High stakes as Supreme Court considers same-sex marriage case

[1robin]

All right. I do understand how laws are often not applied equally. The current troubles in ferguson and Baltimore should make that clear to about anyone.

Your attempting to sensationalize my claims by making the fact that laws do and should depend on circumstances by equating that with racism. They are not equal and therefore this is a false equality and not an argument.

BTW what are you talking about specifically in Baltimore and ferguson? You seem to think making an appeal to racism justifies your position. Why?

Otoh, I don't agree it's right. So back to the topic. Do you oppose or not the SSM debate?

Ok so you agree that laws do and should include qualifiers but now you want to discuss what qualifications. Ok. Now I leave facts and venture into philosophy.

My personal view is that homosexuality should not be outlawed nor protected. If you are gay and want to love someone, live with them, etc.... then I would not attempt to deny you that. However if your demand the right to marry and become a protected class then that requires justification. If I claim a right, then I need a source for rights (just a Jefferson did in the declaration), and an argument that I am entitled to them. So your demanding a right, why should I or anyone think you actually have that right.

IMO, marriage is a universal right to any person who is an adult, of sound mind and loves whomever is their partner, meaning that gays, etc, have every right to marry under the auspices of the constitution. What is your view?

This is a claim to knowledge and is therefore your burden. You can claim rights all day, but you need an argument that demonstrates to society that you actually have them. That is what you must produce. Good luck, claims to actual rights are not easy to make.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

However if your demand the right to marry and become a protected class then that requires justification.

The constitution guarantees equal application of the law. Legally, congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion. Your religious views do not apply to everyone, thus no one who is not of your religion should be forced to and expected to adhere to your religious dogma. Our society calls the legal bindings and social ceremonies of joining people "marriage." There is no valid, logical, or rational reason to deny this to homosexuals just because your religion doesn't agree with it.

 

[McBell]

However if your demand the right to marry and become a protected class then that requires justification.

I completely disagree.
The right to marry has been denied to same sex couples.
Therefore, it is on those denying the right to marriage to justify their denial.

Now sense there is no legitimate legal reason to deny same sex couples marriage that does not also apply opposite sex couples, the court is going to have to either rule same sex marriage bans are illegal or that ALL marriage is illegal.

Which route do you suspect they will take?

 

[1robin]

The constitution guarantees equal application of the law. Legally, congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion. Your religious views do not apply to everyone, thus no one who is not of your religion should be forced to and expected to adhere to your religious dogma. Our society calls the legal bindings and social ceremonies of joining people "marriage." There is no valid, logical, or rational reason to deny this to homosexuals just because your religion doesn't agree with it.

Since my original claim was not a theological one then I will not respond to this response which mistakenly assumed my claim was theological.

If some group of people demand protection or recognition from society or government then it is that groups burden to justify it. Groups are not granted protection and recognition by default. So you must supply a reason that a practice must be recognized by law, it is not a matter of showing no reason a group should be denied. It must be showed that it should be recognized and validated by law.

Also the constitution does not grant that all are equal under the law in all ways. Almost all laws have exceptions and applications that include qualifications (Lincoln famously made this crystal clear). Bing equally under the law does not imply that all are treated universally by law. In fact any law that did would immoral. If you back up a bit I have covered what equality under the law actually means in great detail.

I never said because anyone should deny homosexual marriage because my religion denies it (though that is a reasonable argument to make). I said there exists no sufficient reason to grant them recognition in this context, at least none have been given so far. Saying that whatever is true for heterosexuals by default is true for homosexuals is no more justified than saying whatever is true between a women and a man should be true between a person and an animal or plant. This mistaken reasoning also flies in the face of most of societal history.

It is for the one demanding the right to show the right exists and that they have it.

 

[gsa]

And ergo, why I am sad with the court's ruling.

You want the courts to invoke religion, morality and tradition when determining the scope of political and civil rights? I would think that Jews might be particularly hesitant to embrace that logic. And the overwhelming majority are of course, if polling is any indicator.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Making changes to the way of doing things doesn't automatically mean that the change will be better than what was. No person can be sure of all the ramifications and effects to this change.

Here are the ramifications: Gay couples will be allowed to marry and have the same rights as married heterosexual couples.

There you go. Now, care to list off any potential negative ramifications you think could result from this?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I never said because anyone should deny homosexual marriage because my religion denies it (though that is a reasonable argument to make). I said there exists no sufficient reason to grant them recognition in this context, at least none have been given so far. Saying that whatever is true for heterosexuals by default is true for homosexuals is no more justified than saying whatever is true between a women and a man should be true between a person and an animal or plant.

So, you think there is no more justification for regarding heterosexual relationships between two consenting adults as equal to homosexual relationships between two consenting adults, than there is in regarding heterosexual relationships between consenting adults as equal to relationships between a human being and an animal or plant?

Are you serious?

 

[JoStories]

So, you think there is no more justification for regarding heterosexual relationships between two consenting adults as equal to homosexual relationships between two consenting adults, than there is in regarding heterosexual relationships between consenting adults as equal to relationships between a human being and an animal or plant?

Are you serious?

She is flame. Very serious. The sad thing is that many people have this irrational fear of two adults....consenting adults who love as deeply and truly as any one else...getting married and enjoying the same rights that they have. It's no different than slavery or the internment of people due to race or sexual orientation. It's disgusting and pure and simple unequal rights due to religious belief that presumes to keep people like me from enjoying those rights. She would rather have seen my partner die. It's murder, by condescension.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So as I stated, homosexuals can already get any rights that married people get automatically, they just have to file extra paperwork.

If a hospital did that, then that should be fixed by law.

So you aren't really opposed to same-sex marriage; you just want same-sex couples to pay special "taxes" to lawyers in order to get it?

What paperwork should a person file to sponsor their foreign same-sex partner for immigation?

 

[1robin]

So, you think there is no more justification for regarding heterosexual relationships between two consenting adults as equal to homosexual relationships between two consenting adults, than there is in regarding heterosexual relationships between consenting adults as equal to relationships between a human being and an animal or plant?

Are you serious?

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. 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. 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. 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.

You did not make any arguments above. You merely used your preference to decide what you wish was true, then offered up mere platitudes to justify it. Laws are not based on mere consent. I must pay taxes whether I consent or not, murder is not legal even if ten thousand people consent to commit one, it is not legal to have an abortion with a coat hanger in an alley even if both the doctor and patient consent.

 

[fantome profane]

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.

I disagree. If someone wishes to deny equal treatment to one group then the burden is on them to provide justification for doing so. And so far those who oppose same sex marriage have utterly and embarrassingly failed to provide any justification for doing so. And sometime next month the supreme court is going to rule that there is no justification for banning same sex marriage and that will be that.

 

[Akivah]

So, you have nothing against gay people filling their paperwork to be married, like you did, right?

- viole

I have nothing against homosexual people filing out paperwork to legally commit to each other. It just shouldn't be called a marriage.

 

[fantome profane]

I have nothing against homosexual people filing out paperwork to legally commit to each other. It just shouldn't be called a marriage.

I think it is so pathetic that your entire argument gets reduced to semantics.

 

[viole]

The site lost my initial reply so this is an abbreviated version. As Lincoln so famously made clear America has never (nor should any legal system or moral system) apply equally in all ways. For example all of us are equally subjected to laws concerning driving, but not equally treated in all ways by those laws. Is not an everyone can drive or no one can situation, it is a situation where circumstances like, age, ability, need, and capacity determine whether it is legal to drive. So any argument that all are treated equally by law is a non issue to begin with. No set of laws are applied equally in all ways nor would they be.

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.

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.

So, why do you guys insist in denying this basic right to homosexuals? Is it because God said so? Why then do several churches marry gays in Europe? Do they believe in the wrong God? How are we supposed to know that it is so since they think you believe in the wrong one?

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.

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".

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.

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

 

[Akivah]

I think it is so pathetic that your entire argument gets reduced to semantics.

What do you mean? Though I believe homosexuals can't be married, I do believe that they can commit to each other and live with each other.

 

[viole]

I have nothing against homosexual people filing out paperwork to legally commit to each other. It just shouldn't be called a marriage.

Why not?

The prime minister of Luxemburgh just married his partner. Nobody cares.

Why do you care?

Ciao

- viole

 

[fantome profane]

What do you mean? Though I believe homosexuals can't be married, I do believe that they can commit to each other and live with each other.

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.

 

[Katzpur]

I have nothing against homosexual people filing out paperwork to legally commit to each other. It just shouldn't be called a marriage.

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? Which rights of a married heterosexual couple do you believe they should not be entitled to -- other than the right to use the word "marriage" to describe their commitment?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have nothing against homosexual people filing out paperwork to legally commit to each other. It just shouldn't be called a marriage.

Separate but equal is NOT constitutional.

 

[viole]

She is flame. Very serious. The sad thing is that many people have this irrational fear of two adults....consenting adults who love as deeply and truly as any one else...getting married and enjoying the same rights that they have. It's no different than slavery or the internment of people due to race or sexual orientation. It's disgusting and pure and simple unequal rights due to religious belief that presumes to keep people like me from enjoying those rights. She would rather have seen my partner die. It's murder, by condescension.

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