so any restrictions of their right to consent beyond that age is prohibitive of their rights. You present your barrage of "issues pertaining to this and that" as if that is not some kind of moral argument based on your own inhibitions. People opposed to gay marriage were "concerned about issues" as well... didn't fucking matter then! Your "concerns about issues" do not trump civil rights. That has been established.

If you think animals should be able to enter into contracts, feel free to try and have the relevant laws changed. I am confident you will have little success. There is no real way to determine if an animal agrees to a contract, they cannot sign a contract, your hyperbole is silly.

I don't have a rational argument for why we have so many different laws regarding age of consent. I wish we had a uniform system for the country rather than differences state by state. Age of consent laws can often seem strange. That doesn't invalidate the concept of consent in relation to age.

A naturalist can argue whatever they want. If enough people agree, they can try to get the laws changed. Age of consent laws have trended up rather than down, so again, I don't envision much success. None of that changes that a marriage in which the two parties cannot legally engage in a romantic or sexual relationship is not going to be made legal based on the Obergefell decision.

People opposed to same sex marriage were concerned about issues. The courts found their concerns less than compelling. People opposed to interracial marriage were, I'm sure, concerned about issues. Once again, the courts eventually did not feel those concerns were compelling. The fact that the arguments against same sex marriage ended up being not strong enough to sway the court does not mean that arguments against polygamy, immediate family marriage, marriage to animals, or any other coupling you might come up with are now not strong enough to withstand scrutiny. There are differences between all of those relationships which leads to different arguments for why they should or should not be banned.

Once again this boils down to you declaring that this particular change to marriage is the opening of the floodgates. No other changes to marriage were profound enough, but this time, at some indeterminate point in the future, the Obergefell ruling will be used as the precedent to allow every other type of marriage. I wonder, did you expect the Obergefell ruling to go the way it did?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

They've gone beyond wanting equality, they want to be a protected class now, i.e treated differently from everyone else.

Wait, doesn't that defeat the purpose?

 

[Skylar]

Anyone can argue their rights are being denied, sure. The problem is convincing the courts it is true. You continue to argue that because the courts ruled in favor of same sex marriage, somehow that obligates them to rule in favor of any sort of marriage. Why?

Well, it's called "case law" and it is often used by the SCOTUS in determining future cases. In fact, almost all cases. Justices don't wake up one morning and think... hmm, I've got to rule on this case today, let me see what the polls say and what Oprah thinks! They base their rulings on cases already on the books... like Ogeberfell.

I have repeatedly asked as others, what is now the "compelling interest" to deny same-sibling marriage?

If you have an argument for incest marriage, make it. But demanding that we make your argument for you is....

.....lazy.

Present your case. And be clear that its conservatives that are pushing for incest marriage. And polygamy.

 

[Skylar]

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

They've gone beyond wanting equality, they want to be a protected class now, i.e treated differently from everyone else.

Wait, doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Where sexual discrimination is forbidden, everyone is protected. Same with gender. Or race. Or religion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

They've gone beyond wanting equality, they want to be a protected class now, i.e treated differently from everyone else.

Wait, doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Where sexual discrimination is forbidden, everyone is protected. Same with gender. Or race. Or religion.

Right, but when it goes beyond that, when the modus operandi becomes suppression, submission and capitulation instead of "equality" it becomes a form of tyranny.

And then there's that word "forbidden." What else will be forbidden? The opposition? The beliefs of others who oppose homosexuality?

Sexual discrimination is never going to go away. No matter how many times you sue someone over it.

 

[Skylar]

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

They've gone beyond wanting equality, they want to be a protected class now, i.e treated differently from everyone else.

Wait, doesn't that defeat the purpose?

Where sexual discrimination is forbidden, everyone is protected. Same with gender. Or race. Or religion.

Right, but when it goes beyond that, when the modus operandi becomes suppression, submission and capitulation instead of "equality" it becomes a form of tyranny.

There's nothing particularly 'special' or 'tyrannical' about ordering a cake from a cake maker. There is something odd about a cake baker denying you a cake....based on who you fuck.

That's odd.

And then there's that word "forbidden." What else will be forbidden? The opposition? The beliefs of others who oppose homosexuality?

PA laws don't regulate beliefs. They regulate actions. You can believe whatever you'd like. When you act in violation of the law, then you're subject to its penalties.

Just any other law. I mean....go 65 in a 35 zone and you'll get a ticket. Is that 'controlling beliefs'? Or is that regulating action?

Sexual discrimination is never going to go away. No matter how many times you sue someone over it.

Absolutely? Of course not. But you can dramatically reduce its occurrence. There are far fewer folks telling black people that 'we don't serve your kind here' today than there was 50 years ago.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There's nothing particularly 'special' or 'tyrannical' about ordering a cake from a cake maker. There is something odd about a cake baker denying you a cake....based on who you fuck.

I didn't say anything about public accommodation. Or cake bakers. I'm totally over that.

I am pointing out what happens when you actually do achieve equality. The equality now becomes a weapon to attack speech itself, the very beliefs of others who hold that opposition. Suddenly that "equality" isn't real, now one side wishes to have more standing in society than the other, to diminish their influence, to silence them.

Gays have accused Christians for doing this, now I see them trying to do the same thing, now that they have their so-called equality.

 

[Skylar]

There's nothing particularly 'special' or 'tyrannical' about ordering a cake from a cake maker. There is something odd about a cake baker denying you a cake....based on who you fuck.

I didn't say anything about public accommodation. Or cake bakers. I'm totally over that.

Then you'll definitely need to get specific. As your accusations are uselessly vague.