Merlyn_LeRoy Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 If there was a right to marry, the supreme court would issue a ruling saying it's a right. And they have. Deal with the real world sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattlePioneer Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Unfortunately, the Supreme Court got too big for it's britches a long time ago. It has turned our republic into an aristocracy of unelected judges who think they are entitled to decide for every person and institution what their rights and privileges are. What they do all too often is make political decisions and dress them up in legalistic language. But the real bottom line is that they make laws based on a simple 5-4 majority. That's a weakness of the framers of the constitution, who made the judiciary too independent. It's too bad that the Supreme Court, which claims to be the protector of the constitution, has done more than anything else to corrupt that much abused document. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 "If you don't follow these religious tenets of other religions, why should you expect people who aren't members of your religion to follow yours?" And yet, Merlyn, it seems to me that is exactly what people in many flavors of religion do expect...to impose their beliefs or at least limits in society which are based on those beliefs, on others who don't necessarily share them. Which to me is the significance of the Loving decision. Again I'm reminded of that quote from TheScout, "The purpose of religion isn't to bring people together". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosetracker Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 The two or three phrases you have pulled out of the Bible and twisted into your own meaning for your arguements are worthless.. A) Because God didn't write the Bible. Man did.. B) Because the Bible has been re-interpreted and re-written by man over the years. C) Because other things in the Bible have been pointed out as having alot of pointless and worthless rules or warnings, that may have had a purpose for health, due to poor hygine or lack of science.. Or just plain superstitions.. They are viewed as an interesting oddity in todays culture.. I follow your God, I interpret my bible very differently then you do, and I am not the only one.. Every faith has some difference of opinion because they interpret the bible differently then someone else, or follow a completely different book then the Bible, and possibly a different God.. So continue to tout your 3 or 4 twisted phrases from the bible, to your hearts content.. It makes you feel right, doesn't do anything to prove your point.. That the young generation will age into adulthood and have a revote to overturn the rules and policy you are trying to force into government before the tides of change have the majority in favor of allowing homosexuals the right to marry will come.. The rules were made to make illegal inter-racial marriages.. It was revoked.. Give it 10 to 20 years it will be the same with all these state rules on homosexual marriages.. SP Oh, dear! Low self esteem! So SP, are you disputing or making fun of the high suicide rate of homosexuals due to the bulling of either unthoughtful children or the highly-moral who interpret their bible according to you?.. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/04/teen-suicide-rates-drop-in-in-blue-counties.html http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-04/cums-sls041311.php I know, in your mind all they need do is change their ways and go straight and poof their problems are gone.. It is beyond your understanding, that this is not a choice. It is not the same as drug addition or acoholism.. I know, I know it is just beyond your ability to grasp that concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 SeattlePioneer writes: Unfortunately, the Supreme Court got too big for it's britches a long time ago. Well, you can protest outside the US supreme court sometime; if you want to discuss US legal issues, you either have to take into account supreme court rulings, or you can babble like an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drmbear Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Why is anyone that is not gay even concerned about whether they want to marry or not. Because a homosexual couple wants to get married and have those rights takes absolutely nothing away from any heterosexual couple. So unless you are gay, shut up and stay out of the argument. This is supposed to be a free country, with laws that protect those freedoms, and I really see no reason why two people that love each other and want to be married should have any impact on anyone else. And remember this is also a country of religious freedom, and just because your religion says something is immoral doesn't mean that their religion does. You marry who you want - and the other person can marry who they want. That seems right and correct for anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 drmbear, I sort of answered your initial question in my note to Merlyn: It is because people in some religious faiths WANT "to impose their beliefs or at least limits in society which are based on those beliefs, on others who don't necessarily share them." They WANT to limit freedom as a matter of their faith. As has been noted earlier, it is the same rationale as those who made inter-racial marriage illegal on the basis of their faith. I think this tendency to repress those who disagree with us is a basic human impulse that can be seen in many societies, for example the Taliban, etc. Sad that we can't do any better sometimes.(This message has been edited by packsaddle) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSA24 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 > If there were a right to marry, > you could marry as many people > as you wished > define the terms of the marriage > and how to dissolve it. Why is this not OK? Exactly what happens that is a negative consequence of allowing people the same freedom of choice with regard to their relationships as they have in their business arrangements? I don't understand why there are any laws around marriage except for an age restriction to protect the innocent youth. Why can consenting adults not all be allowed to enter into whatever arrangements they like voluntarily and of their own accord? The only reason I can think of is puritanism. American is the "Land of the Free". This doesn't create more taxes, it doesn't increase government intrusion into our lives. In fact, it doesn't affect anyone at all. Zach Wahls and others like him have disproven any consequences for the child (other than the ridicule of people who are in favor of government control of marriage). > Why is anyone that is not gay even > concerned about whether they want to > marry or not. Laws concerning marriage are socialist and big government, that's why. It's social engineering and using government to control the culture. Just like all good Republicans fight against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattlePioneer Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Lots of people WANT to use government to control social institutions. In New York, Bloomberg wants government to supervise how large of a soda you can buy. In Seattle, liberal leaders want to control whether you can get a plastic bag to take your groceries home (no, you can't). Those who don't favor government power in controlling and defining marriage should oppose gay marriage, because right now government doesn't control that. But of course, liberals DO want to control that. They want homosexuals to join the exclusive club of those permitted legal marriage. Amusingly enough, in Washington State homosexuals aren't legally permitted to marry, but they do need to go through legal divorce proceedings when they split up. The courts decided they could impose that on their own initiative a few years ago. Try asking liberal white women if they'd like to get government out of the business of deciding how MANY people someone can marry at on time. You will usually discover that they are anxious to keep government in the business of regulating how many people are allowed to love each other and be married at the same time. While liberals like to talk expansively about a RIGHT to marry, bring up polygamy and they will usually offer up excuses to continue to prohibit that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathanrbaker Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 "American is the "Land of the Free". This doesn't create more taxes, it doesn't increase government intrusion into our lives. In fact, it doesn't affect anyone at all. Zach Wahls and others like him have disproven any consequences for the child (other than the ridicule of people who are in favor of government control of marriage). " BSA24 This article and the research behind it seem to contradict your assessment of children raised by homosexual parents. http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/06/gay_parents_are_they_really_no_different_.single.html(This message has been edited by jonathanrbaker) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 reenioPeltteaS writes: Those who don't favor government power in controlling and defining marriage should oppose gay marriage, because right now government doesn't control that. Yes, in SeattlePioneer's Bizarro world, people who DON'T like government control should oppose gay marriage (while presumably being OK with government control of straight marriage). So SeattlePioneer, I assume you want straight marriage laws removed? While liberals like to talk expansively about a RIGHT to marry, bring up polygamy and they will usually offer up excuses to continue to prohibit that. I have no problem with legal polygamy; of course, it would require consent of all current members of a marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagledad Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 >>It is beyond your understanding, that this is not a choice. It is not the same as drug addition or acoholism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trevorum Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Barry, no,, just a few camels.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Moosetracker, for the sake of argument let's consider the possibility that homosexuality might be a matter of choice. Why would that make a difference in whether or not they get the same rights as others? For a while I chose to 'be' a Presbyterian. If for some reason society decided that Presbyterians should not be able to marry (or if, say, BSA did not allow Presbyterians to be members), would it make any difference that it is a matter of choice? If homosexuality does have an element of control that is not purely genetic, why should that diminish their rights? At one time, a culture that I hold very near and dear passed laws that allowed persecution, even execution, of persons wearing dreadlocks. Did the fact that dreadlocks were a matter of choice somehow diminish those individuals' rights to life and liberty? Evidently, some of us think so...and that restriction of rights because of such a choice is reasonable. I think the answer is that 'choice', if that's what it is, should be irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSA24 Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Seattle Pioneer wrote: > Those who don't favor government power in > controlling and defining marriage should > oppose gay marriage, because right now government > doesn't control that. Actually, yes it does control that. * Government issues marriage licenses * Government charges a tax for marriage licenses * Government makes laws about who can and cannot adopt based on marital status * Government offers tax breaks and penalties based on marital status * Government controls divorce * Government probates all wills between family members * Government defines who is a family member * Government defines whether or not your significant other's parents can keep you away from them in the hospital when they are terminally ill * Government defines who is able to pull the plug at the end of someone's life All of these things are controlled by government in relation to marriage. This is what gay couples, who live together anyway, are not allowed because their marriages are not recognized by the state. I would think that most Republicans would prefer that government have no laws around marriage. I would think that small government people, such as myself, would prefer that the government get out of the marriage business and stop issuing licenses, tax breaks and penalties, and stop determining for us who our significant person in our lives is. If I am a single man, who is straight, the government says I cannot give my best friend control over my estate or my health as I die because we are not married. My parents, whom I may have disagreed with on everything, can step in and take control of my life, push my friend aside against my wishes, and exclude them from doing what we agreed on. Government definitely controls marriage. Marriage raises government revenues, and there are many, many legal entanglements that only government and lawyers can unravel with regard to marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now