Same Sex Marriage heads to the Supremes.

Page 2 of 4 [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

08 Dec 2012, 5:13 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
And, some White churches that won't let Black people get married there

http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/253107.html


And I'm sure the government mouthpiece for a regime that routinely tortures and murders its opponents really gives a fiddler's fart about black people in the U.S. being able to marry in churches.

It's still a disgusting policy, though. No question on that.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

08 Dec 2012, 5:14 pm

GGPViper wrote:
It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court reacts to this passage in the House Report on DOMA:

"For many Americans, there is to this issue of marriage an overtly
moral or religious aspect that cannot be divorced from the
practicalities. It is true, of course, that the civil act of marriage is
separate from the recognition and blessing of that act by a religious
institution. But the fact that there are distinct religious and civil
components of marriage does not mean that the two do not intersect.
Civil laws that permit only heterosexual marriage reflect and
honor a collective moral judgment about human sexuality.

This judgment entails both moral disapproval of homosexuality, and a
moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional
(especially Judeo-Christian) morality."

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-104hr ... rpt664.pdf


The DOMA has already been found to be unconstitutional

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national ... nal/58102/

I don't really see any legal or constitutional basis for not making homosexual marriage the law of the land. Does anyone have any counter-arguments to offer?



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

08 Dec 2012, 5:17 pm

ArrantPariah wrote:
GGPViper wrote:
It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court reacts to this passage in the House Report on DOMA:

"For many Americans, there is to this issue of marriage an overtly
moral or religious aspect that cannot be divorced from the
practicalities. It is true, of course, that the civil act of marriage is
separate from the recognition and blessing of that act by a religious
institution. But the fact that there are distinct religious and civil
components of marriage does not mean that the two do not intersect.
Civil laws that permit only heterosexual marriage reflect and
honor a collective moral judgment about human sexuality.

This judgment entails both moral disapproval of homosexuality, and a
moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional
(especially Judeo-Christian) morality."

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-104hr ... rpt664.pdf


The DOMA has already been found to be unconstitutional

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national ... nal/58102/

I don't really see any legal or constitutional basis for not making homosexual marriage the law of the land. Does anyone have any counter-arguments to offer?


The Appeals court can be overturned by the Supreme Court, you do realize that.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

08 Dec 2012, 5:55 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
The Appeals court can be overturned by the Supreme Court, you do realize that.


Of course. But, what would the legal/constitutional basis be?



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

08 Dec 2012, 7:58 pm

On the basis that the Defense of Marriage act is constitutional...



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,899
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 Dec 2012, 9:49 pm

But it can be argued DOMA makes homosexuals second class citizens. That clearly is wrong.
It must be remembered, slavery was at one time constitutionally recognized - but that didn't make enslaving blacks any less morally reprehensible.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Dec 2012, 9:55 pm

Morality does not determine what is constitutional. The contents of the constitution determine what is constitutional.

ruveyn



CyborgUprising
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,963
Location: auf der Fahrt durch Niemandsland

08 Dec 2012, 10:05 pm

While I can understand why people feel marriage is a "religious matter" (all the better for gernment to keep their slimy tendrils out of the issue and let people marry as they wish), denying persons benefits heterosexuals have based solely on sexual orientation is no different than denying African-Americans/blacks personhood status on account of their skin color. Let homosexuals marry and be allowed to see their spouses in the hospital, receive "marriage benefits" and be treated with dignity.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

08 Dec 2012, 10:13 pm

You can specify whom you want to allow to visit you while in the hospital...

Also the issue is that this will be used as it has been already to treat religious people as 2nd class citizens...

As I pointed out already.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,899
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 Dec 2012, 10:22 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Morality does not determine what is constitutional. The contents of the constitution determine what is constitutional.

ruveyn


But if that's totally the case, it can be argued that ending slavery was unconstitutional. Morality does matter, because it can be argued the constitutional protections were morally based.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

08 Dec 2012, 10:26 pm

Except there is nothing in the Bible stating that promotes slavery... Recognizes it exists, yes, but it doesn't state that it was a moral thing.

It is stated flat out that homosexual activity is immoral within the bible.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,119
Location: Stendec

08 Dec 2012, 10:28 pm

Personally, I'll be glad when the Supremes make their "final" decision, one way or the other.

Then maybe the churches can get back to important matters, like feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and so forth...


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,899
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

08 Dec 2012, 10:37 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Except there is nothing in the Bible stating that promotes slavery... Recognizes it exists, yes, but it doesn't state that it was a moral thing.

It is stated flat out that homosexual activity is immoral within the bible.


I was referring to more than just Biblical morality. After all, the protections offered by the constitution can hardly be found in the Bible, which was not written in a free society.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

09 Dec 2012, 9:15 am

Inuyasha wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
The Appeals court can be overturned by the Supreme Court, you do realize that.


Of course. But, what would the legal/constitutional basis be?


On the basis that the Defense of Marriage act is constitutional...


:roll:

No-one on the Supreme Court is just going to say "Duuuuuh! The Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional. Duuuuh!" Seriously! Not even Clarence Thomas!

There has to be at least SOME argument based upon SOME part of the U.S. Constitution! We aren't quite yet living in a total Idiocracy.

As far as I can tell, the only hope that the anti-Gay crowd ever had would have been if the Federal Marriage Amendment had become the law of the land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Marriage_Amendment

I'm expecting a slam-dunk unanimous decision making Homosexual Marriage legal throughout the USA.

Then, either everyone will shut up about it, or the Repugnicans will be turning it into a hot-button campaign issue for 2016.



Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 66,540
Location: Over there

09 Dec 2012, 9:24 am

Inuyasha wrote:
Except there is nothing in the Bible stating that promotes slavery... Recognizes it exists, yes, but it doesn't state that it was a moral thing.

It is stated flat out that homosexual activity is immoral within the bible.
Irrelevant cherry-picking, which makes it look like you're working to some bigoted agenda.
Like other people pushing an agenda, these equally idiotic parts of that same book are somehow ignored:

Quote:
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.


Cornflake
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 66,540
Location: Over there

09 Dec 2012, 9:30 am

Oh - and here's another one for you, Inuyasha:

Quote:
The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.
(attributed to Lynn Lavin)

Now, do you want to start using that grey mess trapped between your ears or are you just going to continue in your usual manner?


_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.