BREAKING: SCOTUS denies review in all SSM petitions

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Traditional marriage? Hm. My guess is they have no idea what that quaint little phrase means when you take in the history of humanity.

Says the guy that poo-poos the eventuality of the acceptance of relationship forms that, like homosexual relationships were 50 years ago, current people find repugnant.

 

[steveh_131]

Didn't congress pass the affordable care act and weren't it opponents looking to the courts to overturn it?

The ACA wasn't a constitutional amendment, though.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The ACA wasn't a constitutional amendment, though.

It's not even a constitutional law despite the supposed wisdom of a bunch of people in black robes...oh wait....

 

[hornadylnl]

As I said elsewhere, logically speaking if the people and the states don't have the right to recognize one form of marriage, they cannot refuse to recognize any imaginable form of marriage. All combinations and permutations must be on the table for consideration.

The prohibitions of any imaginable form of marriage do no more to prevent the actions that typically happen in a marriage than drug or alcohol prohibitions prevent the use of drugs or alcohol. It seems that many are clinging to ban gay marriage as though by banning it, gays won't have sex. The only difference in a gay couples day to day lives after being married is having a piece of paper and the same rights that any currently married couple has.

 

[hornadylnl]

It's not even a constitutional law despite the supposed wisdom of a bunch of people in black robes...oh wait....

So the guys in robes striking it down would have been acceptable?

 

[steveh_131]

However, more to your point, NAMBLA (the North American Man Boy Love Association) has renewed pushing for legitimacy for their perversion. I wonder if they will have to stand in line behind the polyamorysts and the polyandrysts for their "rights" to marry whomever they please. Or perhaps the bestialists will get ahead of them, and I wonder, will PETA support "bestial matrimony" or oppose it?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The prohibitions of any imaginable form of marriage do no more to prevent the actions that typically happen in a marriage than drug or alcohol prohibitions prevent the use of drugs or alcohol. It seems that many are clinging to ban gay marriage as though by banning it, gays won't have sex. The only difference in a gay couples day to day lives after being married is having a piece of paper and the same rights that any currently married couple has.

Then so must any other combination and permutation of sentient beings.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So the guys in robes striking it down would have been acceptable?

It should have been as it is not constitutional. I could be wrong...do you believe the constitution supports it?

 

[hornadylnl]

It should have been as it is not constitutional. I could be wrong...do you believe the constitution supports it?

I don't think the constitution supports about 80+% of what the government does. ACA? Hell no. Free gun ranges? Hell no. But attitudes typically change about what government or courts do depending on whether one personally benefits or not. The proponents of ACA would be screaming about activist judges had the courts overturned ACA just like the anti gay marriage crowd are screaming judicial activism now.

 

[steveh_131]

GLAAD/USA Position Statement Regarding NAMBLA
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation deplores North American Man
Boy Love Association's (NAMBLA) goals which include advocacy for sex between
adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. These
goals constitute a form of child abuse and are repugnant to GLAAD.

GLAAD also supports the statements issued by other gay and lesbian
organizations supporting the International Lesbian and Gay Association's (ILGA)
call for NAMBLA's immediate removal from the international association.

GLAAD concurs with the 1990 ILGA resolution based on the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child, which states, "Major power imbalances create the potential
for child abuse. ILGA condemns the exploitive use of power differences to
coerce others into sexual relationships. All children have the right to
protection from sexual exploitation and abuse."

Although statistics indicate that the vast majority of sexual abuse against
children is perpetrated by heterosexual men, it is imperative that child abuse,
in all forms, be condemned by gay men and lesbians.

As a group of people who historically have not had legal rights and
protections, gay men and lesbians have always work with, and built coalitions
with, other whose rights are at risk. The true gay and lesbian agenda is
ultimately about free human right for all people.
--Adopted by the GLAAD/USA Board of Directors, January 16, 1994, San Diego, CA

Even the gay community is opposed to this nonsense.

NAMBLA has about as much legitimacy and pull as the KKK. I really don't think we need to be wetting our pants about those animals.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Even the gay community is opposed to this nonsense.

NAMBLA has about as much legitimacy and pull as the KKK. I really don't think we need to be wetting our pants about those animals.

Just because you find something "icky" doesn't mean you get to force your morality on other people.

 

[zippy23]

its political. They did not want to deal with this. They know marriage isnt in the constitution, and there is no discrimination in the current laws, so they would have ruled in favor of it being state issue, which it is. But by doing so they have made it what it is. So sad that a tiny minority of people can come in, change the definition and distort reality, and win. Our constitution is amazing, the one flaw it has is that the people need to be moral. Immorality kills it. Corruption and political judges kill the country slowly.

 

[steveh_131]

Just because you find something "icky" doesn't mean you get to force your morality on other people.

It has nothing to do with the 'icky' level.

I don't think that children are capable of informed consent, and therefore consider relations with children to be a violent initiation of force.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It has nothing to do with the 'icky' level.

I don't think that children are capable of informed consent, and therefore consider relations with children to be a violent initiation of force.

That's just your morality paradigm. Others may not share it.

 

[steveh_131]

That's just your morality paradigm. Others may not share it.

The vast majority in this nation share it, including those advocating gay marriage.

Which is why bringing up legitimized pedophilia as some sort of consequence of gay marriage is silly.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The vast majority in this nation share it, including those advocating gay marriage.

Which is why bringing up legitimized pedophilia as some sort of consequence of gay marriage is silly.

A few years ago a huge majority of Americans believed homosexuality was bad; they thought it was immoral and repugnant. There's no reason to believe any other sexual predispositional preference that's out there won't, sooner or later, become tolerated first and later championed. Refusal to admitting the possibility demonstrates an intellectual dishonesty.

 

[LP1]

There's nothing quite like legislating new "rights" with a few people in robes rather than having to mess with a pesky thing like convincing the voting citizens, or even the legislature.

Wish it didn't have to work that way, but that's sometimes how progress is made - segregation, voting rights, "separate but equal" schools, and interracial marriage are just a few examples of things that weren't enforced as rights until "activist" judges decided that they should be. Does anyone seriously want to go back to the "good old days" on those issues?

 

[LP1]

That's just your morality paradigm. Others may not share it.

The concept that children are incapable of informed consent isn't someone's morality paradigm - it's a legal fact. Trying to correlate pedophilia to gay marriage defies logic.

And if you find intimacy between people of the same sex repulsive, don't join in.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The concept that children are incapable of informed consent isn't someone's morality paradigm - it's a legal fact. Trying to correlate pedophilia to gay marriage defies logic.

Legal Fact?

What is a "legal fact"? It was a legal fact that Indiana would not recognize a homosexual marriage...not that long ago. Guess what happened?

Nobody's equating pedophillia with homosexuality. But as i said a couple of posts above, if you just look back at the evolution of homosexuality from a mental illness to now "law of the land" and now say it is impossible for one day pedophillia to be accepted--that defies logic.

 

[steveh_131]

A few years ago a huge majority of Americans believed homosexuality was bad; they thought it was immoral and repugnant. There's no reason to believe any other sexual predispositional preference that's out there won't, sooner or later, become tolerated first and later championed. Refusal to admitting the possibility demonstrates an intellectual dishonesty.

Then explain this to me: Over the last 100 years, most conservatives agree that our nation is morally decaying. And yet, age of consent laws have become more restrictive and more consequential.

If gay rights represent a march towards moral decay, and child abuse is on the same path as gay rights, why has one become more accepted by society while the other has become more stigmatized?