The Same-Sex Marriage Thread (SCOTUS)

[BehindBlueI's]

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?

 

[PistolBob]

Marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and woman and God. <get popcorn now>

ALWAYS. No need to redefine it. Call same sex unions what they are....same sex unions. No shame in that. This isn't a religious battle, it's a civil battle.

 

[dice dealer]

Won't be long before they are in this thread raising hell

 

[Lowe0]

Why is the government in the marriage business in the first place? Call it civil unions, grant all rights previously afforded through marriage solely through civil unions, and call it a day.

In deference to religion's prior role in such unions, and to make things easier in general, allow any clergy whose unions conform to existing law to continue to officiate.

 

[Darral27]

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?

How exactly is it discrimination?
Just because you throw that word out does not mean you win. It should not be such a big deal as it is being made to be because it affects so few people. If I feel put upon in some way because something in my personal life does that mean every person should have to bend to my will so my feelings don't get hurt?
You find what, probably less than 1% of the population that wants to marry somebody of the same sex? That number would probably be about the same men wanting to marry children if law allows. Does that mean they should be able to?
It is a twisted argument to say that everybody has a RIGHT to what was orinally a religious ceremony even if their lifestyle goes against that religion. Who is calling the Mosques trying to force them to marry two men? This is an extension of the ongoing attack on Christianity, nothing more.

 

[mrjarrell]

Marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and woman and God. <get popcorn now>

ALWAYS. No need to redefine it. Call same sex unions what they are....same sex unions. No shame in that. This isn't a religious battle, it's a civil battle.

Ummm...that's not true. Not even in your bible, is that true. While there were many 2 couple marriages, polygamous marriages were rife in the bible and in the region of the world it came from. Other societies practiced other forms of marriage. One man multiple women, one woman multiple men, multiple women multiple men. It's been a very diverse institution over the span of humanity. Same sex marriage has even been practiced. This monocular view that some people have just doesn't stand up in the face of history.

 

[mrjarrell]

Why is the government in the marriage business in the first place? Call it civil unions, grant all rights previously afforded through marriage solely through civil unions, and call it a day.

In deference to religion's prior role in such unions, and to make things easier in general, allow any clergy whose unions conform to existing law to continue to officiate.

The European religions are involved in the marriage issue because the churches asked them to involve themselves in it hundreds of years ago, as a way to cement the ties between secular and religious institutions in Europe. When Europeans exported their laws those laws came with them and that's just the way it's been ever since. If the churches wanted the government out of the marriage business they'd be lobbying for it. They aren't, so that tells you something.

 

[PistolBob]

Ummm...that's not true. Not even in your bible, is that true. While there were many 2 couple marriages, polygamous marriages were rife in the bible and in the region of the world it came from. Other societies practiced other forms of marriage. One man multiple women, one woman multiple men, multiple women multiple men. It's been a very diverse institution over the span of humanity. Same sex marriage has even been practiced. This monocular view that some people have just doesn't stand up in the face of history.

Yawn...one man one sheep...must be talking about ISIS. J...there are no same sex marriages in the Torah, the Quran, the KJV, the Sears Catalog, Dr Suess, or the Joy of Sex. So don't try and go all old testament here, it's not relevant, it's a stinky nasty hairy rotten red herring.

<popcorn at the ready>

 

[BehindBlueI's]

How exactly is it discrimination?
Just because you throw that word out does not mean you win. It should not be such a big deal as it is being made to be because it affects so few people. If I feel put upon in some way because something in my personal life does that mean every person should have to bend to my will so my feelings don't get hurt?
You find what, probably less than 1% of the population that wants to marry somebody of the same sex? That number would probably be about the same men wanting to marry children if law allows. Does that mean they should be able to?
It is a twisted argument to say that everybody has a RIGHT to what was orinally a religious ceremony even if their lifestyle goes against that religion. Who is calling the Mosques trying to force them to marry two men? This is an extension of the ongoing attack on Christianity, nothing more.

How is it not discrimination? Once you reach the age of consent, you are free to marry who you choose. Unless you are gay.

The strawmen come out early and often. We aren't talking about pedophiles. No one is lobbying to change the age of consent. If they do, we will address that issue when it comes. Animals, last I heard, are property and not citizens, and are not legally able to decide if they want to marry. Toaster ovens also don't have the ability to consent.

If it's an attack on Christianity, then perhaps you will remember that not everyone here is Christian, nor required to be, nor required to abide by your religious codes. "Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." so you probably don't want to make this a religious argument.

The simple fact is it has no affect on you. You suffer no harm. None at all. Not the tiniest iota of harm. So if only 1% of the population is affected because they can't get married, exactly 0% of the population is harmed if they can. The only thing you have is strawmen and religious arguments.

 

[printcraft]

Hahaha...try the butthurt ointment.

View attachment 36467

Oddly fitting here.

 

[Darral27]

How is it not discrimination? Once you reach the age of consent, you are free to marry who you choose. Unless you are gay.

The strawmen come out early and often. We aren't talking about pedophiles. No one is lobbying to change the age of consent. If they do, we will address that issue when it comes. Animals, last I heard, are property and not citizens, and are not legally able to decide if they want to marry. Toaster ovens also don't have the ability to consent.

If it's an attack on Christianity, then perhaps you will remember that not everyone here is Christian, nor required to be, nor required to abide by your religious codes. "Shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." so you probably don't want to make this a religious argument.

The simple fact is it has no affect on you. You suffer no harm. None at all. Not the tiniest iota of harm. So if only 1% of the population is affected because they can't get married, exactly 0% of the population is harmed if they can. The only thing you have is strawmen and religious arguments.

Your assumption is incorrect. I am not a Christian nor do I practice any other faith. I am a strong believer however in the morality that Christianity brings for many. This gay marriage fad has already proven to be harmful to more than a couple people, there is a flower store owner and a couple bakeries I can think of. I believe it is also harmful to the morals of our young people in much the same way as taking religion out of schools. Nobody ever said we all to agree with it, I didn't, but I did respect it.

Is is it a strawman argument every time somebody takes things on a LOGICAL progression? Has the sickness not already started? How about the 18yo girl who lost her virginity to her father and wants to marry and have children with him? All the media outlets talking about how brave she is. How many groups out there are already trying to say being a pedophile should be acceptable. It may seem like a stretch to you right now but so did gay marriage even just 10-15 years ago.

Many people will be harmed in many ways if this becomes the new "norm".

 

[MisterChester]

I hope SCOTUS upholds individual states rights. Fat chance.

I hope SCOTUS doesn't allow states to pick and choose who they discriminate. Same idiots who screamed "states rights" during the 50s and 60s in the south in favor of segregation are doing it now with same sex marriage. It's a dumb cop-out excuse to impose "morality" on the populace.

 

[MisterChester]

I hope so, too.

I think it's bound to happen in the next couple years. Seems SSM and marijuana legalization are inevitable. But will two "liberal" victories (even though they are bipartisan for some) give momentum to keep electing liberal presidents?

the marijuana argument is slowly becoming bi-partisan. Heck, I saw something yesterday that a republican lawmaker in Colorado said (or voted, can't remember) in favor of legalization because G** is perfect and what he creates is perfect.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Is is it a strawman argument every time somebody takes things on a LOGICAL progression?

It is very much a strawman to equate gay marriage with pedophilia or bestiality. What's your LOGICAL link? Who's even arguing to lower the age of consent? No one that's taken seriously. States that have gay marriage...has there then been a push for pedophile marriage? Of course not. There is no "progression". It's a standalone issue.

Gay marriage wasn't what caused those shopkeepers harm. Their discriminatory business practices did. If they should have the right to discriminate or not is a separate issue and one that's been discussed in other threads. You can argue for the freedom to discriminate for the shopkeepers and/or the freedom for gays to marry without being locked into a position on the other. Separate issues.

 

[mrjarrell]

Yawn...one man one sheep...must be talking about ISIS. J...there are no same sex marriages in the Torah, the Quran, the KJV, the Sears Catalog, Dr Suess, or the Joy of Sex. So don't try and go all old testament here, it's not relevant, it's a stinky nasty hairy rotten red herring.

<popcorn at the ready>

Your knowledge of historical marriages is very limited and lacking. You are coming at it from an exceptionally narrow viewpoint. Is it your contention that only the Abrahamic 3 have a lock on what constitutes "marriage"? Because if it is then we have nothing to discuss. Your lack of knowledge and snarky quips show your ignorance on the matter.

 

[mrjarrell]

the marijuana argument is slowly becoming bi-partisan. Heck, I saw something yesterday that a republican lawmaker in Colorado said (or voted, can't remember) in favor of legalization because G** is perfect and what he creates is perfect.

It was Texas and he made essentially that argument, from a conservative point of view. Both of the these issues should be fully backed by conservatives, but they won't follow conservative principles. They're too enmeshed with the evangelicals.

 

[PistolBob]

I hope SCOTUS doesn't allow states to pick and choose who they discriminate. Same idiots who screamed "states rights" during the 50s and 60s in the south in favor of segregation are doing it now with same sex marriage. It's a dumb cop-out excuse to impose "morality" on the populace.

Except that this isn't about racial segregation. Your argument is just another straw man tossed on the path of enlightenment. <heheh> This isn't 60 years ago, it's the here and now. Marriage doesn't need redefined. Hell, call it a federally sanctioned union....no one will give a rip then. Crazy people do crazy things.....can't we just all get along doesn't mean I have to agree with every stupid idea someone comes up with.

<sounds of popcorn being munched>

 

[MisterChester]

It was Texas and he made essentially that argument, from a conservative point of view. Both of the these issues should be fully backed by conservatives, but they won't follow conservative principles. They're too enmeshed with the evangelicals.

They should be but they're not. I don't see how either issue conflicts with true conservative ideology.

 

[MisterChester]

Except that this isn't about racial segregation. Your argument is just another straw man tossed on the path of enlightenment. <heheh> This isn't 60 years ago, it's the here and now. Marriage doesn't need redefined. Hell, call it a federally sanctioned union....no one will give a rip then. Crazy people do crazy things.....can't we just all get along doesn't mean I have to agree with every stupid idea someone comes up with.

<sounds of popcorn being munched>

If the government is going to endorse marriage, then equal protection is in order. We could do away with the issue altogether if the government didn't recognize marriages and gave no benefit to those who get them.

 

[PistolBob]

Your knowledge of historical marriages is very limited and lacking. You are coming at it from an exceptionally narrow viewpoint. Is it your contention that only the Abrahamic 3 have a lock on what constitutes "marriage"? Because if it is then we have nothing to discuss. Your lack of knowledge and snarky quips show your ignorance on the matter.

No J what's lacking is your knowledge of me. So make your goofy assumptions all you want. I don't care. SCOTUS is tainted and it won't surprise me one iota to see them rule in favor of a same sex marriage. Not in the least. Our government has been infiltrated by goof balls for decades now....we're just beginning to reap what the Godless hippies sowed. For thousands of years marriage has been one man, one woman. Why change it now.