Gay Marriage Discussion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
582

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Speaking of Obergefell do youse folks realize that Congress could effectively set this decision aside if it so chose?

Something done in the past and completely authorized by the Constitution – “jurisdiction stripping” – Congress could remove gay marriage from the jurisdiction of the federal courts (but technically not remove the ruling), the states could pass whatever marriage laws they wanted, and the federal courts could not step in.

See United States Constitution Article III, Section 2, Clause 2

[/quote]

This is one of two possible scenarios I envision within the next 5-10 years, perhaps sooner.

The other scenario, of course, is that a future Court vacates Kennedy’s decision as a necessary step toward the non-recognition of polygamous marriage as a fundamental right.

As has been said earlier, if marriage is a fundamental right, and if what makes it fundamental is the “dignity” and “love” it confers, then I have a hard time seeing how, in light of that rationale, the same wouldn’t apply to polygamous marriage. What compelling interest is there for a state to limit the dignity and love that a person may acquire through marriage?

Furthermore, religious freedom stops where fundamental liberties start. Religious freedom cannot be used to justify the violation of a fundamental, natural right, which is why we don’t have human sacrifices or allow clitoral mutilation/removal, and so forth.

This whole decision is a fucking mess.

585

K without reading every bit of this thread, I’m going to comment, like it or not.

“Gay marriage” is an oxymoron.

Why? Because even in ancient Rome, where homosexual relations were common, even the caesars did not sanction marriage between same-gender people.
Historically marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

Marriage has two functions from its sexual relations:
*reproductive
*unitive

If a man and woman can’t reproduce, they can certain use their sexual organs in a NATURAL way to unite physically. Cornholing is not ok, as it goes against the designs of nature 100%l. And although I do “relate” a little to the desires lesbians have for their thing, that’s not natural either.
If a couple can’t unite in a natural manner, that being the complementary use of their genitals rather than the “other stuff,” then they simply do not qualify as a couple for marriage.

Then there’s the “gender dysphoria” thing. It’s a disorder listed in the DSM, therefore requires treatment. If someone is diagnosed as OCD about germs, the doctor doesn’t prescribe an unlimited supply of hand sanitzer, but rather prescribes a medication to help the patient AVERT the behavior. So why in the hell do “modern” doctors play this, “embrace who you are” or “identify as” crap? Treat it and try to fix it. Don’t condone and propagate it.

Then there’s the reproductive aspect. If everyone was suddenly gay, our children would be the last generation of human beings on this planet would they not? Does that not help illustrate that homosexuality has a destructive nature to humanity?

OMG “modern” society is losing its damn collective mind with all the “tolerance” and “diversity” crap. And for saying such things, I’m labeled a “bigot,” which is not at all true. I do not hate anyone at all, but I do detest certain unnatural behaviors.

Would I spontaneous attack, or support the attack upon an individual just because I don’t agree with them? No. Will I be silent in my circles about such things? Hell no.
If I ignore it, I may as well condone it. If I condone it, I’m indirectly supporting it. Again, hell no.

Do LGBT’s have the same rights as me in America? Yes, the right to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. Does that mean that they should have all of their aberrant relationships sanctioned by the state - i.e. marriage - hell no. Civil unions for the purpose of healthcare, etc., is what they seem to want (IMO), but “marriage?” Really? In what realm of reality can marriage be legimitate when such a relationship fails to meet the criteria of anything except “we love each other?” I love a lot of people, but that doesn’t automatically make me legit to marry them, nor would I want to.

It seems evident that homosexual couples have some sort of issue with reproduction, maybe a negative family history or the like. But why on earth would they think that creating a “family” that is NOT a family (they can’t create children), is somehow going to benefit society?

In the end, it’s about sexual gratification, not marriage. So call it what it is already, and I’m betting everyone knows plenty of adjectives to use, but it is not, and never will be a valid marriage.

Whether the courts legally redefine marriage in our system, they’re still essentially saying something absurd like “red = blue.” Just because they legislate red to equal blue doesn’t mean it is true, nor will it ever be.

Ya know, I’m retired military, and I went to war. By doing so I upheld and defended the rights provided to American citizens in our constitution. But let me see someone burning a flag and do you think I’ll be quiet? No, and I sure as hell won’t be quiet when people try to redefine the purposes of the rights in our Constitution drafted by the founding fathers. They didn’t have gay marriage in mind when they wrote “unalienable rights.” LIberty yes, but consequences for actions that negatively impact society as well.

The way many of us men see this issue is: “You just can’t fix stupid.”

Wait, I think maybe I identify as a dog…better head to the supermarket for some purina, then to a shrink to get some canine hormone therapy, because dammit I want to embrace my inner canine!

-Out

1 Like
586

Had to get that off your chest?

587

Yeh pretty much thank ya.

588

I had no idea we were basing our laws on the way the Romans did things.

Not sure where you got this idea, or what “unitive” means in the context of sex. The natural argument was handled a ways up in the thread, just search “natural” or roughly around 270. It seems pretty lazy to make arguments that are the same as above without reading them.

Very much in line with the “natural” argument, which was handled above. See the issue here?[quote=“s_afsoc, post:585, topic:204383”]
I’m labeled a “bigot,” which is not at all true
[/quote]

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Sounds like you’re fitting the definition of a bigot pretty well.

Your opinion is obviously misinformed on the issue, as they were pushing (and won) on the issue of marriage. So that is what they were going for, not a civil union.

It seems you are going back to the natural and productive arguments again, with a twist towards benefiting society. Repeating yourself doesn’t make it true, and there is no reproductive requirement for marriage, let alone getting into the benefit a couple (gay or straight) can have on society through adoption. Providing kids who are not wanted a loving home is a positive in my world.

What? Are you pretending to know what the purpose of gay couples is again?

Actually, legally, it is.

No, we don’t. Get out of your little bubble and you’ll find that out.

1 Like
589

A counterpoint on Gay Marriage being an oxymoron.

Ancient Rome may not of had gay marriage but there is evidence it existed in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.

From a reproductive standpoint it can be argued that the increasing “tolerance” of gay marriage in Western Societies is in fact not destructive. Especially since there are serious concerns about the exponential rate of world population growth since the industrial revolution. I could easily argue that excessive reproduction could also be dangerous to the human race. Now that the eradication of most infectious diseases are non existent in the western world, this is a very real possibility if there isn’t some kind of restraint.

To say that if man and women can’t reproduce goes against the designs of nature. Who does anyone here have the right to define what is “nature” it is constantly changing on an evolutionary basis. How many species have been officially recorded by biologist as having exhibited homosexual behaviour. As I write this there are 2 Male orphans that have hatched and are raising an abandoned fledgling in an Amsterdam zoo. Maybe some people should be called a bigot because that have the arrogance to dictate to the world what nature is.

Maybe the increasing acceptance of homosexual relationships is benefiting society. They adopt children that would otherwise be abused, neglected or railed up in an uncaring care system having no absolute role model growing up (I’ve seen this first hand, I know which one I might rather prefer). Maybe they do care about reproduction that there are too many people that become reproductive before they are ready for the consequences of such reproduction and gay couple are there to pick up the slack!

In America yes you do have the right to life and liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. How dare do people restrict people’s rights to the PURSUIT of happiness by demanding that two people who love each other shouldn’t get it formally recognised? I’m okay with some Churches not allowing such marriages on religious grounds but it shouldn’t be universal.

Yes the founding fathers probably didn’t think of Gay Marriage when they wrote the constitution but the probably couldn’t even imagine the types of assault weaponry available legally in the US today. I’m sure the second amendment wouldn’t exist in it’s current form if they did.

Sorry but I also had to get something off my chest.

590

The what if everyone was gay argument has to be the dumbest one ever for attacking gay people. I’m glad to see he included it in the old thread bump.

Also what if every guy that was born from here on out we chopped off their penises fully. Then we could never reproduce! Definitely something to consider

591

I’m not going to detailed quote/replies but her goes for now:

Unitive indicates the complementary nature of male/female sex. When married we become one physically and in many other ways.

The “nature” argument follows the same line. The function of the sexual organs is for reproduction, but also creates that male/female union physically.
So if the function is reproduction, any other method is therefore unnatural.

Roman laws, no. But much of western society is a reflection of Roman institutions. The US military for instance is largely based on “De re Militari” (Military Institutions of the Romans, as is democracy.

As for bigotry, disagreement and civil discussion doesn’t qualify. I’ve the right to rebut arguments for gay marriage as much as anyone has the right to voice support.
If I were a bigot, I’d be thinking about more than a verbal rebuttal. I’m not. But as indicated, merely voicing MY opinion will get me labeled as bigoted and “intolerant.” Allegedly I’m supposed to “embrace diversity,” that being the embrace of the rainbow crowd and their lifestyles. Well, lets turn that around - I feel they should embrace my lifestyle. Were it not for people like me, they wouldn’t exist in the first place.

I’ve always wondered “what if” I organized a heterosexual-pride foundation…I bet it would immediately be labeled a hate group, but the LBGT’s can raise hell about heterosexuals and “intolerance” all day long and no one dares say anything about it because if they do, they’re immediately labeled with a negative term like bigot,

What tires me is the ridiculous amount of media given to the aberrant lifestyle, and how people who don’t like it are expected to be silent. I for one will not be silent, so when I see a topic like this one a response will always be given. If the post is made, it’s an open, public invitation for comment, so my dissenting view shouldn’t be a surprise. If no argument was wanted, the post wouldn’t be there. And arguments should be “tolerated.”

As for me being “in a bubble,” I created my bubble through years of hard work and dedication to a set of principles I hold dear. So I’ll stay in it, if in fact it keeps me seperate from the crowd it’s designed to protect my world from.

Finally, let me say that i personally don’t buy the while LBGT terms. They’re all people with same sex attractions, all of which are disordered. Trans for instance typically follows a gender dysphoria diagnosis. It’s a mental DISORDER. So it needs to be tested, not embraced, as is the case with LBG’s.

“Evolving” society? Really? If evolving means going backwards then yes. Otherwise it’s declining.

The whole thing with LBGT is just frickin absurd. All people are of intrinsic worth and deserving of love. But if I love someone then I need to attempt helping them when they err. Sadly I’ve no way of doing so except through debates like this. Maybe something I say, or me visible stance in saying it, will spark a thought that eventually makes a positive difference.

I think I’m done with this thread now.

Ya all take care,

592

says you. I say there are multiple ways one can “unite” in a marriage, emotionally being one.

Again, this has been dealt with above. Repeating the same thing you already stated with different words doesn’t change the fact that you still haven’t read the arguments, which dealt with the reproductive requirements of marriage. If you can’t be bothered to acknowledge the rebuttal and only want to repeat yourself by all means go ahead, but don’t pretend you’re actually debating the topic.

I’m not sure why you like this tangent, it has nothing to do with the issue or our current laws, and how our military is based (on Romans or not) has nothing to do with marriage.

Of course you do, but you didn’t. You didn’t read the arguments and just said your opinion. You acknowledged this fact in your opening statement. I’m not a fan of labels such as bigot, so we don’t need to go around in circles saying who is and who isn’t.

That’s fine, but don’t pretend to know what gay couples want, or what they want to accomplish when you clearly don’t. That kind of thinking only happens when you’re in a bubble.[quote=“s_afsoc, post:591, topic:204383”]
They’re all people with same sex attractions, all of which are disordered. Trans for instance typically follows a gender dysphoria diagnosis. It’s a mental DISORDER. So it needs to be tested, not embraced, as is the case with LBG’s.
[/quote]

Ah, we get to the heart of your thoughts on the matter. I’m not sure what you mean by “tested”, as in cure the of their “disorder”? That has been tried, many times in fact. A sad part of our history involves people trying to cure others of thinking or doing things they disagree with. Fortunately, that is no longer the case regarding homosexuality. You can disagree all you want (and I certainly don’t understand it as a straight man myself), but that is significantly different than thinking I need to cure them to be more like me.

Have fun with your heterosexual-pride foundation.

593

Hetero Pride will go as well as a White Pride foundation.

1 Like
594

This is gold. I’ve created and protected myself from viewpoints counter to what I think. I will resurrect an old thread, share my thoughts, and then disappear back into my bubble where I run to in case someone should disagree with my shared thoughts.

We look forward to you bumping an Obama vs. McCain thread to weigh in on and then disappear.

2 Likes
595

I have heard many of s_afsoc ideas before. Clearly he is right, secondly most people who are arguing against his positions have never heard those arguments before, spend some time looking them up in other resources.

These arguments about gay marriage going back to Mesopotamia and Egypt are a little weak, it seems that when someone is trying to justify this lifestyle anything goes, and the same academic standards hardly apply.

596

Actually we went through all of these points earlier in this thread. Nothing he has said is new or wasn’t covered at some point earlier on (if I remember correctly such is the issue with bumping old threads).

And clearly he is not right according to the Supreme Court of the United States which tends to hold a little more weight than the opinion of the username tuttle on a message board.

597

Since it notified me of this smirky reply, ok, u wanna talk about the dumbama legacy? A “progressive” who would have us embrace Islam and would never refer to muslims for what they are - jihadis by default…and I’m pretty sure they’re even more strongly opposed to homosexuality than I as well.

Let’s just embrace the lifestyles of those we don’t wish to anger right?

When I posted my first on this thread I didn’t look at the date and still haven’t. It’s irrelevant because it’s a current problem in my society. Next thing they’ll be some pig lovers wanting government sanctioned marriage and inclusion of their bovine lovers under insurance coverage in the legislature.
Let’s just modify the vows to “Who gives the piggy to this deviant.” And btw, to deviate from the natural order of things equates to the one doing it being a deviant. Some think that’s a harsh word for homos, but if the shoes (heels in their case) fits…

The whole gay “marriage” agenda was and remains a slippery slope. I miss the hell out of the American values I was raised with. Fact is, not 2 generations ago the mere suggestion of a gay “marriage” would’ve drawn severe public, and majority condemnation, just as it still should. Us Heterosexuals may ought to start having hetero-pride parades. Maybe we could get some shirts for the men who wanted them printed with “#whiteheteromalesmatter,” cause it looks like the political climate is hostile to us now.

If I had an employer insist I “embrace diversity” to include LBGT’s, so help me I’d walk off the job immediately. And by George that’s as much my right as any right an individual has.
St Thomas More was martyred by Henry VII for being a man of conscience. I just hope my having a conscience doesn’t suddenly become a capital offense.

Since the 60’s and their sexual revolution people have come to think we should just be chill with whatever makes another individual “feel ok,” regardless of the lunacy involved or the reality of it being disordered. All the sex, with whoever u choose was their thing. Next thing you know abortions skyrocket, and my kids get condoms and misc other sex while avoiding the core purpose of sex ‘education.’
When my daughter’s school sent a permission form home for sex-ed, they got a formal letter explaining under what conditions I’d sign it, and it wasn’t signed until those conditions were agreed upon in writing.

I mean Oh My GOD! The challenges from schools I had to face just to raise MY kids by my standards were just nuts!

And the whole thing about gay couples filling the vacuum to adopt kids is not valid. The kids need to see their mother and their father. If that’s not possible, they need to see the semblance of it in a heterosexual couple so they have a clue about what real parenting is.

There was an article recently about 2 dudes wanting to sue an airline because they weren’t granted early boarding for families. Sue?! That’ll teach the kids how to waste tax dollars to try to get their way now won’t it? Such a lawsuit would be frivolous at best, and any judge who sided with the plaintiffs should be removed from office.

A marriage is between one man and one woman. Anything else, sanctioned or
not, is counterfeit. Sure, 2 people of the same gender may well have a sexual attraction to one another, be in love, and all the other stuff that mimics what I have with my wife. But in the end, all they’re doing is pleasing themselves rather than conforming to natural law.
Male/female marriage will always be the standard, while anything else simply seeks to make what is impossible duplicate.

Anyway, smirk away and make your snide remarks. It illustrates the inability to make a case. But really, there’s no case u could make to sway right into wrong so it doesn’t matter much.

Maybe the LBGT crowd should enroll their spoiled, mostly millennial and likely sore asses in a philosophy class. I’d recommend some serious study on cause and effect for starters, followed by a historical critical method of interpreting the Constitution.

In summation, it was indeed my intent to let this thread go, but since someone felt it necessary to be a snartass, this reply happened.

Remember, #whitemaleheterosexualsmatter BUT #weallbleedred

598

Do you think in 50 years society will look back on the Retardlicans that want to legislate love and treat gays as second class citizens the same way we do now about people that endorsed segregation back in the day? I’m thinking they’ll catch like 70% of the hate?

1 Like
599

What is “Natural law”?

Also about your first post- How does the constitution provide rights?

600

Natural law in this, I mean that we are born with reproductive organs, and their natural function is to reproduce.

As for the constitution, I’ll suggest a book:

“Revolutionary Summer” ~ J Ellis

My one comment about the constitution would be that it affirms out the gate that we are all equal in the eyes of God…“Endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Only God GRANTS us any rights. But the founders were Christians, that seems to have gone out of vogue and there’s this attempt to replace it with hedonism.

Out