Supreme Court Gay Rights Rulings: A Slippery Downhill Slope Toward What's Next?

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
The point is, if one group wants to be included in what was once exclusive, what stops the next group from claiming the same right to be included.

What has stopped them up till now? Are you thinking that there are groups out there who are just chomping at the bit to get married, but they're just waiting for gay people to do it first so they can have precedence?

WTF are you so afraid of?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

What has stopped them up till now? Are you thinking that there are groups out there who are just chomping at the bit to get married, but they're just waiting for gay people to do it first so they can have precedence?

WTF are you so afraid of?

I don't know. Perhaps a consensus belief in objective morality. Culture is obviously voicing that it's ready to embrace and accept homosexuality. I am not lamenting that fact. I am just asking this simple question. If we are willing to shift the definition of what a marriage is to include homosexual couples, why shouldn't we think that other groups will demand the same rights in the future? Maybe pedophilia was too far a stretch for many to make that leap..what about group marriage? This is already being propagated and many are demanding national recognition.

Let me state that this thread is not driven by personal fear. I'm willing and ready to face whatever might be coming down the pike. I am, however fearful for my son and the relativist, morally bankrupt world he will inevitably be subjected to grow up in.

reply to post by Loveaduck

There was a time when the institute of marriage did not allow for divorce.

Popular opinion had it that if you allow divorces, everyone would get one and ruin the integrity of the marriage vows and the strength of marriage itself.

Do you think it did?

I think like many other things people are just afraid of what they don't know about.

Judge not and ye shall not be judged.

I'm having trouble understanding how this information is relevant to the discussion at hand.

But to answer your question, I am quite confident that the attitude toward the sanctity of marriage has been hugely diminished. I wouldn't necessarily attribute that to the legalization of divorce alone however.

What is it that you are implying is unknown to me? Also, could you please point to where I have cast judgement in this discussion?

reply to post by Djayed

Incorrect, if you look on a global scale, Homosexual assists with population control not only in Humans but in Animals as well.

Interesting notion. How again does this make what I am proposing incorrect?

Sorry incorrect again there have been many cultures that married gays including Greeks.

As this is new to me, I would be greatly appreciative if you would show me some documented proof? I think what you mean to say is that homosexuality existed in Greek culture. It was never considered marriage, however.

Whoa there buddy...you just related same sex marriage to pedophilia....Any relationship between consenting adults should not and cannot be compared to any relationship one party is not able to consent (CHILD, DOG, CAT, TOASTER, etc). If you are trying to logically make a vaild argument I would stay away from this point...

I've already clarified this, but my comparison cannot be disputed. I have equated homosexuality to pedophilia only in the matter that they are both human relationships that currently do not fall under the classification of marriage (on a broader scale). So, no I don't need to "stay away" from this statement as my comparison was necessary to make my point, and is not nearly as controversial you would like to make it.

I understand your argument but the undertone is simple..intolerance..every US citizen deserves to be treated equal. If a law is in place which prevents this, that Law should be deemed unconstitutional. All other arguments should be held by your designated church service provider.

If stating that it is unwise to change the fundamental basis of what marriage is (a relationship between a man and woman) chalks up to me being intolerant...guilty as charged. I don't think that is a fair assessment, however. I will ask you the same question I have asked those like you who shout "inequality" at every corner...what right is being denied one group of people that is granted to another?

reply to post by SaturnFX

Marriage being changed by definition..since when? Marriage is simply one man..many wives. Or wait, right..that was changed in the west fairly recently to one man, one wife..

Point is, marriage definition changes to suit the times. Its a government institution of legal partnership, not anything religious.

As I have explained in detail in a previous post, the theme of marriage has remained the same throughout mankind's history...between man and woman. I would agree that marriage is not defined by religion, and would take that a step further and state that it is neither defined by government. Marriage just IS. The best culture can do is describe marriage (sometimes wrongly), but cannot define it.

As far as equality.

You have brown hair, your wife has blonde.
As a brown haired individual, I recommend we give tax breaks to all brown haired people because...why not?

I understand your intent here, but this analogy doesn't really speak to what I am proposing. What we're talking about is not a matter of equality, but of qualification. If marriage is defined, as it classically has been throughout history, as a union between man and woman, then a homosexual relationship by definition does not qualify to be called a marriage. Simple right?

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

If the description of your worldview sounds chaotic, there's probably a reason for that.

Your description of it.

People without the objective morality bestowed by a holy book are chaotic, lost, immoral, and heartless. They care nothing of others but themselves. Completely self-absorbed in their hedonism. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". Happy???

Therefore, in your view our understanding of "right" and "wrong" is continually shifting, and we just have to trust that this shift is an improvement.

Sometimes I do trust it sometimes I don't. You show your support or you show your dissent. You belong to a movement. You help make a change. Together we grow.

If our view of what is right and wrong is shifting as you say, how can you predict that in 20 years pedophilia won't be deemed as "right" behavior?

I don't see evidence of a trend towards that cultural belief. So it seems very unlikely.

It strikes me that you are just as guilty of making hypothetical predictions as I am by implying that our view of morality won't shift to that extreme in the future.

If you said "I predict in 20 years we will still hold heroin as an illegal substance"

Whereas.. "I predict (because of marijuana legalization) in 20 years not only will heroin be legal, you'll be able to buy it in the supermarket".

There is no evidence to support a shift towards heroin acceptance. The burden of proof would be on me.

Answer me this. What rights are being withheld from the homosexual community that are being enjoyed by society at large?

This gets asked and answered in threads on ATS all the time. Have you not seen them? By society at large do you mean the World?

Such confidence. Please demonstrate.

Cakewalk. One example:

A non-religious doctor that dedicates their life to saving lives. Has a family they love and care for. Or do these people not exist in your 'worldview'?

I am describing my mother. Her and my father operate a long term residential care home for medically fragile infants and toddlers. Kids with such serious health problems the biological parents either didn't want to or couldn't take care of them. But I guess she's still chaotic and immoral.

If morality is subjective

We are moving too off topic with this. If you're interested in my view on morality this short vid will help.

youtu.be...

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews


The gay rights movement is attempting to convince the world that gay marriage is equal in both value and in definition to heterosexual marriage. Merely on the basis of two people loving each other, the former may seem to be true, but can we technically call a relationship between two people of the same sex a marriage? Classically and throughout the history of mankind the institution of marriage has been defined as one thing and one thing alone...a formal union between a man and a woman. In order to properly call a homosexual relationship a marriage, we are forced to change the definition and fundamental basis of what a marriage is.

The point in gay marriage is that two people in a committed relationship should have equal treatment, for example before gay marriage, if one died there partner would have to pay inheritance tax, had no automatic right as next of kin and generally company policy for corporate manslaughter by law only had to compensation to a spouse/ children. Army have similar policy. Plus a whole host of other benefits only available to married couples.

Honestly why do people care how others commit to each other. Marriage is not even defined as you say it is. In Saudi Arabia I could have many wife's, so a man and x women in that case. Marriage is over rated any way, its a state sanctioned relationship.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Afewloosescrews

 

What precedent? Other countries have already set this precedent and they're not having their pedos, necros, and dendros running wild marrying their philia of choice. We're late to this party and other girls are wearing our dress.

The precedent I am speaking of is the actualization that homosexual relationships can be considered a marriage. We have to keep in mind that this shift has only recently taken place. The LGBT movement has made huge strides in only the last few years. It only stands to reason that there will be other groups looking to follow suit in the coming years.

I also have to point out that there ARE less than savory movements just waiting in the wings to see their day, just as the gay rights movement has. To ignore this threat is to be complicit in their cause as far as I'm concerned.

Other girls may be wearing our dress, but frankly it looks quiet unbecoming on them.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Afewloosescrews

 

What precedent? Other countries have already set this precedent and they're not having their pedos, necros, and dendros running wild marrying their philia of choice. We're late to this party and other girls are wearing our dress.

The precedent I am speaking of is the actualization that homosexual relationships can be considered a marriage. We have to keep in mind that this shift has only recently taken place. The LGBT movement has made huge strides in only the last few years. It only stands to reason that there will be other groups looking to follow suit in the coming years.

I also have to point out that there ARE less than savory movements just waiting in the wings to see their day, just as the gay rights movement has. To ignore this threat is to be complicit in their cause as far as I'm concerned.

Other girls may be wearing our dress, but frankly it looks quiet unbecoming on them.

You do realize that both parties need to consent to marriage don't you? ie kids Corpses and animals can not

reply to post by Redarguo

The point in gay marriage is that two people in a committed relationship should have equal treatment, for example before gay marriage, if one died there partner would have to pay inheritance tax, had no automatic right as next of kin and generally company policy for corporate manslaughter by law only had to compensation to a spouse/ children. Army have similar policy. Plus a whole host of other benefits only available to married couples.

I completely understand this, and do see the need for a re-working of our tax system. All I am proposing is that we should not be changing the definition of marriage. To do so has what I perceive to be grave implications.

Honestly why do people care how others commit to each other. Marriage is not even defined as you say it is. In Saudi Arabia I could have many wife's, so a man and x women in that case. Marriage is over rated any way, its a state sanctioned relationship.

Honestly, I am not concerned with the way others commit to each other. Homosexuality, as a form of commitment is not my issue. Marriage, even in the case you have given, IS and has always been defined the way I have stated. A relationship between man and woman. State sanctioned, or not, it is what it is.

We have to keep in mind that this shift has only recently taken place. The LGBT movement has made huge strides in only the last few years.

As was pointed out earlier, places outside the US have allowed gay marriage for a while now... why is this being dismissed off-hand?

reply to post by Redarguo

You do realize that both parties need to consent to marriage don't you? ie kids Corpses and animals can not

Yes. Thankfully. The problem is I don't know that this will be the case in the future considering our society's fickle attitude toward how marriage is defined.

most countries just call such unions civil partnerships and it avoids changing the traditional definition of marriage and reworking the tax system.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by Redarguo

 

You do realize that both parties need to consent to marriage don't you? ie kids Corpses and animals can not

Yes. Thankfully. The problem is I don't know that this will be the case in the future considering our society's fickle attitude toward how marriage is defined.

They all lack the legal capacity to enter contract or give consent.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

As was pointed out earlier, places outside the US have allowed gay marriage for a while now... why is this being dismissed off-hand?

I'm confused. Your quoted text was part of a response to the post you are referring to.
Perhaps you need to take a closer look.

Originally posted by Redarguo

most countries just call such unions civil partnerships and it avoids changing the traditional definition of marriage and reworking the tax system.

edit on 29-6-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)

Good on them.

reply to post by Redarguo

They all lack the legal capacity to enter contract or give consent.

Correct again.

if i may inquire, why is this a problem? is it your belief that it would be the destruction of the word 'Marriage' or the meaning?

i just want to know your personal background to this matter and why it affects you or anyone else?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

People without the objective morality bestowed by a holy book are chaotic, lost, immoral, and heartless. They care nothing of others but themselves. Completely self-absorbed in their hedonism.

There are groups parading themselves under the name of Christianity, who are terrible and ruthless. I will give you that. However, as much as the media tries to give off the impression this is the norm, it simply is not.

I don't see evidence of a trend towards that cultural belief. So it seems very unlikely.

Your experience is not mine. It seems increasingly evident that we're headed down that road.

If you said "I predict in 20 years we will still hold heroin as an illegal substance"

Whereas.. "I predict (because of marijuana legalization) in 20 years not only will heroin be legal, you'll be able to buy it in the supermarket".

There is no evidence to support a shift towards heroin acceptance. The burden of proof would be on me.

There must be adequate evidence to make accurate predictions. I get that. I guess what might be considered adequate evidence is up for debate? Would this fit the bill?

This gets asked and answered in threads on ATS all the time. Have you not seen them? By society at large do you mean the World?

Actually I haven't. I don't frequent ATS. Could you point me in the right direction? In this context I meant the US.

A non-religious doctor that dedicates their life to saving lives. Has a family they love and care for. Or do these people not exist in your 'worldview'?

Of course there are non-religious people who do good things. My point was more along the lines of this. In your worldview (morality being subjective and all) good and bad don't really exist. Both of these terms would be uniquely defined in the eye of the beholder as it were, and therefore wouldn't have any bearing in reality.

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
if i may inquire, why is this a problem? is it your belief that it would be the destruction of the word 'Marriage' or the meaning?

i just want to know your personal background to this matter and why it affects you or anyone else?

Why is deeming a homosexual commitment a marriage a problem you mean? I have been trying to show why throughout this thread. In simple terms, a relationship between a man and a man is technically not a marriage, regardless of whether or not it looks identical to a heterosexual union in every other facet. Unless of course we change our understanding of what a marriage is. If we do that, it opens up the gate for anyone to claim this right on the basis of "love" alone. This should not be acceptable to anyone (gay or straight) considering the obvious implications.