Jose Fly
New member
No more so than it did in the Loving v. Virginia ruling. In both cases, the SCOTUS ruled that states' marriage laws were unconstitutional.
Inapt analogy, since Friday's ruling has plenty of precedent.
SUPREME COURT EXTENDS GAY MARRIAGE NATIONWIDE
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
No more so than it did in the Loving v. Virginia ruling. In both cases, the SCOTUS ruled that states' marriage laws were unconstitutional.
Inapt analogy, since Friday's ruling has plenty of precedent.
drbrumley
Well-known member
ACLU abandons support of religious freedom
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-aclu-abandons-support-of-religious-freedom/article/2567256
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-aclu-abandons-support-of-religious-freedom/article/2567256
Dialogos
Well-known member
Not really, its not hard to see that the SCOTUS pulled the right to same sex marriage out of the 14th amendment like a magician would pull a rabbit out of a hat.
The 14th amendment doesn't deal with same sex marriage, it doesn't even mention "marriage."
Dialogos
Well-known member
drbrumley
Well-known member
:chuckle:
Shasta
Well-known member
Of course your sincere opinion is that this ruling is right. I wouldn't talk about you "trotting out" your sincerity though it is no more proof of the correctness of your views than those you call "ignorant." I agree we are making strides - but it the wrong direction. Societies do that sometimes and so do courts. When they do people will dissent as is our right.
I think more evidence supports the notion that gay marriage is wrong than right. The monogamous heterosexual model of marriage has been prevalent in the West for thousands of years. No arrangement is more naturalistically consistent than for male and female of the species breed, stay together in order to nurture and raise a child and a family. Both are genetically invested and committed. Not only that but there is a very obvious truth that the role of father and mother are not interchangeable. A child needs both for healthy emotional development.
That's not an accurate assessment, it's just a bit of word play.
The law under consideration and ruled upon by the S. Ct. is the operating law of the land here.
You're speaking to another law, one you believe exists and believe is the only true law. The Supreme Court didn't rule on that and never will, because it isn't the law of our compact, though there are any number of parallels to it and many of those who wrote laws for it believed in God and His absolutes.
So's slavery and misogyny. A track record for one particular practice cuts zero ice.
See: Childless/sterile couples. See: Biological parents not necessary for raising children. See: Single parents. See also: "Homosexuality isn't natural, therefore it shouldn't be encouraged," countered by "Homosexuality happens in nature all the time," leading to "The 'natural' argument holds no water." Et cetera.
Jose Fly
New member
Then don't get gay married. But no one else is beholden to your beliefs.
Shasta
Well-known member
Right. I know there is no standard or model in materialism. The way you argue lead me to conclude that is your philosophy. Sometimes I imagine natural processes make an impression but I am always wrong about it. If there is no God there is no standard, or rather all standards relative, fictions of the mind that are made into law. Ultimately everyone follows his desires.
You're just sidestepping at this point. "It's been around for a long time" is no kind of argument, it's an appeal to the past--nothing more, nothing less. So don't try to trot out that old saw as though it's going to convince anybody...because it's not convincing.
The idea of two folks falling in love and independently choosing to wed is a recent innovation, so the fact we're still working out our understanding of marriage shouldn't surprise anybody.
Nope.
Here, try again. Man's beliefs do not dictate how the law should go.
I guess you think that means man's beliefs do dictate how the law should go.
You have to respond to what I say, not what you wish I'd say.
That which is contrary to God's standards is no law at all.
And you're speaking to man's law; the one you believe exists and is the only true law.
What now? We should just side with you because you say so? Sorry, we are meant to follow God, not man.
You talk in pronouns such that nobody has the foggiest notion what you're talking about.
Clearly they are not wrong. Clearly your higher authority is not the higher authority of the US. Deal with it.
Sure they do. Unless you want to stick to your deity's law about mixing fabric. You are welcome to do that. It is clearly not dictated by man's beliefs. And it is uncommonly silly.
Which is just you demanding that you be allowed to do whatever you see fit. Sorry, you are not the arbiter of right and wrong.
:dizzy:
Try parsing. :up:
By and large he's just going to say no to anything that doesn't parrot him while he ignores the topic to parrot himself. I forgot that lesson from the last time. There's no profit in trying to have a conversation with someone who has no demonstrable interest in what you're saying.
Now that's both important and troubling. Horrible call and inconsistent with a great deal of their former work.
Wait. So dog says man's beliefs do affect the law, while you and I say they don't, but you're sidling up alongside him to mock me?
Not true, and parsing what? Leviticus 19:19?
You wrote:
And now you're sidling up to me about our shared faith?
Else, when someone repeats the same mantra over and over after being answered in a way that should preclude it I'd say parroting is an apt description. If I meant to really mock you there'd be no question about it. Ask aCW. On the scale of intellectual challenges he's the equivalent of a circle a word puzzle. So no, you were getting the slightest taste of what you dished out, a fairly gentle brush back at that for beginning to crowd the plate.
I don't think you're built for this sort of discourse. You have a blind spot or something sticks in your gears and it's my fault for moving forward with it when I should know that by now.
Last edited: