High stakes as Supreme Court considers same-sex marriage case

[1robin]

Yes, but this seems very location specific, for what concerns gay marriage. And it is different from giving a drivers licence to a drunken person, for I am not sure whose safety is in danger when homosexuals marry.

It is not location specific that laws include qualifications as to how they apply. It is a universal fact. It is location specific as to which qualifications apply to which laws but I had not made any claims about any specific laws. I was merely showing that you definition of (equal under the law) was not accurate in this context.

I gave licensing as an example of laws that include qualifications. It was not an example of the specific qualifications involved in laws about homosexuality.

Take my original country for instance. We realized that there is no logical reason to prevent gays from marrying, based on the equality principle. Even the Lutheran church of Sweden is happy to marry gays.

I only point out the extreme illogic of accepting the unjustifiable destruction of homosexual sex. Homosexual marriage is not usually on my radar. My only about it is that since history has been dominated by an almost universal non-acceptance of homosexual marriage (even among societies that allowed the sexual parts) that it is wise to demand more than an argument showing that that you or another don't see a reason to stop it. There should be a positive reason for accepting it. If anyone demands legal recognition and protected status then it is their burden to show positive reasons the rest of us should accept it.

BTW no behavior is justified by showing to extreme minorities (like other species or a few churches) that accept or practice it. If history is evidence for or against homosexuality then history is decidedly against it.

So, why do you guys insist in denying this basic right to homosexuals?

You or anyone has yet to show that they or anyone has any right. You have at most only suggested you see no reason to prevent it, no one has shown sufficient reason to accept it.

Is it because God said so?

There are such potentially negative consequences of homosexual activity (from the data that show it is accompanied by increased in sexual violence, infidelity, promiscuity, disease, increased health care costs, the breakdown of the tradition family unit, etc....) that I need a sufficient positive reason to validate it which so far has not been offered.

Why then do several churches marry gays in Europe?

The vast majority of Churches do not and have not. The only thing the fact a few do is that their professed convictions are so contradictory with their actions that have no credibility.

Do they believe in the wrong God?

They certainly are obeying the wrong God. They chose the God of political correctness or social fashion over the God they claim to have faith in.

BTW I have not been making a theological argument. I am only making theological comments because you are asking.

How are we supposed to know that it is so since they think you believe in the wrong one?

Two people can claim and actually believe in the same God and yet one or both can still completely contradict a specific teaching of that God.

Is questioning of a theological argument I have not made, actually the best reason you can give why I should accept the legal validation of a practice so controversial society in general has denied it, really the best argument you have?

I have quite often noticed that the defense of homosexual issues almost always involves the judgment of something else instead of it its self.

I did not give any argument against homosexual marriage nor a theological argument of any kind. Yet these are the only subjects you have mentioned. I did point out the lack of a sufficient positive argument for legal validation yet this is the thing you have not mentioned.

You say that without God, morality has no sense. Fine. My ex-pastor marries gays, now what? Should I give him a book of Chesterton so that he changes his mind? Lol.

Nope, even without God morality can make at least some sense, what it cannot be is actually true. It makes sense to without God say murder is wrong, it however is not actually true that without him murder is actually wrong. Moral theory certainly suffers without God to a massive degree but it does not lack all rationality.

Fact is, the civilized world is going there. And that includes your country. So, you are losing, basically. In a couple of generations your attitude agains gay marriage will be treated it in the same way you would treat people today who believe that black and whites, or Jews and not Jews, etc. should not marry. Someone who confused the "ought not" with the "ought".

The fact is it would not make it right or wrong if the entire world went there or went the opposite direction.

And, more importantly, we believe that it is right so. We believe that we "ought" to allow gays to marry. And if the sense of right and wrong comes from God, then God wants it too. For, if you do not agree, you just give addtional evidence that your so-called objective morality does not exist.

Claiming you ought to be able to do X does nothing to demonstrate you ought to. Nature 9without God) cannot ever tell anyone what ought to be done.

You will probably say that thinking that something wrong is right is a sign of moral bankruptcy. But by doing that, you would only beg the question. Like Chesterton, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

Like Chesterton? You cannot dismiss him despite my efforts to indoctrinate you with him one day then use him against me another. Not fair.

 

[JoStories]

Verily, verily I say to you (lol). Religion does not have a lot to do with it. For, why should anyone be scared by secular decisions if they know that they will be vindicated in the afterlife?

It just hurt their feelings that two people (usually males) do those things under the so-called sacrality of marriage.

If they were coherent, they just should pray and rely on the alleged reliablity of God being able to implement His cosmic plan, instead of being active on the public arena and discriminate people. Something like "God I do not agree, but I am a fallible human. Let thy will be done".

Alas, they know exactly that prayers might not suffice, lol.

Ciao

- viole

Madame, in no way was I responding to you. It was a general statement and is very often true when it comes to Christians thought on SSM. You are more than free to disagree but I didn't mean to have this apply to you. Not sure why you thought it did, unless you are one of the Christians who do believe SSM is a parody and so on. If the fact that I find homophobia to be bigoted and highly prejudiced offends you, I am not about to change my opinion. It IS bigoted. It IS wrong. And unconstitutional. But again, what I stated was my opinion and unless that it now against forum rules, I owe no one an apology.

 

[JoStories]

It is not location specific that laws include qualifications as to how they apply. It is a universal fact. It is location specific as to which qualifications apply to which laws but I had not made any claims about any specific laws. I was merely showing that you definition of (equal under the law) was not accurate in this context.

I gave licensing as an example of laws that include qualifications. It was not an example of the specific qualifications involved in laws about homosexuality.


I only point out the extreme illogic of accepting the unjustifiable destruction of homosexual sex. Homosexual marriage is not usually on my radar. My only about it is that since history has been dominated by an almost universal non-acceptance of homosexual marriage (even among societies that allowed the sexual parts) that it is wise to demand more than an argument showing that that you or another don't see a reason to stop it. There should be a positive reason for accepting it. If anyone demands legal recognition and protected status then it is their burden to show positive reasons the rest of us should accept it.

BTW no behavior is justified by showing to extreme minorities (like other species or a few churches) that accept or practice it. If history is evidence for or against homosexuality then history is decidedly against it.

You or anyone has yet to show that they or anyone has any right. You have at most only suggested you see no reason to prevent it, no one has shown sufficient reason to accept it.

There are such potentially negative consequences of homosexual activity (from the data that show it is accompanied by increased in sexual violence, infidelity, promiscuity, disease, increased health care costs, the breakdown of the tradition family unit, etc....) that I need a sufficient positive reason to validate it which so far has not been offered.




The vast majority of Churches do not and have not. The only thing the fact a few do is that their professed convictions are so contradictory with their actions that have no credibility.

They certainly are obeying the wrong God. They chose the God of political correctness or social fashion over the God they claim to have faith in.

BTW I have not been making a theological argument. I am only making theological comments because you are asking.

Two people can claim and actually believe in the same God and yet one or both can still completely contradict a specific teaching of that God.

Is questioning of a theological argument I have not made, actually the best reason you can give why I should accept the legal validation of a practice so controversial society in general has denied it, really the best argument you have?

I have quite often noticed that the defense of homosexual issues almost always involves the judgment of something else instead of it its self.

I did not give any argument against homosexual marriage nor a theological argument of any kind. Yet these are the only subjects you have mentioned. I did point out the lack of a sufficient positive argument for legal validation yet this is the thing you have not mentioned.

Nope, even without God morality can make at least some sense, what it cannot be is actually true. It makes sense to without God say murder is wrong, it however is not actually true that without him murder is actually wrong. Moral theory certainly suffers without God to a massive degree but it does not lack all rationality.

The fact is it would not make it right or wrong if the entire world went there or went the opposite direction.

Claiming you ought to be able to do X does nothing to demonstrate you ought to. Nature 9without God) cannot ever tell anyone what ought to be done.

Like Chesterton? You cannot dismiss him despite my efforts to indoctrinate you with him one day then use him against me another. Not fair.

Regarding your statement that homosexuality leads to disease, the downfall of of the family, prove it. And please, spare me the Christian apologists that state that gays were the cause of aids, and so on. I simply can't believe the things you state are still being believed. It boggles the mind.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That is not what I said. I said if someone claims that whatever is true of one group, by default applies to another group it is their burden to demonstrate this is actually true.

So how do you "demonstrate" that it is true that women deserve the vote as well as men? Or that black people deserve education in the same schools as white people?

It is mere lip service to say that because a man and a women can marry then this demonstrates a man and a man can or should.

Marriage is a right, protected and enforced by law. Can you give one good reason as to why a man and a man shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Even if you could make that argument 9which so far has not even been attempted), by the same logic then anyone can marry anything and demand society recognize in law the union. Did you know that people (with the exact same kind of argument that you allude to but never make) have not only demanded they be allowed to marry dogs, cows, dolls, plants, even the Eiffel tower and Berlin wall.

How does that work by the same logic? We're suggesting consenting adults be allowed to marry consenting adults. That's like saying if we want to make it standard medical practice to allow male doctors to be able to operate on female patients, by the same logic we should make it standard practice for male doctors to be able to operate on plant pots. How is that even remotely the same logic??

Once you start yelling that because group A does X then another group is justified in doing X (especially without giving any reason to believe it true) there is no longer any limit to anyone argument for anarchy.

Just like when we extended the right to vote to women, it meant that we suddenly had to extend the right to vote to walls, hamsters and clouds, which lead to a massive breakdown in society, right?

I have to ask again: are you serious? Do you honestly not see the difference between the right for a consenting adult to marry a consenting adult of the same gender and the right of a consenting adult to marry a dog? Do you HONESTLY believe that extending the right to marry to include same-sex couples MUST lead to some anarchic world where anybody is allowed to marry anything?? If so, then we might as well conclude this discussion here, because you're not worth debating with.

The argument is really very simple: Gay couples should be allowed to marry because their relationships are every bit as meaningful and worth recognizing as heterosexual relationships. It really is that simple. This argument you have is utterly nonsensical. You are literally just saying "why should we?", and believing that's an adequate response to treating people unequally. Your logic can be applied just as easily, and with just as much justification, to the emancipation of slaves, the right for women to vote, or interracial marriage. It's short sighted, ignorant, and profoundly self-serving. You have no actual argument.

 

[Shad]

So how do you "demonstrate" that it is true that women deserve the vote as well as men? Or that black people deserve education in the same schools as white people?


Marriage is a right, protected and enforced by law. Can you give one good reason as to why a man and a man shouldn't be allowed to marry?


How does that work by the same logic? We're suggesting consenting adults be allowed to marry consenting adults. That's like saying if we want to make it standard medical practice to allow male doctors who be able to operate on female patients, by the same logic we should make it standard practice for male doctors to be able to operate on plant pots. How is that even remotely the same logic??


Just like when we extended the right to vote to women, it meant that we suddenly had to extend the right to vote to walls, hamsters and clouds, which lead to a massive breakdown in society, right?

I have to ask again: are you serious? Do you honestly not see the difference between the right for a consenting adult to marry a consenting adult of the same gender and the right of a consenting adult to marry a dog? Do you HONESTLY believe that extending the right to marry to include same-sex couples MUST lead to some anarchic world where anybody is allowed to marry anything?? If so, then we might as well conclude this discussion here, because you're not worth debating with.

The argument is really very simple: Gay couples should be allowed to marry because their relationships are every bit as meaningful and worth recognizing as heterosexual relationships. It really is that simple. This argument you have is utterly nonsensical. You are literally just saying "why should we?", and believing that's an adequate response to treating people unequally. Your logic can be applied just as easily, and with just as much justification, to the emancipation of slaves, the right for women to vote, or interracial marriage. It's short sighted, ignorant, and profoundly self-serving. You have no actual argument.

He is using an appeal to consequences. He injects a belief into the basic argument, people will marry dogs, in order to scare away support for the basic argument in which "marring dogs" is not present.

 

[viole]

I only point out the extreme illogic of accepting the unjustifiable destruction of homosexual sex.

I am not trying to destroy homosexual sex.

Homosexual marriage is not usually on my radar. My only about it is that since history has been dominated by an almost universal non-acceptance of homosexual marriage (even among societies that allowed the sexual parts) that it is wise to demand more than an argument showing that that you or another don't see a reason to stop it. There should be a positive reason for accepting it. If anyone demands legal recognition and protected status then it is their burden to show positive reasons the rest of us should accept it.

History has been dominated by an almost universal non-acceptance of women rights. You might be surprised to notice how recently women were allowed to vote in the civilized world.

BTW no behavior is justified by showing to extreme minorities (like other species or a few churches) that accept or practice it. If history is evidence for or against homosexuality then history is decidedly against it.

Well, it is not an extreme minority here. The vast majority of Swedes belong to this church, by default. The only ones who agree with you are the Muslims.

You or anyone has yet to show that they or anyone has any right. You have at most only suggested you see no reason to prevent it, no one has shown sufficient reason to accept it.

Let's say that if I have the right to marry a man, I equally have the right to marry a woman. Plug in here your evidence that we have rights to marry, in general, and that homosexuals do not have it.

There are such potentially negative consequences of homosexual activity (from the data that show it is accompanied by increased in sexual violence, infidelity, promiscuity, disease, increased health care costs, the breakdown of the tradition family unit, etc....) that I need a sufficient positive reason to validate it which so far has not been offered.

Irrelevant. Do you have evidence that allowing gays to marry increases the risks of these evils, if any? Maybe I am too romantic, but I like to think that the marriage of two homo sapiens reduces promisquity. Especially when you have to pay the hell out in lawyers and divorces.

The vast majority of Churches do not and have not. The only thing the fact a few do is that their professed convictions are so contradictory with their actions that have no credibility.

They have a lot of credibily here. I think this is one of the reasons church attendance increased in Sweden by 50%. From 2% to 3% lol.

They certainly are obeying the wrong God. They chose the God of political correctness or social fashion over the God they claim to have faith in.

Well, I would like to hear the evidence that they are obeying the wrong God. They just focus more on love between two people instead of what they do in bed. I mean, do you really think that the creator of the Universe and all cares what you do in bed and with whom? You would forbid heteresexual marriage too, if you knew what some North Europeans do in bed, I suspect, lol.

BTW I have not been making a theological argument. I am only making theological comments because you are asking.

With theology you can prove anything and its opposite.

Two people can claim and actually believe in the same God and yet one or both can still completely contradict a specific teaching of that God.

True, fact is they say you are contradicting the true teaching of God. So, what should I believe?

Is questioning of a theological argument I have not made, actually the best reason you can give why I should accept the legal validation of a practice so controversial society in general has denied it, really the best argument you have?

It will not be controversial anymore reltively soon.

I have quite often noticed that the defense of homosexual issues almost always involves the judgment of something else instead of it its self.

For instance?

I did not give any argument against homosexual marriage nor a theological argument of any kind. Yet these are the only subjects you have mentioned. I did point out the lack of a sufficient positive argument for legal validation yet this is the thing you have not mentioned.

Two people loving each other should have the right to marry. Period. All the rest is obvious discrimination against people who had no choice in being attracted by members of the same sex.

Nope, even without God morality can make at least some sense, what it cannot be is actually true. It makes sense to without God say murder is wrong, it however is not actually true that without him murder is actually wrong. Moral theory certainly suffers without God to a massive degree but it does not lack all rationality.

i am not a moral realist, so it depends on what we mean with wrong. I identify wrongness with neural reponses, like pain. But the rest of the Universe does not care if I shoot a baby or have a headache, obviously.

The fact is it would not make it right or wrong if the entire world went there or went the opposite direction.

Cool, so I should not care of the historical record of opposition to gays. For, if a general shared belief does not tell me whether it is right or wrong, why do you mention it?

Claiming you ought to be able to do X does nothing to demonstrate you ought to. Nature 9without God) cannot ever tell anyone what ought to be done.

You ought to allow gays to marry. Prove me objectively wrong.

Like Chesterton? You cannot dismiss him despite my efforts to indoctrinate you with him one day then use him against me another. Not fair.

Well, he also likes to speak of objective morality that is grounded of God, ergo about the objectification of something that appears to be a mass delusion with different flavors and no evidence whatsoever to exists. Basing morality on God has the same epistemological value as basing it on the tooth fairy or Bigfoot. So yes, I feel perfectly entitled to dismiss him, sorry.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Akivah]

So you know the definition of "semantics"? Where did I loose you? Your entire argument at this point is about the use of a word. It's absolutely pathetic.

Not at all. My position is logical and consistent.

A marriage can only consist of a joining of a man and a woman, thus homosexuals can't be married. However, two people can choose to live together, love each other, and assign property as they wish. Thus, two people of the same sex can be together however they want to arrange it, but it can't be a marriage.

 

[Akivah]

And if they are willing to legally commit to each other, what kinds of rights do you believe they should have as part of this commitment?

Whatever rights they want to assign to each other, it's up to them on an individual basis. But in the end, it is just a faux union, no more than two friends.

 

[Katzpur]

You posted your answer to my question as part of your post, which makes it confusing to the reader. You might want to change that while you can.

 

[Akivah]

Separate but equal is NOT constitutional.

Their union can be no more a marriage than a man marrying a houseplant or a women marrying a girl. A man can legally assign his property to a houseplant, but it won't be a marriage.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not at all. My position is logical and consistent.

A marriage can only consist of a joining of a man and a woman, thus homosexuals can't be married. ...

It's only logical and consistent when applied to true Scotsmen.

 

[fantome profane]

Not at all. My position is logical and consistent.

A marriage can only consist of a joining of a man and a woman, thus homosexuals can't be married. However, two people can choose to live together, love each other, and assign property as they wish. Thus, two people of the same sex can be together however they want to arrange it, but it can't be a marriage.

The real question is should two ketchups be allowed to marry?

 

[RabbiO]

Their union can be no more a marriage than a man marrying a houseplant or a women marrying a girl. A man can legally assign his property to a houseplant, but it won't be a marriage.

You are aware, of course, of the Conservative movement's position regarding same sex marriage which is contrary to your own.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Their union can be no more a marriage than a man marrying a houseplant or a women marrying a girl. A man can legally assign his property to a houseplant, but it won't be a marriage.

Why not? Because your "tradition" says so? You arguments they used to use against interracial marriage, and guess what? Interracial couples get married, despite it going against "tradition," despite it going against "religion," and they only people who are bothered by it are bigots, and one day society will inevitably reach a point where it is the majority consensus that those who oppose homosexual marriages are bigots.

 

[gsa]

Not at all. My position is logical and consistent.

A marriage can only consist of a joining of a man and a woman, thus homosexuals can't be married. However, two people can choose to live together, love each other, and assign property as they wish. Thus, two people of the same sex can be together however they want to arrange it, but it can't be a marriage.

Marriage is not just that. Heterosexual couples live together and have children without marriage. Marriage is a status conferred by the state, which defines and regulates it. When the state adopts a different definition, that's what marriage is.

 

[JoStories]

Not at all. My position is logical and consistent.

A marriage can only consist of a joining of a man and a woman, thus homosexuals can't be married. However, two people can choose to live together, love each other, and assign property as they wish. Thus, two people of the same sex can be together however they want to arrange it, but it can't be a marriage.

In your opinion. In the eyes of this country and of the world....Ireland just made SSM a law, gays can marry each other. That you don't agree is simply too bad. We deserve the same rights as you. That includes marriage, which means we can support our spouses and cover them with our insurances. Frankly, that you disapprove doesn't really matter. SSM shall become law and we shall have the same rights. It's about time.

 

[JoStories]

Whatever rights they want to assign to each other, it's up to them on an individual basis. But in the end, it is just a faux union, no more than two friends.

Are you married? Is your wife or husband just a friend? Or do you enjoy a relationship that includes sexual activity, shared activities that you both enjoy, etc? It is not one whit different for two gays. And that you don't understand that is sad.

 

[JoStories]

Why not? Because your "tradition" says so? You arguments they used to use against interracial marriage, and guess what? Interracial couples get married, despite it going against "tradition," despite it going against "religion," and they only people who are bothered by it are bigots, and one day society will inevitably reach a point where it is the majority consensus that those who oppose homosexual marriages are bigots.

Amen! Preach it!

 

[McBell]

A marriage can only consist of a joining of a man and a woman,

Says who?
Please keep in mind that your god has no sway in a court of law.

thus homosexuals can't be married. However, two people can choose to live together, love each other, and assign property as they wish. Thus, two people of the same sex can be together however they want to arrange it, but it can't be a marriage.

Seperate but equal has been proven to not work.

Besides, we are still waiting for you to present a legitimate legl reason to ban same sex mariage tht does not also apply to opposite sex marriage.

 

[Katzpur]

Are you married? Is your wife or husband just a friend? Or do you enjoy a relationship that includes sexual activity, shared activities that you both enjoy, etc? It is not one whit different for two gays. And that you don't understand that is sad.

I'm glad I read your signature before commenting on the font size you always use. Thank you for your explanation. I am going to make a point of responding to your posts in the future with a larger font myself.