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

reply to post by WhoKnows100

Based off of the argument that is given here the following can be stated:

That would mean that people who are past the age of child bearing, their marriages are invalid, and should not be allowed to marry.
People who do not want children, should not be allowed to marry.
And 10% of the population are now totally ineligible to get married cause they are sterile and can not reproduce and should not be allowed that privledge.

It also brings back a series of laws that would allow the state into the bedroom to spy on its people to determine if they are or are not breaking the law.

The basis of the argument is grounded and reeks of religion. Yet the same people would bulk at the very notion of legal systems that are highly religious in nature and tend to shun those that would suggest it, all cause it is not of their belief.

Take out religion and apply common sense to the application of the law, and construct the argument based on that.

DOMA, was a badly written law, and ultimately should have been challenged earlier than that, as it sought to legislate the morality of people. The federal government should not have tried to impose a belief on a people, as then it violated a fundamental principle of the law.

Wow!

I got a bad case of the whiplash reading your OP.

Whew...

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
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.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
What if I said that with certainty we are NOT created equal.

I would say you fibbed a bit in the statement above that stated your "firm belief".

Sorry, didn't make it past the bi-polar statements about......

First, I wish to welcome our American friends to the 21st century. I know this is both scary and exciting times... But I can assure you, it is not that much of a bumpy ride.

To answer your question: "What is next?". Is this the beginning of the end? Will all morals decay and leave American society in pieces leaving desolate cities in its wake?

No.

This may come as a surprise to many of our friends, but there are actually countries outside of the United States of America. 195 other countries to be exact. At this exact moment in time there are 13 countries that recognize same-sex marriage (not including the many sub-national jurisdictions that also recognize the same and even more recognize Same-Sex "Unions"). They are Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Sweden.

And how does legalized same-sex marriage affect any of those countries?

It may be worth noting at this point that same-sex marriage is not a new invention... There are records throughout history of same-sex marriage (or marriage rituals between people of the same sex). These include ancient China, Mesopotamia, Assyria, the Roman Empire, Spain and so on. (Keep that in mind if you get bored with the current events and want to dig deeper.)

When we consider only modern times, the Netherlands was the first country to legalize same-sex marriage in 2001, although countries such as Denmark recognized unions from as early as 1989.

Not a single one of these countries legalized marriages with toasters, gerbils, platypuses, underage girls or plasma TVs since same-sex marriage was legalized. Not one. (Not that it stops some people from still "marrying" stuff. It's just not recognized as a legal contract by anyone. More here.)

Which is funny because we all know that it's such a small jump from homosexuality to object sexuality or pedophilia. (And if you missed it that one was sarcasm.)

So, instead of shaking in fear because big, scary Armageddon is a knocking at the door, take a look at the countries where same-sex marriage is old news. Go look for yourself what kind of impact same-sex marriage had on those societies...

I'll bet my hat that you'll find that same-sex marriage had no effect on society whatsoever, except for making a small group of people happy by making them equal.

reply to post by Analqueen2011
When I said let it go, I meant that folks should stop trying to prevent forward progress in equality. I am hetero but I am not ignorant. My wife and I have been active in the LGBT communities in Portland, OR then Seattle, San Diego and now in the twin cities. We have canvassed neighborhoods and helped get the word out for the marriage equality act and many other issues and have a lot of friends in those communities. We will be attending a lesbian wedding in Seattle come August with some of those friends.

The "let it go" was meant for the hate-mongers and those who have narrow views. I could have written that better, I guess but it was rather late last night and it made sense to me when I wrote it.

I hope that paints a clearer picture for you of which side I have taken up.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
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.

True, but you are both deserving of equal treatment under the law.

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

It does require explanation, actually. Without it, I would have to say that I disagree. Because no two relationships, straight or gay, are "equal", as in, exactly the same. But regardless, both relationships are deserving of equal treatment under the law, just as you and your wife are.

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

Is it really? Do you have a source on this or is this just your opinion? Because, again, I would have to say that I disagree. I'm not sure the gay rights movement really cares about the world's opinion on their personal relationships... Some individuals may care, but I'm pretty sure the gay rights movement is a movement to attempt to gain, well... equal RIGHTS, not equal thoughts.

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.

Throughout recent history, perhaps. But there is a much longer history that included same-sex unions from informal to actual ritual marriage. READ (It's Wikipedia, but it's all sourced.)

The definition of marriage has not changed except when Christians started limiting it to man/woman. THEY changed it, but it's changing back.

A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.

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, no. Here we go! Down that slippery slope to marrying one's goat. If your (fill in the blank) is an adult human and can legally and willingly enter into a contract with the state, then marry away!

Now, I don't mean to come across as flippant or uncompassionate.

Oops! Too late.

Is it in our best interest as a society to redefine the meaning of the institution of marriage considering possible future implications?

1. Marriage is not being redefined anywhere but in your head.

2. What future implications? Goat marriage? Let's cross that bridge when we come to it, shall we? Or does your "compassion" include denying American citizens their legal rights because someone, somewhere, MIGHT one day, want to marry their 3-ring binder?

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

First, it is my firm belief that, in terms of value, we are ALL created equal

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

hmmmm.....Your words betray you.

"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.

Same tired argument. To compare love between two consenting adults to ANYTHING else is desperation at its finest.

Next thing you know people will be marrying their cars, I-phones, I-pods, dogs, cats...neighbors wives/husbands. Everyone and everything is doing everything else all for the sake of freedom. Yes, lets watch this turn into a Liberal nightmare. I want to be able to run through the streets naked, screaming thank ya Jesus, God Almighty Hallelu-Yah!

reply to post by WhoKnows100

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, Mr. Science, what is the function of the hand? The mouth? The soft inner forearm? The lips? The nape of the neck? That little dip behind the knee? Or the g-spot? I have to wonder if you've ever in your life had a satisfactory sexual experience.

Penises only pass urine and pass semen to make babies.

Trust me, honey. That do a lot more than that.

If you want your life experience to be all function and no form, that's certainly your choice. But someone or something made our bodies to be highly sexually-charged and to enjoy, and some say even need, a variety of satisfying sexual experiences. There's a big world outside your fishbowl.

Oh! And gay relationships aren't just about sex.

Originally posted by Sovaka

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

edit on 28/6/2013 by Sovaka because: Grammar

I would agree with that. Get the government out of marriage altogether and make any sort of "marriage" a civil contract matter.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Next thing you know people will be marrying their cars, I-phones, I-pods, dogs, cats...neighbors wives/husbands.

These have already happened:

World's Strangest Marriages & Relationships
The woman who married the Eiffel Tower
The man who married himself
The Swedish woman who has been married to the Berlin Wall for over 30 years

Thirty years ago and it didn't ruin the world??????

The Japanese man who married a character from Nintendo DS video game
The woman who is about to get married to a fairground ride
The woman who married her dead ex boyfriend
The woman who married a snake

Source

And all that WITHOUT the precursor of gay marriage! Imagine that!

A Girl Marries a Tree, a Barbie Doll and MORE!

I want to be able to run through the streets naked, screaming thank ya Jesus, God Almighty Hallelu-Yah!

Just let me know ahead of time so I can get my camera, OK?

OP - I think you are wrong in your beliefs that gay marriage is in any way different then straight marriage (for reasons that need no explanation).

You must realize that you stand shoulder to shoulder in your hypocrisy with the homosexual movement though. You want to define marriage as you see fit (and damn everyone else) and they want to redefine marriage as they see fit (and damn everyone else).

Marriage is an emotional lock on a relationship. It tells the world that two people are committed to one another for the time being (I would say life, but that would be a lie). Gays can love just as strong, just as long, and just as passionately as straights (I know that's gross to some but that's a personal issue). People like you want to bar them from the joys of marriage and I am sad for you.

Marriage is a legal fortress against the world. This one document binds two people in the eyes of the law. It allows them to make decisions for one another, to occupy the same space regardless of circumstances, to not be separated (barring commission of a crime), allows property to be retained beyond death, and passes benefits between spouses. You would take these things away from some people and for that I am sad for you.

However, you and the homosexual community want to keep and enforce distinctions on what marriage is. You say it is and should remain "one man and one woman", they say it should be between TWO people. Rejoice in the fact that you at least have a middle ground with the agenda. You and them both want restrictions to be enforced.

I am not free from guilt in this debate. I too want restrictions in place for marriage. I want it to be available to any adult with the mental faculties to understand commitment. How can anyone say marriage is OK for any two people but not any four people? As long as kids are not involved and marriage is entered into with free will, I say blessing be upon all involved.

My rant is over for now. Break out of your shell my friend. Grit your teeth and approach a homosexual for honest conversation. You may find that they are no different than you and me, and are very much worth the time getting to know.

reply to post by 200Plus

Originally posted by 200Plus
You must realize that you stand shoulder to shoulder in your hypocrisy with the homosexual movement though. You want to define marriage as you see fit (and damn everyone else) and they want to redefine marriage as they see fit (and damn everyone else).
...
However, you and the homosexual community want to keep and enforce distinctions on what marriage is. You say it is and should remain "one man and one woman", they say it should be between TWO people.

I agree with most of your post except for the notion that "the homosexual community" wants the word "marriage" to be defined at all. As far as I know, there is no homosexual platform that declares marriage should be between 2 people. Please correct me if I am wrong, and I mean that sincerely.

As a proponent of freedom, I support polygamy, as long as all parties are adult and willing. And polygamy has historical roots in this country, WAY before gay marriage was legal. So, those who think polygamy is the "next step" (as Donald Rumsfeld claims), need to study history for just a minute.

If you can draw some meaningful difference between your arguments against homosexual marriage and the arguments 100 years ago against interracial marriage then there might be some actual philosophical points to debate.

As it stands, the argument is standard. Things are correct now or at some point in the past so don't let them change or everything, related or not will fall apart.

The definitions of each term for being in a state of relationship has gotten confused as there are many states of relationship. Now basically what you have to do its too make those definitions to yourself so that you can make a decision on where you stand on this matter. There's a stage on relationship called courtship, this is when you first meet. There is dating where you spend time together to decide if you are right for long term relationship. There is nuptials where the two parties bring their families together to celebrate your entrance to WEDDED BLISS. Which not the same to me as being married. Me personally having been a bartender and having used the term Marrying bottles , as to mean taking two bottles , blending them into one new bottle can be translated to human relationships by saying that being married is a means of two people taking their DNA and MARRYING them to create a new person. So to some people the definition of being married requires the relationship be a man and a woman, because it takes materials from both a male and a female, to produce the newly MARRIED DNA. THIS IS JUST MY OPINION ,but as soon as I see two men of two women successfully blend their DNA I will grant them the title of being married, but until then the most I'll give them its the title of wedded bliss.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I may be wrong in that BH. I remember the desire to change "husband and wife" to "spouse one and spouse two". From that I assume it's still a two party agreement.

I am under no illusions that the homosexual community is any different than the heterosexual community in a general sense. They want to live a happy life, they have good apples and bad apples, "saints and sinners" if that makes sense.

I just watch the debates go back and forth and it is always the same "two people" argument. I understand that they want their rights and they aren't fighting for the polygamist agenda. The battle for gay marriage really shows how similar the two groups (gays and straights) really are.

reply to post by DonVoigt

Originally posted by DonVoigt
THIS IS JUST MY OPINION ,but as soon as I see two men of two women successfully blend their DNA I will grant them the title of being married, but until then the most I'll give them its the title of wedded bliss.

Good thing they don't have to wait for you to grant them the title.

And it's a good thing I don't either because my husband and I have been married for 21 years and there's no blending of DNA... So, I guess, to you, we aren't "married"... And I'm all broken up about it.

Just messing with ya.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
First I'm not saying that I'm granting the title as I've said this is my opinion as I define it other people can put course define it to themselves, but my purpose in my post is to see if someone else can make a better argument for the DEFINITION of the words I choose to use for the varying stages of relationship., but if you can come up with a better way of DEFINING it I'm willing to listen.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews


The religious definition of marriage is between an old man and as many 9 year old girls he can buy.

Is this really what your claiming as something to be revered?

This is what's happening here.

Might I remind people that the US isn't the only country in the world, and the world doesn't stop because the US does something different.

Considering that MOST European nations and the one north of you, Canada, has had these things for well over a few decades and they haven't burnt to the ground, really puts the slippery slop fallacy into perspective.

The ONLY problem with the whole Gay Marriage issue is the Prop8 reversal. That sets a dangerous precedent for SCOTUS to overturn the people's will based on morality, not law.

~Tenth

I feel bad for people who are against gay rights and gay marriage. They are the ones who have been conditioned to hate based on a fairy tale. They can't think for themselves. No sane free thinking adult should condemn another's marriage simply because they were taught at a young age that it is wrong and never learned to question what's right or wrong.

The argument against gay marriage is quite similar to the argument against inter-racial marriage. At least society has evolved, and is showing since that it will continue to evolve.