Dorkington Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I support polyamory (multiple consenting adults in a relationship), so I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of expanding marriage to more than two people, but realistically, and logistically, I think it should be limited to two consenting adults forming said government sponsored contract. There's certain benefits that'd get sloppy, but maybe that'll change in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 My point was that marriage, in the United States (the only relevant time, then, being 1776-present. Maybe the early 1700s if you want to stretch it), has always been a religious concept. That it was co-opted by religion however many thousands of years ago is irrelevant to the conversation. Actually, if you want to stretch it, it goes back to English common law. So maybe as early as the 1200s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 (edited) live and let live. not like they're likely to propagate the species. it's an unsustainable model but i don't really care. my belief is most folks are born that way. there is most certainly a spectrum of maleness and femaleness. it's not a conscious decision to live a difficult and ultimately sterile life. Edited June 27, 2015 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 So, if we had another Civil War over this would it be because the South hates gays? Would the zealots blame the South for clinging to Jesus? Or would anyone realize that it is ridiculous that the Federal Gov is forcing states to abide by laws made that were illegal and unjust? I am all for gay marriage. I am all for marrying a piano or a cardboard box. But, I am not in favor of the federal government telling my backwards state what to do. I support polyamory (multiple consenting adults in a relationship), so I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of expanding marriage to more than two people, but realistically, and logistically, I think it should be limited to two consenting adults forming said government sponsored contract. There's certain benefits that'd get sloppy, but maybe that'll change in the future. I tried that idea with a chick. She was just a very sexual girl, more about that then looks and such. She was a fun girl. All the other girls she found were fatties and gross. Now I just prefer my girls finding other hot girls to bring home once in a while. Only crazy fatties want a long term relationship with another man and/or couple. Stick just bringing home girls for fun with the main girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 (edited) Then you're not paying attention. I gave one. I re-read the thread thinking I must have missed your answer, but you just moved the responsibility of regulating gay marriage from the federal level to the state's, (which is what the topic is mostly about anyway so it's a perfectly valid point) but it doesn't answer the question of why the government shouldn't be allowed to dictate the terms as it desires. If asked, what valid objection (excluding religion) is there to government sanctioned same-sex marriages? I can't think of any. bottom line: Marriage is a government (historically) invention, so they should be allowed to redefine it. However, if the argument is that we should narrow the precedent to US law because it accepted the religious definition of marriage in the past, it still doesn't preclude the government's original right to change it's stance on it now. It's not like the government hasn't split from religious doctrine before. Edited June 27, 2015 by unbillievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 live and let live. not like they're likely to propagate the species. it's an unsustainable model but i don't really care. my belief is most folks are born that way. there is most certainly a spectrum of maleness and femaleness. it's not a conscious decision to live a difficult and ultimately sterile life. If we are to encourage (and legalize) every urge a person has because "they are born that way," the human race would cease to exist very quickly. Why hasn't the gay gene been bred out of humans if it's unlikely to propagate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I have no problem with it. But as Zach Galifiniakis said, "how about we outlaw gay divorce and see how much they want [gay marriage]." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 If we are to encourage (and legalize) every urge a person has because "they are born that way," the human race would cease to exist very quickly. Why hasn't the gay gene been bred out of humans if it's unlikely to propagate? I can't speak to the biology, but I'm quite certain that like miscegenation, your viewpoint will soon be history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 If we are to encourage (and legalize) every urge a person has because "they are born that way," the human race would cease to exist very quickly. Why hasn't the gay gene been bred out of humans if it's unlikely to propagate? ingrate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I have no problem with it. But as Zach Galifiniakis said, "how about we outlaw gay divorce and see how much they want [gay marriage]." I pissed off a Liberal yesterday. Yeah I know after I typed that sentence that it's not an unusual occurrence for me to piss off a Liberal. But anyways they were in gloat mode over the gay marriage ruling. And since I'm not a kool-aid drinking statist they assumed that i must be anti-gay marriage. while they were in gloat mode i was in meh mode. don't care, not a big deal. i'm more concerned about the repercussions of the Obamacare ruling. my meh attitude irritated them because it was putting a damper on their gloat So I asked her when she was getting married. She just rolled her eyes, huffed, shook her head and walked away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 It's not "gay marriage" it's just "marriage". If it bothers you, ignore it. It's really no-one's business. If you don't want to marry a homosexual - don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I can't speak to the biology, but I'm quite certain that like miscegenation, your viewpoint will soon be history. As the country moves further to the left, more people will be shoved to the right as the center line moves. There will come a day when the bleeding-heart liberals of today will be called a right-wing nut job by their grand children. Yesterday, we ended a debate that lasted 20yrs over an issue that is "none of our business" that affects less than 3% of the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 It's not "gay marriage" it's just "marriage". If it bothers you, ignore it. It's really no-one's business. If you don't want to marry a homosexual - don't. Don't ya get most people are actually not upset about htat issue they are upset that the Supreme Court and the Feds are telling us states what to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Actually, if you want to stretch it, it goes back to English common law. So maybe as early as the 1200s. Yeah I was thinking about that. But the same thing applies even then: marriage in England, since England has had rule of law, has always been a religious establishment. Your point is well-taken, however. Anyway, more Scalia quotes: The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their ‘reasoned judgment.’ These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution. GodDAMN, Scalia, you're on a ROLL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 https://www.yahoo.com/politics/white-house-buildings-across-the-country-light-up-122601444526.html Liberals use public building (including the White House) to gloat. Rainbow lights splashed across monuments. For a movement that demands we butt out of their private lives, they sure love to rub their "private lives" in everyone's faces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I don't get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 More "mass hysteria"............................ Someone mentioned this bit of news to me tonight. I didn’t believe it. But it’s true: The editorial board of PennLive/The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa. is taking a hardcore stance against those who disagree with the Supreme Court ruling to legalize gay marriage. “As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage,” they declared. After receiving strong pushback, the newspaper’s editorial board, which is overseen by Editorial Page Editor John Micek, quickly revised its policy. Freedom of speech will be allowed — but only for a “limited” period of time. Micek explained on Twitter: “Clarification: We will not foreclose discussion of the high court’s decision, but arguments that gay marriage is wrong/unnatural are out.” Read more. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Don't ya get most people are actually not upset about htat issue they are upset that the Supreme Court and the Feds are telling us states what to do? Yeah, like making interracial marriage and separate but equal illegal. This country is going to hell. Ha-rumph, ha-rumph. We need a country that preserves the sanctity of states rights over human rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts