It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Boss]

Any law can be looked at as based on morality.

That's funny because it is precisely what I have said many times with regard to bans on gay marriage and I was told that we can't establish laws based on morality.

 

[Montrovant]

Any law can be looked at as based on morality.

That's funny because it is precisely what I have said many times with regard to bans on gay marriage and I was told that we can't establish laws based on morality.

I think that would be more properly expressed as we cannot establish laws based on individual morality.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Excising a group of people from our culture because they're not like you is never going to turn out well for anyone.

If only liberals understood this regarding conservatives!

If only people understood that this is a two way street.

 

[Boss]

Any law can be looked at as based on morality.

That's funny because it is precisely what I have said many times with regard to bans on gay marriage and I was told that we can't establish laws based on morality.

I think that would be more properly expressed as we cannot establish laws based on individual morality.

All morality is individual.

 

[Montrovant]

Any law can be looked at as based on morality.

That's funny because it is precisely what I have said many times with regard to bans on gay marriage and I was told that we can't establish laws based on morality.

I think that would be more properly expressed as we cannot establish laws based on individual morality.

All morality is individual.

Societies/cultures can have morals as well, in a general sense. You gave an example of this earlier when you talked about Muslim culture allowing sex with young children.

The point is that laws aren't established based on your morality, or my morality, or the morality of any individual, but on that of groups of people, whether legislators or citizens through referendum. I don't want to speak for anyone else who has made that argument regarding same sex marriage, but that is what I would guess is the meaning behind such statements. It's also possible people think that some laws are not based on any sort of morality.

 

[Boss]

Any law can be looked at as based on morality.

That's funny because it is precisely what I have said many times with regard to bans on gay marriage and I was told that we can't establish laws based on morality.

I think that would be more properly expressed as we cannot establish laws based on individual morality.

All morality is individual.

Societies/cultures can have morals as well, in a general sense. You gave an example of this earlier when you talked about Muslim culture allowing sex with young children.

The point is that laws aren't established based on your morality, or my morality, or the morality of any individual, but on that of groups of people, whether legislators or citizens through referendum. I don't want to speak for anyone else who has made that argument regarding same sex marriage, but that is what I would guess is the meaning behind such statements. It's also possible people think that some laws are not based on any sort of morality.

But our society and culture DID establish laws based on collective morality of the community... states all over this country adopted laws explicitly prohibiting the redefinition of marriage. Nationally, legislators passed a law called DOMA. All of our society's collective moral views were rendered irrelevant by a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling. This is why people are upset with it. This is why I maintain it was a lawless ruling.

Now, I am a very libertarian-minded individual when it comes to morality and the laws. I know a lot of you won't believe that in a million years, but that's who I am in real life. I personally do not care one way or another if "domestic partners" of any kind are afforded any benefits that our government, society or culture may have established for "couples" in contrast to individuals. I don't care if a brother and sister want such a contract... I don't care if a father and daughter want such a contract... I don't care if two gay lovers want such a contract... I don't care if traditional Christian males and females want such a contract. I think that should be left up to the two parties to decide if they are 18 years or older. That is MY personal view.

I don't WANT government involved in this... from EITHER aspect. I don't want them telling me that "marriage" is THIS... what WE say with OUR court! Fuck you!

 

[EverCurious]

What about the 30 states who had /already/ "redefined" marriage to include homosexuals prior to the SCOTUS ruling?

FYI 30 out of 50 is a majority...

 

[Boss]

FYI 30 out of 50 is a majority...

Not how our system works.

 

[Faun]

FYI 30 out of 50 is a majority...

Not how our system works.

Pretty funny since you reject how our system works. Most notably, you reject the judicial power of the Supreme Court and their function within our framework of government. You even seem to be under the delusion that a 5-4 decision is less authoritative than a 9-0 decision.

 

[Syriusly]

Any law can be looked at as based on morality.

That's funny because it is precisely what I have said many times with regard to bans on gay marriage and I was told that we can't establish laws based on morality.

I think that would be more properly expressed as we cannot establish laws based on individual morality.

All morality is individual.

Societies/cultures can have morals as well, in a general sense. You gave an example of this earlier when you talked about Muslim culture allowing sex with young children.

The point is that laws aren't established based on your morality, or my morality, or the morality of any individual, but on that of groups of people, whether legislators or citizens through referendum. I don't want to speak for anyone else who has made that argument regarding same sex marriage, but that is what I would guess is the meaning behind such statements. It's also possible people think that some laws are not based on any sort of morality.

But our society and culture DID establish laws based on collective morality of the community... states all over this country adopted laws explicitly prohibiting the redefinition of marriage. Nationally, legislators passed a law called DOMA. All of our society's collective moral views were rendered irrelevant by a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling. This is why people are upset with it. This is why I maintain it was a lawless ruling.!

Boss still upset that America has a Constitution that among other things- protects Americans from the persecution by the majority.

 

[Montrovant]

Any law can be looked at as based on morality.

That's funny because it is precisely what I have said many times with regard to bans on gay marriage and I was told that we can't establish laws based on morality.

I think that would be more properly expressed as we cannot establish laws based on individual morality.

All morality is individual.

Societies/cultures can have morals as well, in a general sense. You gave an example of this earlier when you talked about Muslim culture allowing sex with young children.

The point is that laws aren't established based on your morality, or my morality, or the morality of any individual, but on that of groups of people, whether legislators or citizens through referendum. I don't want to speak for anyone else who has made that argument regarding same sex marriage, but that is what I would guess is the meaning behind such statements. It's also possible people think that some laws are not based on any sort of morality.

But our society and culture DID establish laws based on collective morality of the community... states all over this country adopted laws explicitly prohibiting the redefinition of marriage. Nationally, legislators passed a law called DOMA. All of our society's collective moral views were rendered irrelevant by a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling. This is why people are upset with it. This is why I maintain it was a lawless ruling.

Now, I am a very libertarian-minded individual when it comes to morality and the laws. I know a lot of you won't believe that in a million years, but that's who I am in real life. I personally do not care one way or another if "domestic partners" of any kind are afforded any benefits that our government, society or culture may have established for "couples" in contrast to individuals. I don't care if a brother and sister want such a contract... I don't care if a father and daughter want such a contract... I don't care if two gay lovers want such a contract... I don't care if traditional Christian males and females want such a contract. I think that should be left up to the two parties to decide if they are 18 years or older. That is MY personal view.

I don't WANT government involved in this... from EITHER aspect. I don't want them telling me that "marriage" is THIS... what WE say with OUR court! Fuck you!

The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.

I've said before, I think there is effectively 0 chance of marriage being removed from our laws in the near future. A change of the name is possible; I could see marriage becoming civil unions for all as at least possible. Removing marriage laws as they stand and having people create their own contracts instead, however, I cannot see. This is especially true because there are certain aspects of marriage which I do not think would be allowed through basic contract law. In particular, the formation of a new immediate family bond where one did not exist.

 

[Syriusly]

That's funny because it is precisely what I have said many times with regard to bans on gay marriage and I was told that we can't establish laws based on morality.

I think that would be more properly expressed as we cannot establish laws based on individual morality.

All morality is individual.

Societies/cultures can have morals as well, in a general sense. You gave an example of this earlier when you talked about Muslim culture allowing sex with young children.

The point is that laws aren't established based on your morality, or my morality, or the morality of any individual, but on that of groups of people, whether legislators or citizens through referendum. I don't want to speak for anyone else who has made that argument regarding same sex marriage, but that is what I would guess is the meaning behind such statements. It's also possible people think that some laws are not based on any sort of morality.

But our society and culture DID establish laws based on collective morality of the community... states all over this country adopted laws explicitly prohibiting the redefinition of marriage. Nationally, legislators passed a law called DOMA. All of our society's collective moral views were rendered irrelevant by a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling. This is why people are upset with it. This is why I maintain it was a lawless ruling.

Now, I am a very libertarian-minded individual when it comes to morality and the laws. I know a lot of you won't believe that in a million years, but that's who I am in real life. I personally do not care one way or another if "domestic partners" of any kind are afforded any benefits that our government, society or culture may have established for "couples" in contrast to individuals. I don't care if a brother and sister want such a contract... I don't care if a father and daughter want such a contract... I don't care if two gay lovers want such a contract... I don't care if traditional Christian males and females want such a contract. I think that should be left up to the two parties to decide if they are 18 years or older. That is MY personal view.

I don't WANT government involved in this... from EITHER aspect. I don't want them telling me that "marriage" is THIS... what WE say with OUR court! Fuck you!

The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.

I've said before, I think there is effectively 0 chance of marriage being removed from our laws in the near future. A change of the name is possible; I could see marriage becoming civil unions for all as at least possible. Removing marriage laws as they stand and having people create their own contracts instead, however, I cannot see. This is especially true because there are certain aspects of marriage which I do not think would be allowed through basic contract law. In particular, the formation of a new immediate family bond where one did not exist.

Well in addition- essentially no one but Boss wants such a change.

There is no legislative interest in eliminating legal marriage- and it is less likely to go away than Social Security or the deduction for mortgage interest.

 

[Boss]

The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.

Total load of horse shit. Nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to create something new and call it something else that already exists then claim they have a right to do it. If a bunch of people got together and decided to make "rape marriage" a thing and then proceed to lobby the court for their equal rights, we would not allow that. (I hope)

Again, the "collective morality of society" was expressly ignored by the court and their ruling. And there was not a discrimination or denying of any constitutional protections because homosexuals could obtain a 'marriage' license anywhere in the country and not even be questioned as to their sexuality. Much as the SCOTUS had to redefine Obamacare as a tax, they had to redefine marriage as gay marriage. Society didn't decide this. If society decided anything, it was the OPPOSITE of this.

What you are now trying to tell me is... We are a free society who collectively get to establish our morality into laws except when a liberal activist court decides we're not free to do this and our collective morality isn't important. Some other idiot above mentioned my respect for the "role of the court" and that's also bullshit... the role of the court is supposed to be upholding what the Constitution and rule of law says and not what they think is morally right and wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.

Total load of horse shit. Nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to create something new and call it something else that already exists then claim they have a right to do it..

Horse shit describes all of your anti-gay screeds.

The Supreme Court created nothing new. The Supreme Court ruled only on the Constitution- just as it had 3 times previously regarding unconstitutional state laws.

You are still just butt hurt that homosexuals- your closest friends- can now get legally married.

And of course you are still terrified that those bad gay men will try to force you to have sex with them.

What a putz.

 

[Montrovant]

The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.

Total load of horse shit. Nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to create something new and call it something else that already exists then claim they have a right to do it. If a bunch of people got together and decided to make "rape marriage" a thing and then proceed to lobby the court for their equal rights, we would not allow that. (I hope)

Again, the "collective morality of society" was expressly ignored by the court and their ruling. And there was not a discrimination or denying of any constitutional protections because homosexuals could obtain a 'marriage' license anywhere in the country and not even be questioned as to their sexuality. Much as the SCOTUS had to redefine Obamacare as a tax, they had to redefine marriage as gay marriage. Society didn't decide this. If society decided anything, it was the OPPOSITE of this.

What you are now trying to tell me is... We are a free society who collectively get to establish our morality into laws except when a liberal activist court decides we're not free to do this and our collective morality isn't important. Some other idiot above mentioned my respect for the "role of the court" and that's also bullshit... the role of the court is supposed to be upholding what the Constitution and rule of law says and not what they think is morally right and wrong.

That you disagree with a court decision does not invalidate the power of the court to make the decision.

Society absolutely gets to establish its morality into laws. This is not an exception. If society feels that the court was in error a constitutional amendment can be passed to reverse the decision. Of course, considering society is far from generally opposed to same sex marriage at this point, I don't think that's likely.

Society decided that we would have our constitution and the amendments within it. Society has decided that judiciary has the power to review laws to determine if they violate the constitution. That is what occurred. As so often seems to happen, you are equating disagreement with a decision with the court being activist and overstepping their authority and whatever else you might use to describe how the court should not have been able to make the decision they did. You are far from the first person to feel that way after a USSC ruling they disagreed with.

Yes, homosexuals could obtain a marriage license anywhere and not be questioned as to their sexuality. Of course, a woman could obtain a marriage license to join with a man, while a man could not do the same based entirely on his gender. The court felt that violated equal access to marriage law. Sorry you disagree.

Upholding the constitution is not the same as upholding what you consider to be the proper interpretation of the constitution. Everyone probably disagrees with some decisions of the court.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That you disagree with a court decision does not invalidate the power of the court to make the decision.

That's true. What invalidates the power of the court to make that decision is that it is a deceit, FRAUDULENTLY advanced as a means to exploit the ignorant. (That means that 'the decision' is a lie.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes, homosexuals could obtain a marriage license anywhere and not be questioned as to their sexuality.

Establishing that Homosexuals were not being discriminated against. Demonstrating the Lie common to the case brought that resulted in the decision and the decision itself.

 

[Faun]

The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.

Total load of horse shit. Nothing in the constitution gives anyone the right to create something new and call it something else that already exists then claim they have a right to do it. If a bunch of people got together and decided to make "rape marriage" a thing and then proceed to lobby the court for their equal rights, we would not allow that. (I hope)

Again, the "collective morality of society" was expressly ignored by the court and their ruling. And there was not a discrimination or denying of any constitutional protections because homosexuals could obtain a 'marriage' license anywhere in the country and not even be questioned as to their sexuality. Much as the SCOTUS had to redefine Obamacare as a tax, they had to redefine marriage as gay marriage. Society didn't decide this. If society decided anything, it was the OPPOSITE of this.

What you are now trying to tell me is... We are a free society who collectively get to establish our morality into laws except when a liberal activist court decides we're not free to do this and our collective morality isn't important. Some other idiot above mentioned my respect for the "role of the court" and that's also bullshit... the role of the court is supposed to be upholding what the Constitution and rule of law says and not what they think is morally right and wrong.

Upholding the Constitution is what the Supreme Court did. A case came before them in which they found people were being denied their fundamental right to marry the person of their choice. Being they could find no compelling reason to deny them equal access to the laws, they ruled such bans on marriage to be unconstitutional. That is not activist and that is their function within the framework of the Constitution.

And get this ... the U.S. Supreme Court does NOT render decisions based on how butthurt it will leave you.

 

[Faun]

That you disagree with a court decision does not invalidate the power of the court to make the decision.

That's true. What invalidates the power of the court to make that decision is that it is a deceit, FRAUDULENTLY advanced as a means to exploit the ignorant. (That means that 'the decision' is a lie.)

Aww. Poor, baby.

 

[Pop23]

I think that would be more properly expressed as we cannot establish laws based on individual morality.

All morality is individual.

Societies/cultures can have morals as well, in a general sense. You gave an example of this earlier when you talked about Muslim culture allowing sex with young children.

The point is that laws aren't established based on your morality, or my morality, or the morality of any individual, but on that of groups of people, whether legislators or citizens through referendum. I don't want to speak for anyone else who has made that argument regarding same sex marriage, but that is what I would guess is the meaning behind such statements. It's also possible people think that some laws are not based on any sort of morality.

But our society and culture DID establish laws based on collective morality of the community... states all over this country adopted laws explicitly prohibiting the redefinition of marriage. Nationally, legislators passed a law called DOMA. All of our society's collective moral views were rendered irrelevant by a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling. This is why people are upset with it. This is why I maintain it was a lawless ruling.

Now, I am a very libertarian-minded individual when it comes to morality and the laws. I know a lot of you won't believe that in a million years, but that's who I am in real life. I personally do not care one way or another if "domestic partners" of any kind are afforded any benefits that our government, society or culture may have established for "couples" in contrast to individuals. I don't care if a brother and sister want such a contract... I don't care if a father and daughter want such a contract... I don't care if two gay lovers want such a contract... I don't care if traditional Christian males and females want such a contract. I think that should be left up to the two parties to decide if they are 18 years or older. That is MY personal view.

I don't WANT government involved in this... from EITHER aspect. I don't want them telling me that "marriage" is THIS... what WE say with OUR court! Fuck you!

The court ruled that those same sex marriage bans were created in opposition to the protections afforded by the constitution, protections created based on the collective morality of society.

I've said before, I think there is effectively 0 chance of marriage being removed from our laws in the near future. A change of the name is possible; I could see marriage becoming civil unions for all as at least possible. Removing marriage laws as they stand and having people create their own contracts instead, however, I cannot see. This is especially true because there are certain aspects of marriage which I do not think would be allowed through basic contract law. In particular, the formation of a new immediate family bond where one did not exist.

Well in addition- essentially no one but Boss wants such a change.

There is no legislative interest in eliminating legal marriage- and it is less likely to go away than Social Security or the deduction for mortgage interest.

No, I can't think of a reason, outside of tradition, that I couldn't live without it. And of heard others say the same.

Face it, this is a civilcontract, between two people and to qualify?

Sign papers

Pay Fee

Other than that, it has not much value past inheritance and estate. Both accomplished easily by other means.