SUPREME COURT EXTENDS GAY MARRIAGE NATIONWIDE

[Town Heretic]

I realize I'm jumping in the middle here, but I have to say that every "court" for thousands of years has had no trouble making the opposite decision.

With respect, cite the cases. When you realize that's impossible you'll see the problem with your consideration. Or for most of recorded history religion has wielded the power held by secular governments of the West today. So the entertainment of the point hasn't been possible and even within the life of secular Western democracies the impact of religion and tradition has been pronounced until fairly recently.

It's interesting that the current court thinks they suddenly have the "answer". Don't you think?

See how less presumptive and sinister it is when you look at that larger context?

Let me put it another way, before women were allowed the vote a similar argument could have been made about them and a Court decision that noted the wrong headed exclusion of women from the power structure, owing mostly to religious and traditional pressures.

 

[glorydaz]

With respect, cite the cases. When you realize that's impossible you'll see the problem with your consideration. Or for most of recorded history religion has wielded the power held by secular governments of the West today. So the entertainment of the point hasn't been possible and even within the life of secular Western democracies the impact of religion and tradition has been pronounced until fairly recently.


See how less presumptive and sinister it is when you look at that larger context?

Let me put it another way, before women were allowed the vote a similar argument could have been made about them and a Court decision that noted the wrong headed exclusion of women from the power structure, owing mostly to religious and traditional pressures.

Okay, ya got me smarty pants. :chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

Okay, ya got me smarty pants. :chuckle:

Don't blame me. Blame your own essential, rational willingness to consider a thing fully in order to arrive at a fair conclusion. That was your undoing.

 

[Stripe]

I know you think that's true. No idea why you think you haven't been answered.

Because the only attempt you made saw you break apart a statement that needed to be read in its entirety to be understood. You even said you didn't know what I meant about the second part. How on Earth can you claim to have answered me when you did not understand half of what I said?

Here's an idea: Respond honestly to what I say. :up:

It depends on the intelligence of the person reading it. If they're stupid and don't get a sarcastic prod you're likely right. I don't think people who post around here are stupid though. Some of the second language types might struggle.

Yeah, no. Nobody understands a single thing you say. Your response painted the exact opposite of what I said. If you want to be part of a constructive conversation, you have to show that you understand me; not claim sarcasm every time you get things wrong.

Yeah, it does. You'd written:I answered: I'm saying it was in keeping with my best understanding and application of the law and with the majority also. That is, they answered as they felt they had to given their understanding of the law and that understanding was in accord with my own.No, but another Court might have seen it differently. The close nature of the split makes that evident. Same with Roe. But the Courts that had the duty did their duty and we're left with the results and will be hard pressed to do much about it, absent enough groundswell support to call a convention.

So the court could easily have swung the other way. All it would have taken was one changed judge or opinion.

In order: I did, I didn't and I'm weeping. Your methodology is so one sided in its sensitivity that I can't really say that bothers me. You don't like getting hit? Don't step into a ring and throw a jab.

You claim that this court did as it was supposed to do. It ruled that homo marriage is OK. Homo marriage is not OK.

If you don't like getting smacked, stay out of the fray. :up:

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Because the only attempt you made saw you break apart a statement that needed to be read in its entirety to be understood. You even said you didn't know what I meant about the second part. How on Earth can you claim to have answered me when you did not understand half of what I said?

We don't need to worry about potentially "legalized" pedophilia; we already have regulated homos.

Is their a link between them and pedos?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11501300

But why do you mock, "We don't need to worry?"

Maybe this is just a real simple way to get some hard data on who exactly is homosexual? So we can more easily sniff out and snuff out the pedos.


Daniel

 

[Caino]

We have all heard the news plastered in every corner of every aspect of social media, television, and radio. The Supreme Court declared Friday that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the United States.

Those in favor of such a ruling are running their parade lap while those opposed are recoiling.

But what does it all really mean? What will this mean for religious liberty in this country? Is that officially dead now?

One of the more interesting facts I read today is that there are only 390,000 married same-sex couples in the United States and another 70,000 couples living in states that do not currently permit them to wed. That's an incredibly small number when you think about it. Yet that tiny fraction of the population has just slew religious liberty which was one of the pillars of this nation's heritage.

Marriage should never have been made into a sacrament, it is not a department of the church.

Marriage was not invented by Christianity giving it some sort of copyright to be defended as they define it.

Marriage is a civil, legally binding contract between consenting adults. Where do you go to get a marriage license?

The courts ruling leaves traditional marriage unchanged, if anything marriage is being acknowledged as an important commitment by Gay people who want to enter into it.

 

[Jonahdog]

Is their a link between them and pedos?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11501300

But why do you mock, "We don't need to worry?"

Maybe this is just a real simple way to get some hard data on who exactly is homosexual? So we can more easily sniff out and snuff out the pedos.


Daniel

That paper is 14 years old. the abstract stated "Suggestions for future research were offered." Do you know of any follow up research?

 

[Town Heretic]

Because the only attempt you made

Like I said, set out the particular you don't believe I answered and I'll take my best shot. Can't be fairer than that and they'll be no confusion at all over what your point is or my answer to it is.

Here's an idea: Respond honestly to what I say. :up:

See, I told you that you wouldn't. Mostly because I suspect that if you do I'll be able to point to an answer I've already given that's to the point and you won't be able to keep saying nope without explanations and making accusations about an avoidance you won't illustrate.

But I could be wrong. It happens. Only one way to be sure and that's for you to set out a point you think I haven't answered, supra.

Yeah, no. Nobody understands a single thing you say.

The yeah/no was funny. You know any jokes about corn? And the second bit was even funnier. We all have our limitations, but good manners and a the instinct for self-preservation should keep us from projecting them.

Your response painted the exact opposite of what I said.

Which particular response?

If you want to be part of a constructive conversation, you have to show that you understand me; not claim sarcasm every time you get things wrong.

Not a claim, a fact. But hey, maybe I didn't understand you. I thought I did. Maybe you weren't as clear as you though you were. Could be. One way to make the whole thing clear enough though, as per my suggestion. Easy-peasy.

So the court could easily have swung the other way. All it would have taken was one changed judge or opinion.

Read my response. I wasn't coy at any point. If you think any part of my response was vague set it out here and I'll fix it.

You claim that this court did as it was supposed to do. It ruled that homo marriage is OK. Homo marriage is not OK.

It's not a claim, that's the job. Sometimes you'll agree with it and sometimes you won't. Sometimes I agree with it and don't particularly care for it.

If you don't like getting smacked, stay out of the fray.

So that's the limit for you, eh? The ol "I know you are but what am I?"

:chuckle:

Looking forward to the clear set out of points you don't feel were responded to along with any parts of my answers you don't think were clear enough. :thumb:

 

[Granite]

I see our Taiwanese troll's gotten his shtick down pat, could probably do this in his sleep.:yawn:

 

[bybee]

Marriage should never have been made into a sacrament, it is not a department of the church.

Marriage was not invented by Christianity giving it some sort of copyright to be defended as they define it.

Marriage is a civil, legally binding contract between consenting adults. Where do you go to get a marriage license?

The courts ruling leaves traditional marriage unchanged, if anything marriage is being acknowledged as an important commitment by Gay people who want to enter into it.

These are all valid points.
I am concerned that a sex based agenda is being taught in our elementary schools to pre-pubertal children. This seems to have as it's impetus the burgeoning of demand for legalization, forced acceptance and equal opportunity for sexual behavior of any ilk?
This is premature and out of place in the public school system.
Perhaps you will grant that whilst a legal union is granted by government for purposes of protection of all parties concerned, people of religious conviction desire the blessings of their respective churches on their "marriage" before God and the assembled company. Further we/they would like to keep the sexual education (beyond the biologic facts) of our children under our own control.

 

[Stripe]

Like I said, set out the particular you don't believe I answered and I'll take my best shot. Can't be fairer than that and they'll be no confusion at all over what your point is or my answer to it is.

How about you just respond to what I clearly said without breaking it apart. :up:

Which particular response?

After I said that it wasn't worth worrying about something possibly worse that homosexuality — given that homo marriage even has been written into law — you attributed the exact opposite to me, claiming I'd made a "slippery slope" argument.

There is no need to make an argument of what might come, we already have bad enough on the table.

This is the third time I've made this very simple point, one you should have just agreed with or ignored. How much longer are you going to make it into something it's not?

Read my response. I wasn't coy at any point. If you think any part of my response was vague set it out here and I'll fix it.

The court could easily have gone the other way, given a few totally feasible differences.

It's not a claim, that's the job. Sometimes you'll agree with it and sometimes you won't. Sometimes I agree with it and don't particularly care for it.

Of course it is your claim. You claim that this court did as it was supposed to do. It ruled that homo marriage is OK. Homo marriage is not OK.

So that's the limit for you, eh? The ol "I know you are but what am I?" Looking forward to the clear set out of points you don't feel were responded to along with any parts of my answers you don't think were clear enough. ::

You want me to write your answers for you? :AMR:

 

[Stripe]

I see our Taiwanese troll's gotten his shtick down pat, could probably do this in his sleep.::

I see you're still a troll and a coward. :granite:

:troll:

:mock: Gaynit

 

[Town Heretic]

How about you just respond to what I clearly said without breaking it apart. :up:

I answered on that. Set out the thing about your position that you a) suspect I don't understand and b) don't feel I've addressed.

I'll do my best with it.

After I said that it wasn't worth worrying about something possibly worse that homosexuality — given that homo marriage even has been written into law — you attributed the exact opposite to me, claiming I'd made a "slippery slope" argument.

No, first I said you were right, that it wasn't a thing to worry about. Then you accused me of saying the opposite of what you intended, which would mean it was a thing to worry about. You also coupled that with the note that the Court had already made homosexuality okay. The reasonable inference from those two run together is the slippery slope. That was the point of pulling it into three sections and responding as I did.

But maybe I got it wrong. So, set out the point unambiguously as you can and I'll do my best with it.

There is no need to make an argument of what might come, we already have bad enough on the table.

Is that it? Okay, you don't like it. Now what? I've spoken to the problem. The Court isn't going to rehear and public opinion isn't where it would have to be for an amendment and it isn't trending in that direction either. I suspect this is a done deal.

The court could easily have gone the other way, given a few totally feasible differences.

Answered. A Court might have, this Court didn't, which means this Court couldn't. How much clearer could I be?

Of course it is your claim. You claim that this court did as it was supposed to do.

It did. It was supposed to examine the questions involved and rule and that's precisely what it did.

It ruled that homo marriage is OK. Homo marriage is not OK.

It ruled that homosexuals have the right to marry. OK is something else. This might be hard for you, but you can be for freedom of speech and assembly without feeling every use thereof is OK, agreeable to you or right. That's the tough part of civil liberty.

You want me to write your answers for you? :AMR:

I'm just proud that wasn't a goofy attempt to mirror my closing.

So you're making progress.

 

[Stripe]

I answered on that.

Refusing to correct your error is not the way to go. :nono:

No, first I said you were right, that it wasn't a thing to worry about. Then you accused me of saying the opposite of what you intended, which would mean it was a thing to worry about. You also coupled that with the note that the Court had already made homosexuality okay. The reasonable inference from those two run together is the slippery slope. That was the point of pulling it into three sections and responding as I did.

Three sections now?

Is that it? Okay, you don't like it. Now what? I've spoken to the problem. The Court isn't going to rehear and public opinion isn't where it would have to be for an amendment and it isn't trending in that direction either. I suspect this is a done deal.

The problem remains. Your court has issued a regulation that is not lawful.

Answered. A Court might have, this Court didn't, which means this Court couldn't. How much clearer could I be?

A lot.

For a start, you could respond graciously to what I said that you could easily have agreed with. Perhaps then we might be able to make progress on why your concept of what the law is suffers so much.

It did. It was supposed to examine the questions involved and rule and that's precisely what it did.

Telling us what it did does not show that what it did was right.

It ruled that homosexuals have the right to marry. OK is something else. This might be hard for you, but you can be for freedom of speech and assembly without feeling every use thereof is OK, agreeable to you or right. That's the tough part of civil liberty.

Lawlessness and lies are not liberty.

 

[Town Heretic]

Refusing to correct your error is not the way to go. :nono:

Don't know that I made one, though I owned the possibility of it, which is why I said lay it out clearly and I'll do my best at matching on any given point.

But you don't do that and I've said why I suspect that is.

Three sections now?

Three then. Sure. Now, then. The post that began this particular drum of yours.

This one:

And the problem remains: We don't need to worry about potentially "legalized" pedophilia;

That's what I've been telling people, along with why.

we already have regulated homos.

I don't know what that was supposed to mean.

Not to mention child killing.

We do, though it continues to diminish in numbers and our public continues to move toward pro life positions, which is about all we can do with Roe for the moment.

You've already demonstrated the counting bit so noting that comes to three sections should be a breeze for you. lain:

The problem remains. Your court has issued a regulation that is not lawful.

Except that it is, by definition. You mean it isn't lawful by Biblical standards, which it never tried to be. It also doesn't match up with the Qur'an, is likely out of step with the Upanishads and I'm fairly sure the Book of Moroni won't square either.

A lot.

Not if English isn't your second language. I've answered on the split and the holding.

For a start, you could respond graciously to what I said that you could easily have agreed with.

This one could be the funniest bit you've ever written. You criticizing anyone, literally anyone on being gracious is like listening to a Hun lecture on table manners.

Perhaps then we might be able to make progress on why your concept of what the law is suffers so much.

Funnier and funnier. Especially so in light of your arrogant bit a while back.

Telling us what it did does not show that what it did was right.

Varies with the context accepted. There's the legal right, which is set and the differing moral opinions, which will claim to be but can't be demonstrated to be objectively more than beliefs.

I happen to believe that homosexuality is a sin. I find the advancement of sin, the coupling of it with the stamp of social approval a bad idea. But the law is indifferent to my particular morality except as it relates to the exercise of right or its impediment of another's. And that's the way it goes.

Lawlessness and lies are not liberty.

And that's not an objective analysis of what we're talking about. It's a subjective valuation declared as objective truth. It's not lawless within the context of the compact and it's liberty by definition. It is an expansion of how one is free to act. Doesn't make it moral, but liberty isn't a moral valuation.

 

[Stripe]

Don't know that I made one.

Sure, you do. It's been pointed out to you numerous times. However, it seems like you're more comfortable swimming in the mire of discussing what people have said rather than facing the challenge issued.

Except that it is, by definition.

Nope.

Anything that is contrary to God's standards is no law at all.

Definition, remember?

You mean it isn't lawful by Biblical standards, which it never tried to be.

Failure to even try is worse.

It also doesn't match up with the Qur'an, is likely out of step with the Upanishads and I'm fairly sure the Book of Moroni won't square either.

Failure to live up to false standards is no excuse.

Varies with the context accepted.

Nope. Telling us what it did does not show how what it did was right.

I happen to believe that homosexuality is a sin. I find the advancement of sin, the coupling of it with the stamp of social approval a bad idea. But the law is indifferent to my particular morality except as it relates to the exercise of right or its impediment of another's. And that's the way it goes.

Nope. A regulation that is against God's standards is no law. Definitions, remember?

And that's not an objective analysis of what we're talking about. It's a subjective valuation declared as objective truth. It's not lawless within the context of the compact and it's liberty by definition. It is an expansion of how one is free to act. Doesn't make it moral, but liberty isn't a moral valuation.

Nope.

God is objective reality.

Were you planning to be on the wrong side of literally everything?

 

[seehigh]

Stripe, you, like the rest of us, just have to get used to the fact that man made law is the law that this world operates under.

If you think that there is a greater law that applies because I will believe you may have in some omnipotent entity, then you're welcome to that belief, but it will reply to where that omnipotent entity actually manifests itself in reality.

Although many may believe it, that reality is not what exists on this at this point in time.

 

[TracerBullet]

Is their a link between them and pedos?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11501300

But why do you mock, "We don't need to worry?"

Maybe this is just a real simple way to get some hard data on who exactly is homosexual? So we can more easily sniff out and snuff out the pedos.


Daniel

with most studies on this topic the devil is in details as they say. The study you cite indicates that 84% of gay men and 95% of women self identified themselves gay before the molestation and while the median age of molestation was age 10 the average age of the abuse for the homosexuals was 15.

Similar studies have shown the same pattern. Specifically that homosexuals do not have a history of childhood abuse significantly different from heterosexuals until about the age of 13 or 14 when a dramatic increase in all forms of abuse is noted. Gay and lesbian teens are far more likely to have experienced sexual, physical, verbal and emotional abuse after they come out or are discovered to be homosexual.

 

[Poly]

No point. First, it makes sense as a progression of the law and secondly there's nothing remotely like the numbers to make the sort of challenge that would stand a chance legislatively.

Numbers could be by the millions as far as opinions go. Actually doing something about it is a whole other matter.

That one is a different matter. That one could see an amendment at some point.

Yes, but again, it would mean numbers of people doing numbers of things. Lip service is simply a cop out.

The numbers have been changing, moving toward pro life, if with caveat.

And so have the numbers moving toward pro abortion. Though we have the numbers and ability, we simply aren't keeping up with the pace of people who are pro death.

I don't agree with you, but I appreciate that you're serious about the subject. So am I. But this is one race that will be won by the steady and not the swift to outrage. Just the way it is. The Court got it wrong and isn't going to revisit. So it's about convincing people who bought into the worst case scenarios used to establish a rule that has become about other things.

But that's changing.

Plain and simple, you, as well as countless others, are kidding yourselves if you think this is the case. And it is because of this kind of "fooling oneself" that has only helped to aid in our nation going downhill in a big way.

 

[Caino]

These are all valid points.
I am concerned that a sex based agenda is being taught in our elementary schools to pre-pubertal children. This seems to have as it's impetus the burgeoning of demand for legalization, forced acceptance and equal opportunity for sexual behavior of any ilk?
This is premature and out of place in the public school system.
Perhaps you will grant that whilst a legal union is granted by government for purposes of protection of all parties concerned, people of religious conviction desire the blessings of their respective churches on their "marriage" before God and the assembled company. Further we/they would like to keep the sexual education (beyond the biologic facts) of our children under our own control.

I agree with your concerns, there are new consequences that will have to be worked out.