Supreme Court to decide whether same-sex marriage is a right

[Lurk]

Wow! This tread is a hoot, too!

Watching two (or even three) of the trolls stroking each other is getting a little gross, however. Circle jerks never end nicely.

 

[This_person]

This_person, rather than quote a handful of posts, i will answe all of them in this one.
no.

no
NO. I do not NEED to prove there is ANY difference between incest and gay relationships, because it is not germane TO THE LAW we are discussing. The laws on gay marriage has nothing to do with incest. Congress is not just racking its mind trying to figure out the difference between being gay and incest, so they can finally put this matter to rest.

you want a reason, a way in which gay marriage is different? Representative Government. More Americans do not want to continue oppressing gays, and treating them as substandard. Leadership should respect, and represent the will of the people, as as the majority makes its wishes clear. Incest and polygamy do not have the support of the media, and an officially backed narrative coming from the celebrities or political power players, thus do not have the groundswell of public support, and cries for change, and social justice.

I know, you really just wanted me to challenge you on straight marriage, so you could slap down the breeding trump card, but I am just not feeling it, not buying that the general public feels the same. Yes, straight people can reproduce without donors, or surrogates, but that is not reason enough to continue denying gays the right to marry. Heck, polygamists, and brother sister spouses could breed! So, i guess straight marriage is MORE like incest and polygamy, than gay marriage.. Good thing it is already legal, considering how important that distinction is to you.

the fact is, regardless of the justifications you will cling to, and how AMAZINGLY VALID they really are to you, our government does not staunchly hold onto privileges freely granted to one group based solely on proven benfit to society, or the petitioners ability to prove that what they want is substantially different from incest. That is not how the country works. It is how you argue, though. Set some nebulous goal, and claim that is what must be reached before the ACTUAL argument can even be discussed on its own merits.

which is hogwash. It is a maze of red herrings and rhetotical nonsense that one should not attempt to navigate, because it is nonsensical. You will not drop the other subjects and discuss the matter at hand, because to you, these unrelated subjects are a clear win for your column. So, enjoy that.

So, if it is representative government, then we should go by the will of the people. Overwhelmingly, the people said NO to same-sex "marriage". The courts intervened. Interesting that you believe that the media and celebrities make up "the people", though.

Also very interesting that your argument has changed from the discrimination aspect to the will of the people. Apparently, discrimination is fine and dandy against people YOU don't think deserve equal treatment because you find their actions icky.

For the record, I couldn't care less about the procreation aspect.

 

[Hank]

Circle jerks never end nicely.

You would know.

 

[digitallest]

So, if it is representative government, then we should go by the will of the people. Overwhelmingly, the people said NO to same-sex "marriage". The courts intervened. Interesting that you believe that the media and celebrities make up "the people", though.

Also very interesting that your argument has changed from the discrimination aspect to the will of the people. Apparently, discrimination is fine and dandy against people YOU don't think deserve equal treatment because you find their actions icky.

For the record, I couldn't care less about the procreation aspect.

The social tides are changing, I know you have to see it. Gays have become a protected class, how that would not be expected to generate an equality intervention? I expect society will continue pressing for equal treatment under the law.

I eschewed arguing incest and polygamy angles, because that derails the actual gay marriage argument, by placing another argument in the way.

do you really think before congress takes up the issue, they need someone to first prove gay marriage is substantially different from incest? If not for the procreation angle, there is nothing in the incest equivalence argument.

I think lawmakers will discuss it on the merits of the actual argument, which is gays wanting to get married. People for and against will present arguments regarding gay marriage. I sincerely doubt everyone will have to make it through an obstacle course of red herrings before they can discuss gay marriage. I don't think they will have to prove that gay marriage will be of benefit to the whole population. Here in the US , we have gone out on a limb a few times. Things change fast, and sometimes go full circle.

I can not say that I have really won the many gay marriage arguments I've been in, on the web, but I enjoy them up to point. That point would be when it runs off the rails, and someone insists we have to change the subject, substitute their equivalent, then claim victory when I say, "that is not the subject"

 

[digitallest]

Married. I believe marriage means something. I have data to back that up.

Your point proves mine - it's not about the taxes or the benefits, it's about the word. It is all about forcing an equivalency for two disparate things. I appreciate you arguing my point for me, but you need to internalize that. Why do we want to provide a legal forcing of social issues? Leave this issue to the people, and when it is appropriate (if it ever is), the people will change it themselves. Right now, the people have spoken, and the government is forcing the people to accept something else instead at the forcing of the minority.I didn't say $200,000 between them, I said $200,000 each.

Go here, put in 200,000 and 200,000 for two people. Read the results. Learn.

I think you nailed the crux of the disconnect. The word means something to everyone who has a stake in the argument. Everyone is holding their own definition as true, and believing their reasons are most noble, and right, and each is correct for seeing their own perspective. It is even understandable that we do not see others perspective clearly, but we should see others perspectives as being as valuable to them as our own POV is to us, in that way, people can respectfully disagree, without the rancor. One would hope we can all see that what i want, is not more important than what you want, and what you want is not more important than what i want. The many different perspectives are a natural product of free will, and something we must never take for granted. The freedom to be different is fantastic. Our differences are why we depend on the convoluted processes of governance to find the best, most Just solution, when the people can not agree. We have to count on our representatives to listen to the people, and make reasoned arguments on behalf of their constituents.

I hope society learns to put less emphasis on the perceived value of a word, and directs its collective attention to the value of the institution the word represents. In this, we will find the true content of a persons character, whether people like it or not, we are only as good as our word. If you take a sacred vow to go through life as family to one another, whether you have children or not, you are bound to this other by your word. How you treat that person, and how you conduct yourself in their absence speaks to your character. What we put into our marriage is what we make of our word, our honor.

 

[BigBlue]

Watching two (or even three) of the trolls stroking each other is getting a little gross, however. Circle jerks never end nicely.

This ends the same way all the threads end when the right wing nuts on this forum get slamed ,they hijack the thread by getting all their little buddies to attack and name call .

 

[Lurk]

You would know.

Yes, I read about them as a teen. The problem with this one is none of you is holding on to your own organ as you fap away.

 

[Lurk]

This ends the same way all the threads end when the right wing nuts on this forum get slamed ,they hijack the thread by getting all their little buddies to attack and name call .

Name calling is your favorite attack. So we must be nearing the end of this thread.

 

[This_person]

The social tides are changing, I know you have to see it. Gays have become a protected class, how that would not be expected to generate an equality intervention? I expect society will continue pressing for equal treatment under the law.

I eschewed arguing incest and polygamy angles, because that derails the actual gay marriage argument, by placing another argument in the way.

do you really think before congress takes up the issue, they need someone to first prove gay marriage is substantially different from incest? If not for the procreation angle, there is nothing in the incest equivalence argument.

I think lawmakers will discuss it on the merits of the actual argument, which is gays wanting to get married. People for and against will present arguments regarding gay marriage. I sincerely doubt everyone will have to make it through an obstacle course of red herrings before they can discuss gay marriage. I don't think they will have to prove that gay marriage will be of benefit to the whole population. Here in the US , we have gone out on a limb a few times. Things change fast, and sometimes go full circle.

I can not say that I have really won the many gay marriage arguments I've been in, on the web, but I enjoy them up to point. That point would be when it runs off the rails, and someone insists we have to change the subject, substitute their equivalent, then claim victory when I say, "that is not the subject"

The times are changing, this is true. But, if we believe the people should decide, they have. The vast majority of states that legalized same -sex marriage did so against the will of the people of the state.

Congress should not be discussing the issue at all, it's a state issue.

It's disingenuous at best to say one is for legalizing one type of relationship based on the discrimination aspect and then say that it's ok to discriminate against others for the same reason. Principles are principles.

There is no winning this discussion. But I try not to be hypocritical.

 

[BigBlue]

Name calling is your favorite attack. So we must be nearing the end of this thread.

You're the one trying to equate same sex marriage to incest ,not me,you lost the argument I did not .

 

[This_person]

You're the one trying to equate same sex marriage to incest ,not me,you lost the argument I did not .

You've been unable to say how the two are not the same from a secular standpoint. You lose by default.

 

[Dixie]

It's her, not her hubby. It may have been his account, but the kookoo shines through.

Really? I think littlelady is really mamatutu.

 

[BigBlue]

You've been unable to say how the two are not the same .

Tell us .

 

[PrchJrkr]

Tell us .

Do your own ####ing research. There is no affirmative action to save you here.

 

[This_person]

Tell us .

From a secular point of view, there is no difference. People should be allowed to love who they want to love. They're born to need multiple partners or their brother or whomever.

If you're not equally fighting for their marriage equality based on discrimination, you're wrong. If you see a moral reason to separate the concepts, you are saying that laws and discrimination may be based on morality. That makes you a hypocrite.

 

[Lurk]

You're the one trying to equate same sex marriage to incest ,not me,you lost the argument I did not .

Dude, you need to keep your opponents straight. I haven't even entered the same-sex marriage discussion. But thanks for playing.

 

[BigBlue]

Do your own ####ing research. There is no affirmative action to save you here.

Oh look the bad man cuss me .

 

[BigBlue]

, there is no difference. People should be allowed to love who they want to love. They're born to need partners .
.

done , and on the way out take the rrhea brothers with you ...gono and dia .

 

[This_person]

done , and on the way out take the rrhea brothers with you ...gono and dia .

If this was supposed to be witty or intelligent it failed on both counts.

If you have no cogent argument, try giving up and staying silent like MR did. It will be far less humiliating for you.

 

[Gilligan]

If this was supposed to be witty or intelligent it failed on both counts.

If you have no cogent argument, try giving up and staying silent like MR did. It will be far less humiliating for you.

The window-licking kid has had that message handed to him many times.....but that makes sense too.