SCOTUS not enough- prop 8 jerks trying to find another way

[Deleted]

Jul 15, 2013 14:36:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 14:20:41 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I concern myself with what is right, as well, Virgil.  What is right is not subject to your approval, either.

We've had this debate before.

In this case: are "gay marriages" 'good'? has only two possible answers: yes, and no. Either you're right or I am. We cannot both be right. We cannot both be partly right.

They are good, unless you have been gay married 3 times and are jaded and angry and tell all the other gays you see at the Russian Bath Houses that gay marriage is a prison that no man should be subject to.

[kittensaver]

: "You should not reasonably expect a Prop 8 supporter to stop supporting what they believe to be right because a panel of 9 judges makes a particular ruling." :

=================================

They have a perfect right to support what they believe to be right for themselves and their like-minded ilk. IMHO they do NOT have the right to use their "beliefs" to impose societal restrictions on those who do not think and believe like they do.

[mmhmm]

And, in turn, Virgil, you should not expect someone who finds Prop 8 to be degrading and insulting to stop battling against it because it's wrong, wrong, wrong!  Whether you choose to believe, or honor it, I feel just as strongly about what's right as you do.  So do a lot of other people who don't take the same stance you do.

What evt1 may, or may not, evince in his post is not of concern to me.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 15, 2013 14:26:30 GMT -5 steff said:

So now I'm all mixed up.

When I got "married" I didn't do it in a church & there were no religious words spoken.  So now does that mean I was actually "civil unioned"? 

But I had a kid, so the "family" part I did, so now I'm back to "married"?

But now my kid is an adult & I have no plans for anymore, so I'm back to "civil unioned"?

You guys are the only ones rattling around children as a "requirement". It's not an argument I've made (see Reply #21 if you ever get tired of hearing your voice bouncing off the walls). It's not an argument I've heard DOMA supporters make as a justification for upholding the definition of marriage--nor is it even logical, since unmarried homosexual couples would be just as childless as married ones.

If you want to persuade your countrymen, might I suggest you address their actual arguments rather than inventing your own and addressing those.

[steff]

Here's a good one for you Virgil,

What makes YOUR religious beliefs more right than anyone else's?  Because they are YOURS?  Why should YOUR religious beliefs be the law of the land?  Because they are YOURS?

Do you even acknowledge that others have different beliefs & have the right to them & that what they believe to them is what is right?  Or is it really ONLY your beliefs that matter?   

[kittensaver]

:"Why should YOUR religious beliefs be the law of the land?":

======================

Yeah, I'd like this one answered too!

[Sum Dum Gai]

and the states should have the freedom to issue legally binding licenses to two consenting adults who are committed to involving themselves in the privileges and limits of the institution.

They have that, it's called a marriage license, and the guy at city hall is happy to provide them.  No dictating what churches do and don't have to do.  It's a pretty good system.  Except that certain church leaders and members insist it's infringing on their inaccurate version of historical marriage, which was actually just the transfer of property from the father of a daughter to her new husband.

If we're basing laws on tradition now, women can't own property, they're the chattel of their husband, and they need to keep quiet in the presence of their betters.  Luckily, most of the country has moved past this disgusting world view and the few holdouts should die off pretty soon.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 15, 2013 14:36:54 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

You know Virgil, you pretty much said on another thread Americans are racial busybodies.  I am going to post the following quote you made on the Trayvon Martin thread here.  Hopefully another poster won't jump in and call me "extra low-class" for posting it.

Be ashamed of the things that make America lousy, and let that shame lead to reform in your attitude. Love your neighbour unconditionally. Forgive and forget racial slights. Accept apologies. Show no preference to race. Be patient with other cultures. Give your fellow man the benefit of the doubt. Rebuke others sparingly, privately (if at all possible), and never in anger. Turn off the TV.

And this:

When it comes to race relations, Americans are the loudest, most obnoxious, most unforgiving, most petty, most insufferable people on planet Earth, and I would have to say that it's the one and only thing I truly hate about you.

Maybe all those words should apply to sexual orientation busybodies, especially to some of our Canadian neighbors too.  

 

Americans are race busybodies.

A busybody is a specialist in making a big issue out of a gaffe, or a faux-pas, or a cultural misunderstanding.

The "gay marriage" controversy is none of these things. It is a concerted, purposeful, nationwide clash of ideals. I'm not picking on homosexual candidates, or demanding that posters never utter the slur "homosexual", or opining about gay-on-straight violence. Those are petty, ancillary issues. It's the whole point of my rant vis a vis race.

Respect the distinction.

[Tennesseer]

You guys are the only ones rattling around children as a "requirement". It's not an argument I've made (see Reply #21 if you ever get tired of hearing your voice bouncing off the walls). It's not an argument I've heard DOMA supporters make as a justification for upholding the definition of marriage--nor is it even logical, since unmarried homosexual couples would be just as childless as married ones.

This VIrgil?

Two days of oral argument in the Supreme Court about same-sex marriage show both how far this country has come in recognizing the rights of gay and lesbian Americans, and how much still needs to change.

In the first hearing, on California’s Proposition 8, the arguments by the proponents of that ban on same-sex marriage boiled down to one strange proposition — that society’s interest in marriage as an institution begins and ends with what their lawyer, Charles Cooper, called “responsible procreation.” It is therefore acceptable, he argued, to exclude same-sex couples.

Infected by Animus

[kittensaver]

: "They have that, it's called a marriage license, and the guy at city hall is happy to provide them." :

=======================

Well, not everywhere. At least not yet. Let's hope it changes soon. Too many people are being denied the civil and legal rights and protections of the societal institution merely because of the sexual orientation with which they were born. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 15, 2013 14:47:58 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

:"Why should YOUR religious beliefs be the law of the land?":

======================

Yeah, I'd like this one answered too!

In this case I'll say: because they coincide with the beliefs of over 90% of Americans who ever lived.

[kittensaver]

Jul 15, 2013 14:55:49 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 14:47:58 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

:"Why should YOUR religious beliefs be the law of the land?":

======================

Yeah, I'd like this one answered too!

In this case I'll say: because they coincide with the beliefs of over 90% of Americans who ever lived.

Source?

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 15, 2013 14:51:48 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

You guys are the only ones rattling around children as a "requirement". It's not an argument I've made (see Reply #21 if you ever get tired of hearing your voice bouncing off the walls). It's not an argument I've heard DOMA supporters make as a justification for upholding the definition of marriage--nor is it even logical, since unmarried homosexual couples would be just as childless as married ones.

This VIrgil?

Two days of oral argument in the Supreme Court about same-sex marriage show both how far this country has come in recognizing the rights of gay and lesbian Americans, and how much still needs to change.

In the first hearing, on California’s Proposition 8, the arguments by the proponents of that ban on same-sex marriage boiled down to one strange proposition — that society’s interest in marriage as an institution begins and ends with what their lawyer, Charles Cooper, called “responsible procreation.” It is therefore acceptable, he argued, to exclude same-sex couples.

Infected by Animus

So discard Mr. Cooper's argument. I don't agree with it. He's just one man.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 15, 2013 14:59:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 14:51:48 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

This VIrgil?


Infected by Animus

So discard Mr. Cooper's argument. I don't agree with it. He's just one man.

But it was in defense of DOMA!  

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 15, 2013 14:56:15 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Jul 15, 2013 14:55:49 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

In this case I'll say: because they coincide with the beliefs of over 90% of Americans who ever lived.

Source?

Composite American population since colonial times with American religious observance of the Abrahamic religions since colonial times with the percentage of those religious adherents strongly averse to homosexual "marriage" and you'd probably hit 95%. I low-balled it at 90%.

No, I don't have time to dig up the myriad sources necessary to concretely prove that.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 15, 2013 15:04:38 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 14:56:15 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Source?

Composite American population since colonial times with American religious observance of the Abrahamic religions since colonial times with the percentage of those religious adherents strongly averse to homosexual "marriage" and you'd probably hit 95%. I low-balled it at 90%.

No, I don't have time to dig up the myriad sources necessary to concretely prove that.

We live in the here and now.  In colonial times, there were only Christians and slaves.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 15, 2013 15:03:53 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 15, 2013 14:59:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

So discard Mr. Cooper's argument. I don't agree with it. He's just one man.

But it was in defense of DOMA!  

And I hadn't heard it before. Your point?

[zibazinski]

Geez, I'm sure not going to have any more kids and DF would be startled to hear that I have no intention of ever marrying him so I'm a hussy, too. I rather like that title. Much better than wife. Been the, done that. Didn't care for it much. Besides the fear of being OWNED by someone again, there's the tax crap. I don't want to be penalized tax wise for getting married. So I'm one of those who should never be married in anyone's eyes but most importantly, my own.

[steff]

So your religious beliefs are right because Colonials also believe like you do.


ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooookey dokey.  

[Tennesseer]

Jul 15, 2013 15:06:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 15:03:53 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

But it was in defense of DOMA!  

And I hadn't heard it before. Your point?

That was one of the arguments before SCOTUS on the DOMA hearing.  It's not my or anyone else's fault you hadn't heard it before.  

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 15, 2013 15:06:32 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 15, 2013 15:04:38 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Composite American population since colonial times with American religious observance of the Abrahamic religions since colonial times with the percentage of those religious adherents strongly averse to homosexual "marriage" and you'd probably hit 95%. I low-balled it at 90%.

No, I don't have time to dig up the myriad sources necessary to concretely prove that.

We live in the here and now.  In colonial times, there were only Christians and slaves.

Be that as it may, it reinforces the notion of marriage existing prior to--and beyond the eventual secular restrictions of--the state.

So your religious beliefs are right because Colonials also believe like you do.

Colonials and the vast majority of Americans up to and including the 1990's, including all of the generations you call "great".

You just left out a few centuries.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 15, 2013 15:07:54 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Geez, I'm sure not going to have any more kids and DF would be startled to hear that I have no intention of ever marrying him so I'm a hussy, too. I rather like that title. Much better than wife. Been the, done that. Didn't care for it much. Besides the fear of being OWNED by someone again, there's the tax crap. I don't want to be penalized tax wise for getting married. So I'm one of those who should never be married in anyone's eyes but most importantly, my own.

Then we are going to have to call you Miss Hussy until there's a wedding ring on your finger.

[kittensaver]

Jul 15, 2013 15:11:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 15:06:32 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

We live in the here and now.  In colonial times, there were only Christians and slaves.

Be that as it may, it reinforces the notion of marriage existing prior to--and beyond the eventual secular restrictions of--the state.

Yeah - but it doesn't now!

[Tennesseer]

Jul 15, 2013 15:11:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 15:06:32 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

We live in the here and now.  In colonial times, there were only Christians and slaves.

Be that as it may, it reinforces the notion of marriage existing prior to--and beyond the eventual secular restrictions of--the state.

If you want to live in the past you are free to do so.  But life will move on with or without you.

[zibazinski]

I'm changing my title. Miss hussy is much classier. 

[Tennesseer]

Jul 15, 2013 15:11:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 15:06:32 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

We live in the here and now.  In colonial times, there were only Christians and slaves.

Be that as it may, it reinforces the notion of marriage existing prior to--and beyond the eventual secular restrictions of--the state.

So your religious beliefs are right because Colonials also believe like you do.

Colonials and the vast majority of Americans up to and including the 1990's, including all of the generations you call "great".

You just left out a few centuries.

That's only because the issue was never raised back then like it is today.  Forty years ago, no gay person ever thought of being married because it was not legally available so it wasn't even discussed as a possibility.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 15, 2013 15:14:59 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

I'm changing my title. Miss hussy is much classier. 

Atta girl.  

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 15, 2013 15:11:15 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 15, 2013 15:06:53 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

And I hadn't heard it before. Your point?

That was one of the arguments before SCOTUS on the DOMA hearing.  It's not my or anyone else's fault you hadn't heard it before.  

I'll rephrase:

Why should we care?

There are going to be good arguments for DOMA, and lousy arguments for DOMA. There are good arguments to allow gay "marriage" and there are lousy arguments to allow gay "marriage". Only comedians and leftist blogs are going to jump on lousy DOMA arguments. This may come as a surprise to you, but I don't digest a lot of either.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 15, 2013 15:13:25 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 15, 2013 15:11:30 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Be that as it may, it reinforces the notion of marriage existing prior to--and beyond the eventual secular restrictions of--the state.

If you want to live in the past you are free to do so.  But life will move on with or without you.

Duly noted.

If you're implying that I believe homosexuals will never "marry" in the US, you're wrong. See Reply #9 for starters.

[Sum Dum Gai]

The colonials believed black people were slaves, women were property, gays were an abomination, and brown and yellow skinned humans were inferior beings.  I don't give a shit what they believed because they're all clearly fucking assholes.