High stakes as Supreme Court considers same-sex marriage case

[Akivah]

All of your bluster and silly counter arguments will not matter as very shortly, as people will be able to marry whomever they wish, including gays. Without your biased objections.

Yeah, I see that you have no bias at all. /sarcasm off

I know it is going this way. As I stated from the start, I consider it a very sad moment for the USA.

 

[Akivah]

Ooh, like slavery, war, environmental degradation, "might makes right", rape, ......
Tom

No, like morality, freedom, and peace.

 

[Marisa]

No, like morality, freedom, and peace.

The great thing about equality is that you get to practice you're brand of morality without shoving it down the rest of our throats. If you think being gay is immoral, by all means don't be gay. Rest assured none of us will give a flying fart in space.

 

[McBell]

No, like morality, freedom, and peace.

rotflmao

So your claim is that morality, freedom, and peace have "always stood the test of time"?
Other than the concepts existing...

 

[Akivah]

Why not? It's very common throughout history, and as long as it's consensual, on what grounds is their to judge them as wrong?

One man and one woman is also very common throughout history. On what grounds do you judge me wrong?

 

[Akivah]

Rest assured none of us will give a flying fart in space.

I haven't noticed it. Many people here are very concerned with what I think.

 

[McBell]

One man and one woman is also very common throughout history. On what grounds do you judge me wrong?

On the grounds that you have not presented anything to show you are right outside your own imagination.

 

[fantome profane]

One man and one woman is also very common throughout history. On what grounds do you judge me wrong?

And it will continue to be the most common form of marriage. Allowing same sex marriage will not change that.

 

[JoStories]

Yeah, I see that you have no bias at all. /sarcasm off

I know it is going this way. As I stated from the start, I consider it a very sad moment for the USA.

Forgive me but too bad. I have every right to marry whom I wish. If I had had that right 15 years ago, my partner would be alive today. Are you honestly stating that some citizens are second class and deserve to die because of an antiquated man made book? Keep in mind, this is a secular country, not a theocracy. I do have bias, I admit that, in that I would like to see everyone afforded the same rights that you have. And if you find that sad, I suggest you try to find a country that denies SSM and move there. I believe there are far more important issues that make this country a sad one, such as the overt acceptance of elder abuse, the abysmal state of our educational system, no national healthcare, no serious gun control and the propensity to dive right into wars we have no damned business being in, and also that too many children can't get enough to eat. SSM pales by comparison.

 

[Akivah]

Actually, it's most likely been polygamous, a quick read throughout the bible and a look into the lives of early european kings tends to back that up .

I suspect the percent of the population of European Kings was a very small part of the total. That you can point to a few deviances doesn't support the majority.

 

[Marisa]

I haven't noticed it. Many people here are very concerned with what I think.

Who you sleep with is of less concern to most people than whom you'd deny basic rights. I didn't think it was that difficult of a concept to grasp.

 

[gsa]

I suspect the percent of the population of European Kings was a very small part of the total. That you can point to a few deviances doesn't support the majority.

Polygamy is a longstanding historical practice. The Greeks and Romans were exceptions to the rule, and probably only because they provided various sexual outlets for married men that did not constitute adultery. Namely, sex with male and female slaves, and the wives had no recourse if they objected to the practice (nor did the slaves). Monogamy is certainly not an institution favored by Semitic groups prior to contact with Rome.

 

[Akivah]

Who you sleep with is of less concern to most people than whom you'd deny basic rights. I didn't think it was that difficult of a concept to grasp.

I'm unaware of any rights that homosexuals don't have. They can live with whomever they want, they can be with whomever they want, they can assign property to whomever they want, etc.

 

[Akivah]

Are you honestly stating that some citizens are second class and deserve to die because of an antiquated man made book?

Please provide a quote where I said that.
I'm stating as I always stated, homosexuals can be with whomever they want to be with. It just isn't a marriage.

Keep in mind, this is a secular country, not a theocracy.

I have yet to mention religion in this thread. It's everyone else who is doing so.

I do have bias, I admit that, in that I would like to see everyone afforded the same rights that you have.

You already got 'em. No law should prevent you from living with your loved one.

And if you find that sad, I suggest you try to find a country that denies SSM and move there.

Now who's being hateful? You want me out of my country because I have a different opinion than you.

 

[Akivah]

rotflmao

So your claim is that morality, freedom, and peace have "always stood the test of time"?
Other than the concepts existing...

You've taken this far afield from my original point.

I originally said that not all the changes are for the better. So referring to my brief comment above, I meant that peace changing to war is not a change for the better. Freedom changing to slavery is not a change for the better. Morality changing to immorality is not a change for the better. Thus, not all changes are for the better.

 

[Marisa]

I'm unaware of any rights that homosexuals don't have. They can live with whomever they want, they can be with whomever they want, they can assign property to whomever they want, etc.

They cannot have their marriages to spouses of the same gender recognized by all the states in the US. Like I can. Wills can be contested, or hadn't you heard? And in the absence of a SPOUSE, the next closest relative is usually considered the heir. Or the only person allowed to make medical decisions. But who wants that, right?

 

[Marisa]

You already got 'em. No law should prevent you from living with your loved one.

Are you married? Do you understand what legal protections marriage offers? You display a pretty typical ignorance of the protection the legal status of marriage offers to couples. It's not about simply living together.

 

[Marisa]

You've taken this far afield from my original point.

I originally said that not all the changes are for the better. So referring to my brief comment above, I meant that peace changing to war is not a change for the better. Freedom changing to slavery is not a change for the better. Morality changing to immorality is not a change for the better. Thus, not all changes are for the better.

Yep. I started out by asking you who is harmed by same sex marriage. Which would be an excellent way to measure the morality of a thing. You opted not to reply. Which gives me the impression that your objection is one of distaste. Incidentally, you haven't really given any argument against same sex marriage, except to repeat that you find it immoral.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You already got 'em. No law should prevent you from living with your loved one.

Generally, the law doesn't prevent someone from living with anyone they choose to. But that is not what marriage is about. There is no monopoly on the term, name, practices, rituals, or concepts that are or are roughly equivalent to marriage. It used to be that allowed inter-racial marriage would be the end of society, and, as you can see, it hasn't hurt anyone or anything.
Marriage affords many protections, tax exemptions, inheritance laws, medical decisions, and many other things. Generally you have to be married to someone for this to be taken care of without having to file a bunch of paper work. Even if some hospitals you have to be married to have visiting privileges under certain situations.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You've taken this far afield from my original point.

I originally said that not all the changes are for the better. So referring to my brief comment above, I meant that peace changing to war is not a change for the better. Freedom changing to slavery is not a change for the better. Morality changing to immorality is not a change for the better. Thus, not all changes are for the better.

This is all true. Now, what indicates to you that homosexual equality by allowing them the same right to marry as heterosexual couples is NOT a change for the better?