I don't know why we letsrun forum folk are squabbling over gay marriage. We all know distance runners are the gayest people on any track & field team.
I don't know why we letsrun forum folk are squabbling over gay marriage. We all know distance runners are the gayest people on any track & field team.
800 dude wrote:
One hundred years ago homosexuality was almost universally considered to be immoral conduct. Now more people think that it is a morally neutral, inherent trait. Unquestionably the government has the power to legislate on the basis of social perceptions of morality. By striking DOMA, the Court has implicitly made a decision about what homosexuality really is. Regardless of whether this was the right decision, it's certainly defensible and rational to argue that the task of redefining our political morality is for the people themselves, rather than for judges.
Analogies to black civil rights do not necessarily undercut this point about the role of the courts. The Civil War Amendments to the Constitution were passed by the people as a specific authorization for courts to interfere with the democratic processes of states in order to protect racial minorities. Courts enforcing the 14th Amendment to protect racial minorities derive their authority, ultimately, from the people who made it law.
If you want to argue about the case this way then it is really an argument about federalism and not one about morality or judicial activism. The people of the several states, in a few cases through state courts but in many cases through legislative action or direct ballot, have increasingly come to define marriage as including same sex couples. Traditionally and legally marriage has been defined by the states. The whole premise of DOMA was an overreach of federal authority by attempting to impose a national standard where previously the various state rules had been recognized. Also I see nowhere in the constitution that permits the federal government to define marriage and according to the 10th all powers not granted to the federal government is reserved to the states or to the people. So this is a win for restraint of the national government and for upholding original intent.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
If you want to argue about the case this way then it is really an argument about federalism and not one about morality or judicial activism. The people of the several states, in a few cases through state courts but in many cases through legislative action or direct ballot, have increasingly come to define marriage as including same sex couples. Traditionally and legally marriage has been defined by the states. The whole premise of DOMA was an overreach of federal authority by attempting to impose a national standard where previously the various state rules had been recognized. Also I see nowhere in the constitution that permits the federal government to define marriage and according to the 10th all powers not granted to the federal government is reserved to the states or to the people. So this is a win for restraint of the national government and for upholding original intent.
Also, this ruling means that the Feds cannot deny benefits to same sex couples. It does not mean they can force states to recognize gay marriages.
So liberal states can marry gays, and they can recieve federal and state benefits in MA and CA, and other states can define marriage as strictly hetero, and implement all laws accordingly.
Hold on a second. Who says marriage is only between two people?The previous definition of marriage said it was between a man and a woman. We have changed that definition to between two people. Why can't we simply change it to between people, without any stipulation on the number? We have already tinkered with the definition and celebrated doing so in the name of equality, why can't it be changed further.You cannot argue that tradition dictates marriage is between only two people either, because 1) tradition didn't mean jack in saying it was between a man and a woman and 2) many civilizations practiced polygamy.So what is the basis for limiting marriage to a contract between TWO people and not more? It certainly can it be based on the definition because that is changeable.
Yo Momma wrote:
Marriage is only between two people!
Go overturn other laws if you want to marry more than one!
yes!! victory!
You joking dude? wrote:
Hold on a second. Who says marriage is only between two people?
How many more of you morons want to bring up this point before we can finally put this nonsense to bed?
Marriage was formerly very clearly defined as a contract between a man and a woman. It clear has been. Look it up anywhere.The pro-gay movement has redefined marriage in modern times as between two people. Okay, that is fine. But since the definition of marriage has "evolved" to fit "modern times," what is to say that it can't continue to evolve? If we can change the definition, as we already have, why can't we continue to change it?
Spiny Norman wrote:
You joking dude? wrote:Hold on a second. Who says marriage is only between two people?
How many more of you morons want to bring up this point before we can finally put this nonsense to bed?
sminkaaa wrote:
Government Cheese wrote:Interestingly the only argument people have against this decision is religious and as you know there is a hard separation of church and state.
Today is the day the lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad.
The Lord's people DO rejoice -- His coming is at hand!
He's doing what with his hand?
My name is Lance wrote:
Government Cheese wrote:It is a great day for civil rights. Scalia's crazy bench statement not withstanding, the Supreme Court made the US a little fairer today.
But what will happen with Prop 8?
yes! and 'fairer' is what we seek! Now if we could just confiscate even more wealth from the producers in our midst than we already are & give it to the deserving, yet under privileged vicims of discrimination & hateful bigotry, just think how much 'fairer' we could be, comrade!
No longer shall Americans be allowed to believe anal sex between men is 'wrong'. No longer shall they be able to verbalize such hateful homophobic comments! All can marry wheover they choose! No tolerance of any views not enethusiastically in favor of people publicly proclaiming their strong preference for gay sex acts shall be tolerated in our new more tolerant society. All are equal....although some are more equal than others of course..
Hey Lance, I just came here today for some of your patented frothing lunacy, and you did not disappoint! Mm-mm-mm that's good schadenfreude.
Thanks for chiming in, Gay O'Lubricant. Fvcktards like you are why this country is going down the crapper. Enjoy the ride asswipe.
When will farmers be allowed to marry their sheep
You joking dude? wrote:
Marriage was formerly very clearly defined as a contract between a man and a woman. It clear has been. Look it up anywhere.
The pro-gay movement has redefined marriage in modern times as between two people. Okay, that is fine. But since the definition of marriage has "evolved" to fit "modern times," what is to say that it can't continue to evolve? If we can change the definition, as we already have, why can't we continue to change it?
I agree. I don't want to be on the wrong side of history in the year 2050 when multiple marriages are allowed and I'm a biggot because I only want people to be married to one person.
Let's get this trending world wide! #EvolveMarriage #Polygamy
jamin wrote:
My thoughts:
(1) Loved-based marriage is a joke. Monogamy is a joke. Read the Post-Nuptial Shutoff Thread. Read articles from reputable sociologists.
(2) This is just a stupid debate over the legal definition of marriage. One side says it should be "2 consenting adults" and the other says "2 consenting opposite sex adults." Both sides are idiots. The first side thinks it's getting its definition from the Bible, although the Bible doesn't say anywhere that God only approves of monogamous male-female marriage. The second side just invents their definition of marriage out of thin air; I guess that's slightly less idiotic.
(3) Going by the left's argument for marriage, there is no logical reason why we shouldn't have polygamy. Some leftists in this thread are claiming there's a logical reason we shouldn't have pedophilia. They're gonna have to explain that to their friend Nancy Pelosi, who is a supporter of legalized pedophilia.
(4) That the Supreme Court rules something constitutional or unconstitutional doesn't mean it actually is. If you didn't already know this, you're probably a product of the public schools who let you pass U.S. History class even though you were a useless imbecile.
This is a great post. The only thing: " Bible doesn't say anywhere that God only approves of monogamous male-female marriage."
Yeah, it does.
It doesn't explicitly state "God only approves monogamous male-female marriages" in EXOGENSIS CHAPTER 4 VERSE 115.75 or whatever, but use an ounce of critical thinking when reading a book and it's very obvious that the intention of God is monogamous male-female.
Either way, that doesn't invalidate your post. You're correct either way. Whether you're pulling the definition of marriage from the Bible or from " THIN AIR" - it's both foolish.
Hooray For GAY wrote:
jamin wrote:My thoughts:
(1) Loved-based marriage is a joke. Monogamy is a joke. Read the Post-Nuptial Shutoff Thread. Read articles from reputable sociologists.
(2) This is just a stupid debate over the legal definition of marriage. One side says it should be "2 consenting adults" and the other says "2 consenting opposite sex adults." Both sides are idiots. The first side thinks it's getting its definition from the Bible, although the Bible doesn't say anywhere that God only approves of monogamous male-female marriage. The second side just invents their definition of marriage out of thin air; I guess that's slightly less idiotic.
(3) Going by the left's argument for marriage, there is no logical reason why we shouldn't have polygamy. Some leftists in this thread are claiming there's a logical reason we shouldn't have pedophilia. They're gonna have to explain that to their friend Nancy Pelosi, who is a supporter of legalized pedophilia.
(4) That the Supreme Court rules something constitutional or unconstitutional doesn't mean it actually is. If you didn't already know this, you're probably a product of the public schools who let you pass U.S. History class even though you were a useless imbecile.
This is a great post. The only thing: " Bible doesn't say anywhere that God only approves of monogamous male-female marriage."
Yeah, it does.
It doesn't explicitly state "God only approves monogamous male-female marriages" in EXOGENSIS CHAPTER 4 VERSE 115.75 or whatever, but use an ounce of critical thinking when reading a book and it's very obvious that the intention of God is monogamous male-female.
Either way, that doesn't invalidate your post. You're correct either way. Whether you're pulling the definition of marriage from the Bible or from " THIN AIR" - it's both foolish.
Actually, no it was a pretty idiotic post.
Point by point:
(1) This is false. Try talking with a lovingly married couple. Ask them if their marriage is a joke. Just because you are a bitter loser does not mean that everyone is.
(2) You do not speak for both sides. You do not even speak for one side. Try speaking for yourself. You might find it to be a healthy alternative.
(3) There are significant societal implications to allowing polygamy. So, no, you are wrong again when stating that "there is no logical reason why we shouldn't have polygamy." And again, try speaking for yourself rather than assigning positions to "the left".
(4) Great use of that wonderful rhetorical technique perfected by Miss Williamson's 5th grade class in 1842, name calling.
Also regarding #3 below, saying that Nancy Pelosi supports legalized pedophilia is absurd. That right wing talking point comes from the fact that she once marched in the gay pride parade in the vicinity of someone connected to NAMBLA. It's irresponsible to imply they've met based on that. It's an irresponsible leap from there to imply that she evens knows who he is... and on and on. You lose a lot of credibility with that statement (and you weren't exactly rolling in credibility before that either).
Well Actually wrote:
Hooray For GAY wrote:This is a great post. The only thing: " Bible doesn't say anywhere that God only approves of monogamous male-female marriage."
Yeah, it does.
It doesn't explicitly state "God only approves monogamous male-female marriages" in EXOGENSIS CHAPTER 4 VERSE 115.75 or whatever, but use an ounce of critical thinking when reading a book and it's very obvious that the intention of God is monogamous male-female.
Either way, that doesn't invalidate your post. You're correct either way. Whether you're pulling the definition of marriage from the Bible or from " THIN AIR" - it's both foolish.
Actually, no it was a pretty idiotic post.
Point by point:
(1) This is false. Try talking with a lovingly married couple. Ask them if their marriage is a joke. Just because you are a bitter loser does not mean that everyone is.
(2) You do not speak for both sides. You do not even speak for one side. Try speaking for yourself. You might find it to be a healthy alternative.
(3) There are significant societal implications to allowing polygamy. So, no, you are wrong again when stating that "there is no logical reason why we shouldn't have polygamy." And again, try speaking for yourself rather than assigning positions to "the left".
(4) Great use of that wonderful rhetorical technique perfected by Miss Williamson's 5th grade class in 1842, name calling.
cant help but think wrote:
And in other news, the Supreme Court's decision legalizing polygamy, incest, and pedophilia is due tomorrow. . . .
Well, considering the Bible (and other religious texts) legitimized 3 out of 3 many eons ago, what argument would a fundamentalist have against those decisions?
think before you post wrote:
I brake for colored people wrote:If you're making t-shirts, don't forget:
delusional
retarded
religious
brainwashed
hate-mongering
You know this whole issue is more complex than simple minds can handle. You do realize the Supreme Court ruling was not unanimous. There were four highly esteemed, well educated individuals on the court who voted in disagreement.
Just like the Heller decision on the exalted "crystal clear" 2nd Amendment, 5-4.
There are so many deliciously absurd paranoid rightwing delusions on display in this thread. The LGBT-Muslim alliance has to be my favorite, though.
Well Actually wrote:
(1) This is false. Try talking with a lovingly married couple. Ask them if their marriage is a joke. Just because you are a bitter loser does not mean that everyone is.
It's true that there exist happily married couples. Not many, though. I'd peg the number at less than 10% of the people who get married.
(2) You do not speak for both sides. You do not even speak for one side. Try speaking for yourself. You might find it to be a healthy alternative.
No, I'm correct. It's all about a definition, all about the word "marriage." It's not about equal rights. If you ask a gay person whether he'd be okay if a law was made that granted gay people all the rights and privileges of heterosexual couples, but went under a different name like "civil unions," he'll say that's unacceptable.
(3) There are significant societal implications to allowing polygamy. So, no, you are wrong again when stating that "there is no logical reason why we shouldn't have polygamy." And again, try speaking for yourself rather than assigning positions to "the left".
How are there significant societal implications? From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes the most sense for the alpha male to impregnate every woman in the village. If you've ever observed how things work, it's usually the case that all the women like the hottest guy in school, at work, or wherever. Surely a lot of women would like sharing the wife role for guys like this.
(4) Great use of that wonderful rhetorical technique perfected by Miss Williamson's 5th grade class in 1842, name calling.
Ok, but what I said is true.
Spiny Norman wrote:
You joking dude? wrote:Hold on a second. Who says marriage is only between two people?
How many more of you morons want to bring up this point before we can finally put this nonsense to bed?
He has a point that I agree with fully. If it's ok to redefine the word "marriage", then you can't stop at just gay marriage. It means that polygamy is absolutely OK under federal law. Polygamy has been around for thousands of years, the concept of gay marriage has only been around for less than 100 years. Polygamous arrangements are already more common worldwide than gay marriage.
I am going to marry three hot chicks personally. That's not three separate marriages - that's one marriage with four people inside it.