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

reply to post by AngryCymraeg

I have looked. And I'm not convinced by any of your arguments.

Fair enough. I can only assume that your question was rhetorical then?

Originally posted by leo123
The original purpose of a marriage was the man making a committment to a woman to support her while she raised their children.

I don't know what it is now.

Completely untrue. The oldest recorded marriages were not a commitment, but rather a transfer of ownership of the woman from the father to the husband.

Originally posted by leo123
The original purpose of a marriage was the man making a committment to a woman to support her while she raised their children.

I don't know what it is now.

Then you are very easily confused. Your definition of it still stands. All traditional male / female views of it will still stand. We are making an addition to the definition of marriage, not smashing the definition up and throwing it away.

I really don't understand why people seem to find it so hard to see that this isn't an attack on the family unit. In fact it's an addition to it, for what is family if it is not the loved ones you live with?

Originally posted by markosity1973

I really don't understand why people seem to find it so hard to see that this isn't an attack on the family unit. In fact it's an addition to it, for what is family if it is not the loved ones you live with?

Because, my friend, some people just hate homosexuality. In the past, those people were able to thumb their noses at gays and say, "Neener, neener, this is something I can get that you can't (a marriage license)." But now that more and more gays are able to get this marriage license, it just pisses these people off to no end.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by markosity1973

I really don't understand why people seem to find it so hard to see that this isn't an attack on the family unit. In fact it's an addition to it, for what is family if it is not the loved ones you live with?

Because, my friend, some people just hate homosexuality. In the past, those people were able to thumb their noses at gays and say, "Neener, neener, this is something I can get that you can't (a marriage license)." But now that more and more gays are able to get this marriage license, it just pisses these people off to no end.

And that is the most honest and accurate summary of the issue I have seen yet. All I see in these threads is people proposing shaky arguments and then tossing their toys out of the cot when we apply logic and reason to them thereby exposing the inevitable flaws in their arguments.

reply to post by kaylaluv

Because, my friend, some people just hate homosexuality. In the past, those people were able to thumb their noses at gays and say, "Neener, neener, this is something I can get that you can't (a marriage license)." But now that more and more gays are able to get this marriage license, it just pisses these people off to no end.

I recognize that there are hateful groups out there, who wrongly as you say "thumb their noses," but I think we need to be careful when using such a strong word for those who simply disagree with you.

I don't know when this double standard got its foothold, but isn't it quite self-evident that intolerance goes both ways? Just because someone disagrees with your stance, in no way means they hate you or your position. By this reasoning, I could just as easily say that you have a hatred for those who oppose gay marriage. Would this be a proper assessment?

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Because, my friend, some people just hate homosexuality. In the past, those people were able to thumb their noses at gays and say, "Neener, neener, this is something I can get that you can't (a marriage license)." But now that more and more gays are able to get this marriage license, it just pisses these people off to no end.

I recognize that there are hateful groups out there, who wrongly as you say "thumb their noses," but I think we need to be careful when using such a strong word for those who simply disagree with you.

I don't know when this double standard got its foothold, but isn't it quite self-evident that intolerance goes both ways? Just because someone disagrees with your stance, in no way means they hate you or your position. By this reasoning, I could just as easily say that you have a hatred for those who oppose gay marriage. Would this be a proper assessment?

edit on 2-7-2013 by Afewloosescrews because: (no reason given)

This whole "you should be tolerant of my intolerance" argument is so tiresome. How about this? Gay couples will be tolerant of your marriage, if you will be tolerant of theirs? Now everyone is tolerant of each other. And we don't even have to like each other.

I agree with the OP. It is a slippery slope. Society has degraded to the point of no return. The last 30 years we've been inundated with homosexuality in TV, music, movies and the news. It's been everywhere. When a whole generation grows up seeing it on television they tend to accept it as natural and normal. I was born in 1971. I remember a time when it wasn't considered natural or normal, when it was considered perverse, immoral and disgusting. Amazing how society can change in such a short time.

Nowadays, if you try to state your case against homosexuality, you're labeled a homophobe (which carries no weight in my opinion), told to get with the times, called closed-minded. Really, it doesn't matter what I say or how I say it, I'm wrong by default, simply for having a differing opinion. Seems to be the narrative nowadays, that you have to belong to the collective mind. It's the "in" thing to do.

What I've seen happen over the years is a drastic shift from morally driven people well-grounded in their concept of right and wrong, to emotionally driven people with no clear definition of right and wrong--and worse, taking no responsibility. The latter like to champion causes, out of emotion or guilt or the need to feel like they make a difference. It's funny how they cry for tolerance and equality, while at the same time being intolerant. The most miserable people you've ever met.

Society is doomed because once you cross a line you can't go back. Whole generations have been conditioned to accept homosexuality. Next will be pedophilia, bestiality and any other number of sick and perverted things. People will swoon at the new, trendy thing to do, say or be and will fall all over themselves to participate. It's a done deal, stick a fork in it (the country).

reply to post by kaylaluv

This whole "you should be tolerant of my intolerance" argument is so tiresome.

Thank you. Case & point. If you cannot see the circular reasoning you choose to participate in, I guess there's nothing more I can say.

How about this? Gay couples will be tolerant of your marriage, if you will be tolerant of theirs? Now everyone is tolerant of each other. And we don't even have to like each other.

I am 100% tolerant of the right of an individual to practice homosexuality. However, based on the fact that a homosexual relationship is not and cannot technically be considered a marriage in the first place (as I have shown), there isn't even the premise for me to tolerate it. It's akin to saying "2 plus 2 equals 83, now tolerate it."

Originally posted by Freth
I agree with the OP. It is a slippery slope. Society has degraded to the point of no return. The last 30 years we've been inundated with homosexuality in TV, music, movies and the news. It's been everywhere. When a whole generation grows up seeing it on television they tend to accept it as natural and normal. I was born in 1971. I remember a time when it wasn't considered natural or normal, when it was considered perverse, immoral and disgusting. Amazing how society can change in such a short time.

Nowadays, if you try to state your case against homosexuality, you're labeled a homophobe (which carries no weight in my opinion), told to get with the times, called closed-minded. Really, it doesn't matter what I say or how I say it, I'm wrong by default, simply for having a differing opinion. Seems to be the narrative nowadays, that you have to belong to the collective mind. It's the "in" thing to do.

What I've seen happen over the years is a drastic shift from morally driven people well-grounded in their concept of right and wrong, to emotionally driven people with no clear definition of right and wrong--and worse, taking no responsibility. The latter like to champion causes, out of emotion or guilt or the need to feel like they make a difference. It's funny how they cry for tolerance and equality, while at the same time being intolerant. The most miserable people you've ever met.

Society is doomed because once you cross a line you can't go back. Whole generations have been conditioned to accept homosexuality. Next will be pedophilia, bestiality and any other number of sick and perverted things. People will swoon at the new, trendy thing to do, say or be and will fall all over themselves to participate. It's a done deal, stick a fork in it (the country).

edit on 2-7-2013 by Freth because: (no reason given)

In the 1930's, blacks were considered only a half-step above animals like cows and pigs. It was actually believed by many that a black person's brain was smaller than and inferior to a white person's brain. There were white people who didn't want to touch anything a black person had touched, because they believed that black people were "dirty" and "germ-ridden", like pigs in a pigpen. Look how far we've come in such a short time. Good for us.

You can have whatever small-minded opinion you want. You can even hate black people or Jews or gays if you want. But you can't legally discriminate against someone because of your opinion. Any human being who is a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen of this country deserves the exact same rights as you have. And that includes gays.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
I am 100% tolerant of the right of an individual to practice homosexuality. However, based on the fact that a homosexual relationship is not and cannot technically be considered a marriage in the first place (as I have shown), there isn't even the premise for me to tolerate it. It's akin to saying "2 plus 2 equals 83, now tolerate it."

edit on 2-7-2013 by Afewloosescrews because: (no reason given)

Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but legal same-sex marriage IS happening as we speak. So I guess 2 plus 2 does equal 83.

reply to post by kaylaluv

In the 1930's, blacks were considered only a half-step above animals like cows and pigs. It was actually believed by many that a black person's brain was smaller than and inferior to a white person's brain. There were white people who didn't want to touch anything a black person had touched, because they believed that black people were "dirty" and "germ-ridden", like pigs in a pigpen. Look how far we've come in such a short time. Good for us.

Nobody here is arguing that we haven't made positive strides as a culture. This comparison is nothing short of asinine as I will show in my response to your next rant.

You can have whatever small-minded opinion you want. You can even hate black people or Jews or gays if you want. But you can't legally discriminate against someone because of your opinion. Any human being who is a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen of this country deserves the exact same rights as you have. And that includes gays.

To compare the issue at hand to the civil rights issues of the past is completely unfounded and extremely offensive. In the cases you are referencing, rights were clearly being violated/withheld from a specific group of people. To infer that there is discrimination happening the likes of what was going on in the '30s is simply comparing apples to oranges. In fact, I would argue that by definition, there is absolutely no discrimination happening in the current scenario, and certainly no violation of civil rights.

Maybe you'll be the one to step up to the challenge and answer the simple question that I've posed ad nauseam with no response. Currently, what rights are being denied one individual, that are in turn granted to another?

reply to post by kaylaluv

Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but legal same-sex marriage IS happening as we speak. So I guess 2 plus 2 does equal 83.

No apologies necessary. I am well aware that we've reached a point in history that we're so open minded our brains are falling out. That doesn't mean I, as a sentient individual am under any obligation to acknowledge the obvious falsehood that 2+2=83.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

I am well aware that we've reached a point in history that we're so open minded our brains are falling out. That doesn't mean I, as a sentient individual am under any obligation to acknowledge the obvious falsehood that 2+2=83.

You have obviously made up your mind.

If we are open-minded I guess this is you conceding you're being close-minded.

Why are you pretending like this is a discussion?

You keep asking for responses and answers but it's quite clear now all you want to do is reiterate your stance over and over and not pay any mind to counter-argument.

Then again what do I know. My brain fell out.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
To compare the issue at hand to the civil rights issues of the past is completely unfounded and extremely offensive. In the cases you are referencing, rights were clearly being violated/withheld from a specific group of people. To infer that there is discrimination happening the likes of what was going on in the '30s is simply comparing apples to oranges. In fact, I would argue that by definition, there is absolutely no discrimination happening in the current scenario, and certainly no violation of civil rights.

Maybe you'll be the one to step up to the challenge and answer the simple question that I've posed ad nauseam with no response. Currently, what rights are being denied one individual, that are in turn granted to another?

edit on 2-7-2013 by Afewloosescrews because: (no reason given)

The right to employment based on skills and qualification, rather than on sexual orientation.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The act is mute on discrimination based on sexual orientation or identity.

It’s clear that such discrimination takes place. According to a 2011 report by the Williams Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law, “During the past four decades a large body of research using a variety of methodologies has consistently documented high levels of discrimination against lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people at work.”

www.bloomberg.com...

The right rent a house based on the same criteria as everyone else, rather than on sexual orientation.

The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to discriminate in rental sales and lending on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability and familial status. It does not, however, prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, as these are not protected classes under the Act.

abcnews.go.com...


The right to attend public school without being harassed to the point of suicide.

Allies of gay youth compiled research showing gay teens are overwhelmingly more likely than heterosexuals to face harassment at school. The most recent figures from GLSEN reported that 84.6 percent of LGBT students are verbally harassed. A third of gay kids had skipped school within the past month because they were afraid of their classmates.

www.laweekly.com...

The right to purchase the same products and services from a public retailer as everyone else (and not have to find a gay or "gay-friendly" vendor).

A gay couple is pursuing a discrimination complaint against a Colorado bakery, saying the business refused them a wedding cake to honor their Massachusetts ceremony, and alleging that the owners have a history of turning away same-sex couples. - See more at: www.northjersey.com...

The right to adopt children into a stable, loving home.

According to the Family Equality Council, same-sex couples and LGBT individuals face considerable legal barriers in 39 states when attempting to adopt or foster children, and seven states ban a partner in a same-sex relationship from adopting their partner’s children.

“The current patchwork of state laws does a disservice to these children by denying them access to permanent, safe, and loving homes. In 2011, 26,000 youth “aged out” of the foster care system. Research shows that these youth are at a high risk for poverty, homelessness, incarceration, and early parenthood,” the Family Equality Council reports.

www.lgbtqnation.com...


Not to mention the right to legally marry the consenting adult of your choice.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Freth
I agree with the OP. It is a slippery slope. Society has degraded to the point of no return. The last 30 years we've been inundated with homosexuality in TV, music, movies and the news. It's been everywhere. When a whole generation grows up seeing it on television they tend to accept it as natural and normal. I was born in 1971. I remember a time when it wasn't considered natural or normal, when it was considered perverse, immoral and disgusting. Amazing how society can change in such a short time.

Nowadays, if you try to state your case against homosexuality, you're labeled a homophobe (which carries no weight in my opinion), told to get with the times, called closed-minded. Really, it doesn't matter what I say or how I say it, I'm wrong by default, simply for having a differing opinion. Seems to be the narrative nowadays, that you have to belong to the collective mind. It's the "in" thing to do.

What I've seen happen over the years is a drastic shift from morally driven people well-grounded in their concept of right and wrong, to emotionally driven people with no clear definition of right and wrong--and worse, taking no responsibility. The latter like to champion causes, out of emotion or guilt or the need to feel like they make a difference. It's funny how they cry for tolerance and equality, while at the same time being intolerant. The most miserable people you've ever met.

Society is doomed because once you cross a line you can't go back. Whole generations have been conditioned to accept homosexuality. Next will be pedophilia, bestiality and any other number of sick and perverted things. People will swoon at the new, trendy thing to do, say or be and will fall all over themselves to participate. It's a done deal, stick a fork in it (the country).

edit on 2-7-2013 by Freth because: (no reason given)

In the 1930's, blacks were considered only a half-step above animals like cows and pigs. It was actually believed by many that a black person's brain was smaller than and inferior to a white person's brain. There were white people who didn't want to touch anything a black person had touched, because they believed that black people were "dirty" and "germ-ridden", like pigs in a pigpen. Look how far we've come in such a short time. Good for us.

You can have whatever small-minded opinion you want. You can even hate black people or Jews or gays if you want. But you can't legally discriminate against someone because of your opinion. Any human being who is a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen of this country deserves the exact same rights as you have. And that includes gays.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I hate people, nor did I say anything about discriminating against others. I didn't even say anything about people not having rights or being treated equal. I don't know whose post you were replying to, but everything you said has nothing to do with what I said... except for the small minded opinion comment, which plays directly into what I said, ironically.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

You have obviously made up your mind.

If we are open-minded I guess this is you conceding you're being close-minded.

Why are you pretending like this is a discussion?

You keep asking for responses and answers but it's quite clear now all you want to do is reiterate your stance over and over and not pay any mind to counter-argument.

Then again what do I know. My brain fell out.

After considering the facts as well as the counter arguments, I am happy to say I have made up my mind for the time being unless new evidences/challenges present themselves...as I'm sure you have. Accusations of closed-mindedness are nothing more than a nonsensical way of demonizing those who don't agree with you.

Think about it. Are you open to the idea that marriage is an institution that from antiquity is solely between man and woman, and therefore cannot by definition include a homosexual couple? Doubtful. Does that mean you are closed minded?

I will give you the grace to admit that no, just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean you are closed minded. In return I would ask for the same. There is a difference between being closed-minded, and having a narrow view of something. To be closed-minded implies that you aren't willing to consider alternative views, regardless of the evidences. On the other hand, to have a narrow view means you have weighed the evidences and come to the most common sense conclusion based on them. After all, it is a requirement for ANY truth claim to be a narrow view is it not?

As to my redundancy...the unfortunate truth is, I am forced to continually repeat my stance because it appears nobody wants to take the time to read the entire thread. I have done my best to give everyone a fair response, but as a result must reiterate my stance so newcomers can get the crux of the discussion.

Don't worry about your brain, I little duct tape and you'll be good as new.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Ultimately it is just a piece of paper / power of attorney. Significance is something the couple in question put on it..be it a medieval house unification, Victorian contract of service, true love, etc...that's all between the couple. Government standpoint should simply be of a legal variety...power of attorney as said...let the couple figure it out.

No, as I have and will continue to argue, marriage is an institution that precedes government and even society. The government has chosen to recognize and encourage this institution because marriage/family is the very building block of a healthy society, (hence the contract, tax benefits, etc.). I agree that the government's involvement in marriage should continue to only be of the legal variety...the question I'm posing here doesn't so much have to do with government's involvement in marriage, but rather "what constitutes marriage?"

But that's a different debate entirely.
This is simply what constitutes government marriage considering they did get their fingers involved and its too late to get it back out.
So, although I may fully agree with you on principle for the whole spirit of marriage, the technicalities here are what matter...and technically speaking, there must..must be equality from a official legal standpoint.
As far as what a priest, rabbi, or anyone else will do, that's up to their own personal philosophies.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Yes, changing marriage from man and woman to loving adult couples. consenting adults. This makes sense.

Maybe at face value. But have you considered the implications of this statement? If all that is required for marriage are these three qualifications: love, consent, and adulthood...wouldn't an incestuous relationship be fair game?

edit on 2-7-2013 by Afewloosescrews because: (no reason given)

According to the royals...sure, why not.

Actually, outside of a increase in potential birth defects, I never did fully understand why incest was forbidden. It is actually properly illegal in some areas....which makes absolutely no sense (end of the day, if two rational adults want to do stuff, its their choice...only becomes a issue in my opinion when one isn't of age or they are trying to breed...but not even sure of the statistical facts regarding birth defects as a product of incest...again, I point at royals throughout history..outside of obscure, they mostly turn out ok)

But yes...that is a society taboo, but is there anything more than just that?

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

After considering the facts as well as the counter arguments, I am happy to say I have made up my mind for the time being unless new evidences/challenges present themselves..

I really didn't see much effort on your part exploring the ones that were. It seemed like the points got overlooked entirely. But if you say you did then you did It's your prerogative to make your mind up at this point.

Accusations of closed-mindedness is a nothing more than a nonsensical way of demonizing those who don't agree with you.

Indeed. So why did you start that crap? The opposing side to your viewpoint had all their brains falling out because they were so "open-minded". No you didn't intend to belittle... that was just me..

Are you open to the idea that marriage is an institution that from antiquity is solely between man and woman

Sure. That being the case.

and therefore cannot by definition include a homosexual couple? Doubtful.

Do I agree it's infallible and impervious to change? No.

I take no qualm with changing it to be in line with today's ethics.