The Same-Sex Marriage Thread (SCOTUS)

[Arthur Dent]

you think they will? I don't. There will always be another issue. There will always be another attack. I for one and sick of people trying to say I discriminate because I don't agree with them. That is weak argument for a weak person.

You don't think the gays will get married and go home? What sort of "attack" is it you mean?

 

[Arthur Dent]

I'm sure they will be out of the closet soon.
The problem I have with forcing gay marriage as legitimate is THEY ARE FORCING IT DOWN OUR THROATS!! If the media didn't portray homosexuals and their deviancy at a much higher percentage than they actually occur, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
You want to change the definition of marriage for less than 1 percent of the population? I think that's a pretty dangerous precedent to set. Once the camel gets its nose under the tent next thing ya know you got camels in your tent.
I don't care to have camels in my tent. Its my tent and I will allow or disallow whatever or whoever I want in my tent. My choice. I shouldn't be made by force, by my government to condone a behavior I think is morally wrong and physically repulsive.

How is allowing gays to get married forcing it down your throat? How will you be affected by gays getting married? Are you afraid they will convert you?

 

[Darral27]

You're just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. So far, nothing. Again, if businesses are forced to deal equally with all customers is a separate issue than if people can get married. That conversation is going on in another post, and there's no need to side track this one with it. Black people could marry each other long before they could sit at every lunch counter. Two different issues.

Just answer this simple fill in the blank question:

If two gay people marry, the harm I suffer is: __________________ . I believe this harm is sufficient to deny gays equal protection under the law that straights enjoy in the same situations because ____________ .

Obviously we are not going to agree. Just because a conversation has been had in another post does not mean it is unrelated to this one. Fact is when gay marriage comes up to a vote by the people it loses. More people hold their moral values close than do not. Another fact is the only time gay marriage is allowed in states is when a progressive judge takes it upon himself to shove his will down everyone else's throat. Those are facts.
What protection is it you say you would be offered by giving gays the right to marry that they do not already have?
Do you really compare being born a certain race to choosing to be gay?

 

[Lowe0]

Obviously we are not going to agree. Just because a conversation has been had in another post does not mean it is unrelated to this one. Fact is when gay marriage comes up to a vote by the people it loses. More people hold their moral values close than do not. Another fact is the only time gay marriage is allowed in states is when a progressive judge takes it upon himself to shove his will down everyone else's throat. Those are facts.

Maine, 2012. Same sex marriage was enacted by popular vote.

 

[Darral27]

You got me, I missed that one, passed by less than a 2% margin. From what I can find just browsing it looks like at least 33 states have voted it down.

 

[Leadeye]

More marriages=more divorces=more money for law firms. Big money will be the deciding factor in the end.

 

[MisterChester]

More marriages=more divorces=more money for law firms. Big money will be the deciding factor in the end.

Now that you put it that way, let's make gay marriage illegal everywhere. At least somebody is escaping the life-sucking money sink institution that is marriage.......



/s

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

A legal marriage is a state sanctioned institution. It requires a license. There are many activities that require a license. It requires one to be a doctor or a plumber, or to carry a firearm. A license is a validation that the applicant has conformed with or limits his conduct and behavior adhering to a common standard.

What for? That's obvious. Licensees are required and granted in order to quantify and enforce the public standards legislated for the licensed activity. Let's get an example, how about plumbing? As we all know and expect, hot is on the left, cold is on the right. The spigot goes to the supply, the drain to the sewer. S**t flows down hill. Now, I may prefer hot on the right. In my personal home I can indeed have it that way. I can plumb it myself so that water comes up from the drain and siphons down the faucet if I want. Unfortunately I cannot get a licensed plumber to do it for me. I cannot offer this home for sale to the general public in this condition because it does not conform to the common public's expected standards. In order for the state to sanction this sale, in order to enjoy state and societal benefits such as title deeds, permits, tax options, I must rectify these "problems" before I can sell my home.

Let' now get back to "same sex" marriage. Just like my home with the unique plumbing, it also does not fit the societal template set out for this activity. Marriage is a licensed activity that entails certain requirements and enjoys certain benefits. At this moment the social expectation for marriage is for there to be one man and one woman. Just like the plumber must follow guidelines in order that the state sanctions his activities, a married couple must also follow certain guidelines in order that the state sanction their activity. This is so that when the common public encounters this licensed activity they know what to expect.

At the personal level, people can behave almost any way they like. They just can't foist it on the public in opposition to societal standards. Gays can be married in some gay ceremony. They can live on the square like a true married pair. They just can't be TRADITIONALLY and legally married, because it's not traditionally or legally accepted as marriage. It's not about "It hurts me like this; __________" It's about the public standard. Up to now the thought that people would engage in "same sex marriage" was unheard of in the United States. Most legislation did not have the language to prevent it because the very meaning of the word "marriage" was enough. Common understanding of the word precludes the possibility. The very term "same sex marriage" is proof enough in that "same sex" has to be added to the word "marriage" in order to convey the accurate meaning. The word marriage is not enough on it's own


This is all being hashed out right now. For the militant gays however, it's not about the legal ramifications at all. It's about legitimizing and mainstreaming a fringe lifestyle. It's about the very few claiming recognition and social status and position as if they were majority. Like the word "gay" being appropriated, the very meaning changed in order to elevate the status of the homosexual community, the word "marriage" is up for annex by them now. LGT people were commonly refrenced by many slang terms........ Now they are "GAY". here is from Merriam Webster;
Full Definition of GAY

1
a : happily excited : merry <in a gay mood>
b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits <a bird's gay spring song>

2
a : bright, lively <gay sunny meadows>
b : brilliant in color

3
: given to social pleasures; also : licentious

4
a : homosexual <gay men>
b : of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <the gay rights movement> <a gay bar>

Notice the progression. Many of us remember when there was no #4 definition in their dictionary. Now in the 21st century being a homosexual is associated with being happy and excited, given to social pleasure. That sounds much nicer that what my father called them. Let's see the same dictionary on marriage:

Full Definition of MARRIAGE

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3
: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Definition #2 Is already in there. Funny, my printed copy is so old that it uses ink and paper! I see no references of "same sex" in that one. just drop the "in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage" language, and there you are. What will marriage mean in the future? Check definition #3, "an intimate or close union". Just drop the reference to the book by J. T. Shawcross and we can marry anybody/anything we are intimate or are close to. I will take a tax deduction for my dogs! So close...... So close.....

 

[BugI02]

Why should they have to call it something different? As long as it is only discrimination against a percentage of the population it's just feel good? What's the percentage where it matters?

Mitt said 47% I believe

 

[Arthur Dent]

Obviously we are not going to agree. Just because a conversation has been had in another post does not mean it is unrelated to this one. Fact is when gay marriage comes up to a vote by the people it loses. More people hold their moral values close than do not. Another fact is the only time gay marriage is allowed in states is when a progressive judge takes it upon himself to shove his will down everyone else's throat. Those are facts.
What protection is it you say you would be offered by giving gays the right to marry that they do not already have?
Do you really compare being born a certain race to choosing to be gay?

Abolition of slavery was jammed down our throats. So was interracial marriage. Are you saying that you support slavery and jail or death for those of different races who marry? Where is the morality in that?

 

[Arthur Dent]

Mitt said 47% I believe

Mitt believes that 47% of the population is a bunch of freeloaders.

 

[BugI02]

Are you messing with me? Seriously? Does a decline in moral values lead to criminals? Yes it absolutely does.
Does gay marriage directly lead to crime? Show me where I said that.
Has there been a push for pedophile marriage? It is starting, yes. The same way the push for gay marriage started. Very slowly, Google will agree, try it.
Are you actually saying moral values are not in decline? Watch the news, listen to the radio, music or talk, talk to some kids, play some video games, you are living in a hole in the ground if you can't see it. If you can say people are more respectful now than even just 30 years ago you are delusional. People no longer know anything about respect, honor, dignity, even courtesy.
I am not trying to force my beliefs on anybody. Who people choose to be with is their choice. I do not want to have to pay for it. I do not want to have to participate in it. It is people like you who are trying to force your beliefs, or lack of, on others.

Wrong. Believe whatever you want to believe. Expecting others to act in a way you approve of according to your beliefs is just overreach. 'These kids today' know about respect, honor, dignity and courtesy; we just see few people worthy of its bestowal. Its the hypocrisy we see that erodes our respect. You can command people but you cannot command respect, that has got to be earned.

 

[Darral27]

Abolition of slavery was jammed down our throats. So was interracial marriage. Are you saying that you support slavery and jail or death for those of different races who marry? Where is the morality in that?

Yes, being gay and being a slave are the same thing. Killing people for marrying outside their race is also the same. Sure man.
Maybe ending slavery was jammed down your throat but certainly not mine. I have never been a slave owner.
I never said we should enslave or kill gay people. I am not Muslim.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Obviously we are not going to agree. Just because a conversation has been had in another post does not mean it is unrelated to this one. Fact is when gay marriage comes up to a vote by the people it loses. More people hold their moral values close than do not. Another fact is the only time gay marriage is allowed in states is when a progressive judge takes it upon himself to shove his will down everyone else's throat. Those are facts.
What protection is it you say you would be offered by giving gays the right to marry that they do not already have?
Do you really compare being born a certain race to choosing to be gay?

I've already shown how they are separate issues. Show they aren't. What about the guy in Indianapolis who didn't want to make cookies for a gay youth group? No marriage involved. Two separate issues: 1) Can gays marry 2) Can shopkeepers refuse to do business with gays. Just more side tracking. Same as you'll have to pay for it, you'll have to participate in it, the slippery slope to pedophiles marrying children, etc. Why? People choose to be gay? Even if that's true, so what? People don't have the right to choose who they love and marry without your say so via the gov't?

I'll repeat:

Just answer this simple fill in the blank question:

If two gay people marry, the harm I suffer is: __________________ . I believe this harm is sufficient to deny gays equal protection under the law that straights enjoy in the same situations because ____________ .

I never said we should enslave or kill gay people. I am not Muslim.

Second jab at Muslims in the thread. That desperate to sidetrack the debate?

 

[Darral27]

Wrong. Believe whatever you want to believe. Expecting others to act in a way you approve of according to your beliefs is just overreach. 'These kids today' know about respect, honor, dignity and courtesy; we just see few people worthy of its bestowal. Its the hypocrisy we see that erodes our respect. You can command people but you cannot command respect, that has got to be earned.

You quoted me so I assume this is aimed at me.
First off I am not trying to force anything on anybody. It's the opposite going on here.
Second, I have never demanded anybody give me anything I have not earned.
I also assume you are a young person. Let's just look at the news, riots, constant murders, home invasions, drug use is rampant, theft is common, huge fights in the malls, gangs of teens rushing in stores to rob, the list goes on. You say this is all because in your opinion some older people are hypocrits? Because I don't believe gay marriage is appropriate all the above is ok? Wow.

 

[Darral27]

I've already shown how they are separate issues. Show they aren't. What about the guy in Indianapolis who didn't want to make cookies for a gay youth group? No marriage involved. Two separate issues: 1) Can gays marry 2) Can shopkeepers refuse to do business with gays. Just more side tracking. Same as you'll have to pay for it, you'll have to participate in it, the slippery slope to pedophiles marrying children, etc. Why? People choose to be gay? Even if that's true, so what? People don't have the right to choose who they love and marry without your say so via the gov't?

I'll repeat:

Just answer this simple fill in the blank question:

If two gay people marry, the harm I suffer is: __________________ . I believe this harm is sufficient to deny gays equal protection under the law that straights enjoy in the same situations because ____________ .



Second jab at Muslims in the thread. That desperate to sidetrack the debate?

Jabs are just for fun, not a sidetrack. Drives me nuts that Christians get piled on and Muslims are off limits. That is all.
I have answered your questions multiple times. If you don't agree with the answer that is on you, not me.

 

[BugI02]

Mitt believes that 47% of the population is a bunch of freeloaders.

Mitt was also saying he could ignore them because they would never do anything to benefit him in the election. the poster was asking about at what percentage of the population is a level that matters and shouldn't be ignored. I believe history has proven that that number is LESS than 47%

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

Just answer this simple fill in the blank question:

If two gay people marry, the harm I suffer is: _________Further and continuing erosion of my traditional American culture_________ . I believe this harm is sufficient to deny gays equal protection under the law that straights enjoy in the same situations because ______That's what laws do. Drinkers can drink, stoners cannot smoke. LEO packs heat without LTCH, citizen cannot. Girlfriend/wife can give sex for what she can get from me for it, but hooker cannot. Judges/jurors/prosecutors/police/elected officials/probably several others have immunity for their decisions, yet all others are liable. 18 year old can serve his country but cannot get service in a bar. ETC, ETC, ETC______ .



Second jab at Muslims in the thread. That desperate to sidetrack the debate?

There are many inequalities levied on us because one group is given the higher moral credibility than the other, these are just a few that come off the top of my head without any effort. I am sure that the smarter guys here can come up with even more egregious ones if they put in the effort. Its what we do, its ingrained into every aspect of American culture. Some people bemoan this fact, others rejoice in it. It's pretty hard to refute it though.


As for the jab at Muslems, does it still qualify as a jab if it's true? It's a mute point here in the USA because we prosecute violence against minorities harsher than others (is this another legal inequality?) But there are several so called civilized countries where it is not a jab but rather it is sharia law.

 

[Lebowski]

I don't see what the big deal is.

If you love someone, be with them. I don't care who my neighbor loves, whether it be a man or a woman. At the end of the day it has zero impact on my life.


When I say that I 'support' gay marriage, it doesn't mean I'll go hold up signs and protest with them. It just means I really, literally, actually, do not care what two men or two women do or feel about each other. You're straight? Awesome. You're gay? Awesome. How does this impact me? It doesn't? Awesome.

Why this is an issue, I really don't know. Government shouldn't be involved in marriage to begin with.


I'm not religious but I judge people based on character and merit and not on whatever differences that I do not understand that may exist between me and them.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Yes, being gay and being a slave are the same thing. Killing people for marrying outside their race is also the same. Sure man.
Maybe ending slavery was jammed down your throat but certainly not mine. I have never been a slave owner.
I never said we should enslave or kill gay people. I am not Muslim.

But what you are saying is that rights should only be given when either 50.1% of the population thinks you deserve a right they have or it needs to be done judicially. Gay people have the right to marry. To deny them that right goes against everything this country stands for.