Supreme Court Gay Rights Rulings: A Slippery Downhill Slope Toward What's Next?

As a whole, I'm not too keen on using internet forums as a platform for expressing political or ideological thoughts/opinions. At the moment, however, I feel compelled to make an exception. Let me preface this by saying I am well aware that what I am about to submit is going to be unpopular and will probably be met with resistance. That's ok, but I humbly ask that before responding on impulse you at least carefully consider my thoughts and intent.

First, it is my firm belief that, in terms of value, we are ALL created equal.. With this in mind, we should be gracious toward our fellow man, realizing that each and every one of us is intrinsically valuable, regardless of our gender, sexual orientation, color, beliefs, etc.

Now, let's consider what civil rights are all about. Equality right? The understanding that we are created equal and consequently we should enjoy equal opportunity and rights. What if I said that with certainty we are NOT created equal. After all, on a common sense level we all know this to be true. For example, I am and will always be taller than my wife, Jessica. She has dark hair, I have blonde. She is amazingly capable of multi-tasking while I am hopelessly one-track minded. We are clearly, by definition, far from equal.

Getting to the point...

In the same way, a homosexual relationship is not equal to a heterosexual marriage for obvious reasons that don't require explanation.

The gay rights movement is attempting to convince the world that gay marriage is equal in both value and in definition to heterosexual marriage. Merely on the basis of two people loving each other, the former may seem to be true, but can we technically call a relationship between two people of the same sex a marriage? Classically and throughout the history of mankind the institution of marriage has been defined as one thing and one thing alone...a formal union between a man and a woman. In order to properly call a homosexual relationship a marriage, we are forced to change the definition and fundamental basis of what a marriage is.

"Who cares what a marriage has been deemed in the past...it's time for progress and evolution," you might respond. OK sure, but have you considered the consequences of arbitrarily changing the definition of marriage? If we can now shift the boundaries of what constitutes a marriage to suit our societal whims where does it end? What's to stop someone from saying "I am hopelessly in love with my (fill in the blank), and therefore should acquire the right to call this relationship with it/him/her a marriage...oh and hey while I'm at it enjoy the societal benefits that come with this title." After all, organizations like NAMBLA (google it) are lurking just around the corner eagerly waiting for this kind of opportunity. It strikes me that the recent Supreme Court rulings and any akin to them that seek to expand the definition of marriage could be setting a precedent for securing benefits and protections for groups that all of us would agree shouldn't be allowed these rights.

Now, I don't mean to come across as flippant or uncompassionate. I do have a genuine empathy for the LGBT community and recognize that they have been subject to mistreatment in times past and presently. Please know that my intent here is not to disparage or undermine anyone. This is a serious assessment that many may not have considered; one that I believe should raise legitimate concern for all.

I'll summarize by leaving you with this question. Is it in our best interest as a society to redefine the meaning of the institution of marriage considering possible future implications?

Your thoughts are welcome.

I'll see your bigotry and raise you;

Marriage is just a recognition of a union between two people with a piece of paper.
There are no benefits provided to those in the relationship outside of perceived "bragging" rights and possibly Government hand outs.

Yay for marriage!

I think Reeses was using the marriage thing a while back when they called their Peanut Butter Cup a Perfect Marriage of chocolate and peanut butter...

Granted folks did not raise a stink about it and I still even got some in my Easter basket and Christmas stocking. Seems those who hold marriage to a religious or moral standard did not complain because they liked their chocolates.

I guess the term only raises one's fear when used with homosexuals. I wonder why that is.

Why not use it every where else, too!

ETA: I know of a few lesbian couples who actually don't care about the gov't handouts they simply want to be recognized for their commitment and in the case of hospital visitation rights and things of that nature, they want the rights afforded to straight married couples. Now, how does this affect anybody except the two requesting such a union? And what then should anyone else care?

Originally posted by evc1shop
Why not use it every where else, too!

Indeed!

I propose a marriage between common sense and logic! Especially when broaching topics of homosexuality and allowing individuals to express themselves in how ever manner they choose.

Marriage should NOT be a Government or Religious Institution as it is touted these days.

Marriage should NOT be regulated in ANY shape, way or form.
The only reason why it is, is because there are Government benefits associated with the status of marriage.
Take those benefits away or be happy to apply them to any union.

for you

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews Classically and throughout the history of mankind the institution of marriage has been defined as one thing and one thing alone...a formal union between a man and a woman. In order to properly call a homosexual relationship a marriage, we are forced to change the definition and fundamental basis of what a marriage is.

Okay,this is where I think the problem lies. Throughout history marriage has been a "contract" where a man takes a woman as his property. This really screws up all of the common laws and things when you have two husbands or two wives in a committed relationship. The government extends rights to the married couple so the man can keep care of his property... (I know, overly simplified but it's late here) much like we get benefits for "owning" our home.

Well, in a homosexual commitment based marriage, who got assigned the property? I don't know either.

You say we can't go changing things willy-nilly because it will mess up the space-time continuum of the spirit of marriage as we know it. I say, it's a contract, I know it is because it can be voided/withdrawn under certain circumstances and now here's a little secret. If a credit card company can change their contract terms after things have been going fine, so, too, can the issuers of the marriage contracts.

Think about this and next time you look at your wife who I do not believe you intended to own, but married in an act of true love, remember that other people just want to be able to express the ultimate commitment for their own true love, no matter how other see it.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews

In the same way, a homosexual relationship is not equal to a heterosexual marriage for obvious reasons that don't require explanation.

Not so much a thought, but a question.

What are the obvious differences in gay relationships that don't require explanation?

I see two but they do not create any inequailty

* Gender - 2 men or 2 ladies. It's different from what society has come to perceive as standard, but it's not inequal because it is still 2 consenting adults of legal age and no relation.
*Ability to bear children directly from the union i.e. 2 people of the same gender cannot procreate. We have been over this point time and time again - some straight couples are infertile or too old to reproduce, so again it's not an inequality.

I believe people are only looking at the parts that they want to when talking about Marriage, as with Heterosexuals, there is no one gay 'Group think' some may want to get married for the benefits, some for religious reasons, and some for various other reasons, the fact is though that we are not allowed 'Marriage' because our sexuality, we have to wait whilst others vote on it. it's more of a 'thing' we can't have because our sexuality, and if we were not this way we could.

we can debate on marriage being a religious thing, or if it's just culturally and historically conditioned that way, we can debate on the definition of marriage and altering it and thus opening the gates to other such 'decimation' to the religious meanings

but if we are to believe that marriage is a 'religious' thing, with the separation of church and state, any marriage shouldn't get the benefits from the state if it's purely a 'religious' act

if we are to debate on the religious aspects of it, religion should be out of the government, and out of controlling laws and lives of people, it is a personal belief, one of which i will defend your right to believe in, but it has no precedence over 'laws',

we want to have the same freedoms rights and benefits that anyone else has and not denied based on sexuality

reply to post by Darth_Prime
I'm not picking and choosing, if it is me you are meaning. I happen to have some friends who just don't care about what the gov't can do for their homosexual union, they simply want the recognition that every other happy or not so happy couple has.

I also know plenty who do think things would be better in their relationship if benefits were extended to their partners.

I just think it's about time to let it go and solve issues that are far more important in the global scheme.

We already live in a world where a person can "marry" the Eiffel Tower.

Two gay people in love wanting to marry? Yeah, why not.

Originally posted by evc1shop
reply to post by Darth_Prime

 

I'm not picking and choosing, if it is me you are meaning. I happen to have some friends who just don't care about what the gov't can do for their homosexual union, they simply want the recognition that every other happy or not so happy couple has.

I also know plenty who do think things would be better in their relationship if benefits were extended to their partners.

I just think it's about time to let it go and solve issues that are far more important in the global scheme.

Indeed, we can concur that there are other issues on a global scheme, hunger, genocide, even within America Homelessness etc

but that doesn't take away the importance of it is as a populace, we are all Human and we must unite in equality instead of being divide by intolerance,

i am not saying you, i'm just saying it's easy to toss away the importance of others that are being affected by this daily

reply to post by Afewloosescrews


I think you completely Missed the point of the Court's ruling.

No one is "trying to redefine Marriage".

That was a merely a lame smoke-screen scare tactic employed by those have chosen to prostrate themselves to old fear-based belief systems (their right to do so, but a terrible way to live IMO).


The point you missed was that this entire argument was about whether every citizen is entitled to Equal Protection Under the Law as the Constitution of the Untied States declares.

The court found, in striking down the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), that it un-constitutional to deny benefits and privileges to one group of citizens which are granted to another group of citizens based on clearly discriminatory practices.



It would be as though Christians could be denied the benefits allowed by the government to married couples simply because the government refused to recognize a Christian marriage as the basis for a "legal marriage".

That would be discriminatory, and therefore, per the Court's ruling, Un-constitutional.



And in its ruling on the issue of California's Proposition 8, the Court merely determined that a group of otherwise private citizens could not represent a case before the court that was the responsibility of the State's officials to present, if they so chose.

The State had already argued, and lost,the case in a lower court; it chose not to pursue the matter before the Supreme Court. Essentially, the State chose to accept the lower court's ruling and drop the matter.

Anus - one function - to pass excrement
Penis - two functions - to pass urine and to pass semen for making babies
Vagina - three functions - to pass menstruation, to birth a baby and to receive semen for making babies

So creation design is evident, whether or not you call that nature or Creation. So who came along and got us to perceive a different reality? Who came along and changed our perception to view homosexuality as a design of creation ("born that way") from what nature/creation makes evident, that it is a sexual lust and desire? Penises only pass urine and pass semen to make babies. Last time I checked, urine and semen offer nothing of benefit to the lower intestine.

With this in mind, the answer to the question in your tilte is - when people can get us to perceive a sexual lust as a natural part of creation, anything can and will be justified based upon such poor reasoning and logic. If they can change our perception so much that we can no longer SEE what is in front of us, then we are doomed. The tree was made pleasing to the eye, but it was not perceived as pleasing until that old serpent started talking. Per Elgin was then changed. We see it happening with pedophilia every day - the media saturated with images of sexualised adolescence, the psychiatry community gathering to redefine it and the increasing attempts to even bring it into discussion. The same steps were done for homosexuality. They are merely changing our perceptions.

Originally posted by evc1shop
reply to post by Darth_Prime

 

I just think it's about time to let it go and solve issues that are far more important in the global scheme.

Uh, no, its really not. My biggest issue with all of this is that a lot of employers do not have to allow the partner of a same sex couple access to their group insurance plan. This can be a life and death situation. Not to mention hospital visitations and power of attorney. These things should most certainly not be put on the back burner. Check your heterosexual privilege. Thanks.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

The gay rights movement is attempting to convince the world that gay marriage is equal in both value and in definition to heterosexual marriage.

That is your problem. You are straight, possibly married with a woman who you had (and I hope still do have) all those intense feelings of love with. You committed your consensual unity in a marriage ceremony of what ever faith or non faith system as a statement to each other and the outside World that you are indeed in a union for life.

You don't understand or comprehend that those feelings you had/have for your wife can ever be felt between two people of the same sex. Hence the term 'value' you use and the later piece in your thread hinting at people marrying non-human, non-consenting animals or inanimate objects.

Marriage between two people by it's definition, is the ultimate binding ceremony of two people brought together by mutual love.

You are happy to deny two consenting adults that based on the fact they are same sex?

Definitions of words do change over time.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
Now, let's consider what civil rights are all about. Equality right? The understanding that we are created equal and consequently we should enjoy equal opportunity and rights. What if I said that with certainty we are NOT created equal. After all, on a common sense level we all know this to be true. For example, I am and will always be taller than my wife, Jessica. She has dark hair, I have blonde. She is amazingly capable of multi-tasking while I am hopelessly one-track minded. We are clearly, by definition, far from equal.

I dont think you've quite grasped what they mean by "everyone is equal" *awkward moment*

Getting to the point...

In the same way, a homosexual relationship is not equal to a heterosexual marriage for obvious reasons that don't require explanation.

Nicely skipping over your need to reason there
At the end of the day its not genitals that make a relationship, its the time and love that goes into them and that is what makes homosexual relationships equal to heterosexual relationships.

The gay rights movement is attempting to convince the world that gay marriage is equal in both value and in definition to heterosexual marriage.

Because it is.

Merely on the basis of two people loving each other, the former may seem to be true, but can we technically call a relationship between two people of the same sex a marriage?

And what is a marriage? Isnt it a "contract between two people" ?

Classically and throughout the history of mankind the institution of marriage has been defined as one thing and one thing alone...a formal union between a man and a woman.

That it has, but through out history homosexuals have been present and documented as having intimate relationships. Its time we recognised that homosexuality is natural.

In order to properly call a homosexual relationship a marriage, we are forced to change the definition and fundamental basis of what a marriage is.

Again, what is marriage?

"Who cares what a marriage has been deemed in the past...it's time for progress and evolution," you might respond. OK sure, but have you considered the consequences of arbitrarily changing the definition of marriage? If we can now shift the boundaries of what constitutes a marriage to suit our societal whims where does it end? What's to stop someone from saying "I am hopelessly in love with my (fill in the blank), and therefore should acquire the right to call this relationship with it/him/her a marriage...oh and hey while I'm at it enjoy the societal benefits that come with this title."

If that was going to happen, wouldnt people be using the fight for gay marriage to pursue their own agenda's? I dont see anyone calling for the law to be changed so they can marry an inanimate object. Lets face it here, people want it changed for that homosexuals can be married and that's it.

After all, organizations like NAMBLA (google it) are lurking just around the corner eagerly waiting for this kind of opportunity. It strikes me that the recent Supreme Court rulings and any akin to them that seek to expand the definition of marriage could be setting a precedent for securing benefits and protections for groups that all of us would agree shouldn't be allowed these rights.

Now, I don't mean to come across as flippant or uncompassionate. I do have a genuine empathy for the LGBT community and recognize that they have been subject to mistreatment in times past and presently. Please know that my intent here is not to disparage or undermine anyone. This is a serious assessment that many may not have considered; one that I believe should raise legitimate concern for all.

Well i dont mean to sound harsh in my replies.

I'll summarize by leaving you with this question. Is it in our best interest as a society to redefine the meaning of the institution of marriage considering possible future implications?

Your thoughts are welcome.

YES. Because the "implications" that people speak of are far fetched and based on irrational fear.

Letting two people of the same sex get married is not going to rip the fabric of society.

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
Anus - one function - to pass excrement
Penis - two functions - to pass urine and to pass semen for making babies
Vagina - three functions - to pass menstruation, to birth a baby and to receive semen for making babies

So creation design is evident, whether or not you call that nature or Creation. So who came along and got us to perceive a different reality? Who came along and changed our perception to view homosexuality as a design of creation ("born that way") from what nature/creation makes evident, that it is a sexual lust and desire? Penises only pass urine and pass semen to make babies. Last time I checked, urine and semen offer nothing of benefit to the lower intestine.

With this in mind, the answer to the question in your tilte is - when people can get us to perceive a sexual lust as a natural part of creation, anything can and will be justified based upon such poor reasoning and logic. If they can change our perception so much that we can no longer SEE what is in front of us, then we are doomed. The tree was made pleasing to the eye, but it was not perceived as pleasing until that old serpent started talking. Per Elgin was then changed. We see it happening with pedophilia every day - the media saturated with images of sexualised adolescence, the psychiatry community gathering to redefine it and the increasing attempts to even bring it into discussion. The same steps were done for homosexuality. They are merely changing our perceptions.

Why do some straight couples engage in anal sex?

DONT THEY KNOW AN ANUS ONLY HAS ONE FUNCTION!?

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
In the same way, a homosexual relationship is not equal to a heterosexual marriage for obvious reasons that don't require explanation.

Sorry, but that does require explanation.

This is the core of the problem, the fact that you believe one pairing is "less equal" than another. You've tried to dodge your reasoning behind this, when it is the basis for your argument.

Please explain why you think it's "obvious" that a gay couple is not equal to a "straight" couple.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


Stars

Hahaha! What a sexually deprived and frustrated person WhoKnows100 must be! To only have sex to make babies, yeah right! They also engage in oral sex and masturbation but WK100 doesn't and never has!!

Having read the postings and the actual opinion and the decision of the court the following can be stated:

Gay marriage, it is a new discussion and topic, and it seems as though when it comes to that particular topic, it tends to bring out all of the more interesting arguments, though much can be stated.

Most of the primary arguments are either no longer valid or follow along a moral point of view and go back to religion, yet many fail to consider that we are not all of the same religion. And in a country where the rule has been equality for all, yet time and time again it has been shown that it is not equal when it comes to the application of the law and rights.

It seems as though when the topic of gay marriage is brought up, then people equate it to something else, and ask why can't we have this or that kind of a relationship. In those cases no one really have looked at the history of the court or the laws that are on the books, to understand that some of those relationships have been discussed and determined already, that laws are on the books.

The courts opinion, the very decision, while we see the outcome, how many people took the time to read the opinion and the dissenting points of view, to understand why the justices ruled the way that they did? They did offer new points that not many considered and ultimately will be debated and used time and time again in other cases, that which has not yet been even brought up yet.

The primary point in the entire gay marriage case(s) that came out, is that same sex marriages are up to the individual states to either allow or not allow. It opens doors legally that no one really considers or even thought about. The court reviewed and determined that in the Prop 8 case, it was not really their business to make a judgement and sent it back and in the DOMA case, they brought up 2 key points. One being that if you accept marriage from another country, you have to apply the law equally to all who would enter and live in the USA. The other is that the courts are not going to determine which state has greater say over another state.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews


It's this simple:

A child is not a consenting adult.
A dog is not a consenting adult
A corpse is not a consenting adult
A chair is not a consenting adult
Two homosexuals over the age of 18 are consenting adults

That's why your slippery slope argument fails.