Law US Supreme Court OKs gay marriage in all 50 states

[Kiddo716]

Can't believe this thread is still going when in reality it should've ended 125 pages ago.

It's pretty simple, yet seems so complicated for some folks.

Homosexuality is abnormal n defective sexual behaviour n should never be compared in any shape n form to heterosexual one (the one that actual procreates n keeps us alive).

Any reasonable n responsible govt should promote n encourage relationships that leads to procreation (big problem in majority of western countries where replacement rate is way too low) n not the ones with sole purpose being self indulgent sexual behaviour.

But all you gotta do is look at some responses here:

"Fuck having kids, all you gotta do adopt abroad"

What kind of moronic loser mentality is that?

Soon western world will have to address this self destructive mentality.

so only relationships that produce offspring are the only ones can get married? what about hetero couples that can't conceive? adoption is their only option. and there are plenty of kids out there who need a loving home (hetero and homo alike).

 

[grimballer]

It is affecting us right now. It's being used to wipe out Christianity and Biblical morality. Things do not look good for the future of the USA.

Hey man, me myself am not religious at all, but even I can admit that religion teaches basics that should be common sense to everybody.

Most of these ppl desperately need some sort of compass to guide them in life cause their ideas and reasoning are completely off

 

[grimballer]

so only relationships that produce offspring are the only ones can get married? what about hetero couples that can't conceive? adoption is their only option. and there are plenty of kids out there who need a loving home (hetero and homo alike).

Don't be a wise ass

Are we really comparing ppl who can't conceive kids cause of medical reasons to ppl who CHOOSE NOT TO conceive cause they are only concerned with sexual gratification?

Think about that for a second

Also when we talking about being unable to conceive:

We are comparing maybe 5% of hetero population to 100% of homo population.

So not same thing at all

 

[Kiddo716]

Don't be a wise ass

Are we really comparing ppl who can't conceive kids cause of medical reasons to ppl who CHOOSE NOT TO conceive cause they are only concerned with sexual gratification?

Think about that for a second

Also when we talking about being unable to conceive:

We are comparing maybe 5% of hetero population to 100% of homo population.

So not same thing at all

ah, but here's the rub. homosexuals make up less than 5% of the population. we're talking about a similar amount of people. also, what's wrong with choosing not to have offspring while being in a committed relationship? are you also willing deny the right to marry to those who don't want kids?

 

[Francis Rossi]

Rip, you're a Birther as well?!

That pretty much hammers the nail in the coffin.

 

[ripskater]

That pretty much hammers the nail in the coffin.

Far from it. I'm still here Francis.

 

[Mike]

Uh, I support SSM but this is kind of silly. The nature of marriage certainly has changed enough to accommodate gay unions but it actually used to be about procreation and raising children.

Um, they didnt really start pushing for it until, the late 90s/early 2000s. By then the concept of marriage had been firmly separate from reproduction for some time. As a society we should have just said yrah, that seems reasonable. I didn't really think I had to explain the context, I thought it was pretty clear we weren't talking about the 1800s or something.

 

[grimballer]

ah, but here's the rub. homosexuals make up less than 5% of the population. we're talking about a similar amount of people. also, what's wrong with choosing not to have offspring while being in a committed relationship? are you also willing deny the right to marry to those who don't want kids?

K... N you'll find around same % of ppl attracted to pre teens, so what's your point here? It's still abnormal and defective behaviour that's self destructive in nature.

Also you're again comparing apples to oranges

If a hetero couple chooses not to have kids it's their business. Not expecting the govt to go full nazi n pressure couples to have kids. Govt however should give all the incentives n advantages possible for couples to have kids n in western society it's very much needed with low birth rates.

On the other hand homo couples simply can't give you what hetero couples can, so there is no point in grating them same rights or better yet same advantages.

By promoting ssm, you pretty much promote that nihilist mentality like we see in this thread

"Fuck the trouble of having kids. Let's just adopt"

 

[Kiddo716]

K... N you'll find around same % of ppl attracted to pre teens, so what's your point here? It's still abnormal and defective behaviour that's self destructive in nature.

Also you're again comparing apples to oranges

If a hetero couple chooses not to have kids it's their business. Not expecting the govt to go full nazi n pressure couples to have kids. Govt however should give all the incentives n advantages possible for couples to have kids n in western society it's very much needed with low birth rates.

On the other hand homo couples simply can't give you what hetero couples can, so there is no point in grating them same rights or better yet same advantages.

By promoting ssm, you pretty much promote that nihilist mentality like we see in this thread

"Fuck the trouble of having kids. Let's just adopt"

what's wrong with adoption, especially if they can't have their own (hetero and homo alike)? there are literally over 100,000 kids waiting to be adopted. you'd rather they stay in a foster home than be adopted by a loving couple (regardless of sexual orientation)?

 

[Mike]

What a lot of you guys don't seem to grasp, is gays didn't start pressing for marriage rights until after the concept of marriage had already changed.


It hasn't been solely tied to reproduction or religion for some time now. It is tied to a ton of practical domestic benefits that ant long term couple needs access to. It's these benefits that the vast majority are looking for access to.


Blame the government for not allowing these benefits in common law relationships if you want to blame someone.



If you care about silly titles so much, lobby the church to make a new title like: I always feel like somebody's watching me marriage, big brother marriage, super saiyan marriage, etc. Then you can use that for church sanctioned marriages and still feel superior. I know that's so important to you guys.

 

[grimballer]

what's wrong with adoption, especially if they can't have their own (hetero and homo alike)? there are literally over 100,000 kids waiting to be adopted. you'd rather they stay in a foster home than be adopted by a loving couple (regardless of sexual orientation)?

There is nothing wrong with adoption IF YOU CANT HAVE YOUR OWN.

However if you can have, but just choose not to, then there's a problem n govt shouldn't be supporting that kind of behaviour.

 

[JDragon]

There is nothing wrong with adoption IF YOU CANT HAVE YOUR OWN.

However if you can have, but just choose not to, then there's a problem n govt shouldn't be supporting that kind of behaviour.

Good to know you support gay adoption for infertile gay couples.

 

[Kiddo716]

There is nothing wrong with adoption IF YOU CANT HAVE YOUR OWN.

However if you can have, but just choose not to, then there's a problem n govt shouldn't be supporting that kind of behaviour.

again, ss couples can't have their own (outside artificial insemination in lesbians), so they have to adopt.

and what if the couple would rather adopt a child in need instead of having their own? as already stated, there's tons of kids in need of a home. these people are simply trimming away at the family-less kids.

 

[grimballer]

Good to know you support gay adoption for infertile gay couples.

Funny how far you have to reach to prove some kind of point.

How about promoting natural family unit? Is that too much to ask nowdays?

Or are you some kind social hipster who's only concerned with going against social norms n advocates for things that are as far from common sense as possible?

 

[JDragon]

Funny how far you have to reach to prove some kind of point.

How about promoting natural family unit? Is that too much to ask nowdays?

Or are you some kind social hipster who's only concerned with going against social norms n advocates for things that are as far from common sense as possible?

LOL. I'm happily married in a traditional hetero marriage.

It really wasn't until I followed the discussions here in the WR that I made my mind up about SSM. Thank you all for making it so easy.

Here's the deal: Promote the natural family unit. Do it! I'm absolutely cool with that.

But don't tell others what to do when they do no harm.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Alito:
The Constitution says nothing about a right to same-sex marriage, but the Court holds that the term “liberty” in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment encompasses this right. Our Nation was founded upon the principle that every person has the unalienable right to liberty, but liberty is a term of many meanings. For clas-sical liberals, it may include economic rights now limited by government regulation. For social democrats, it may include the right to a variety of government benefits. For today’s majority, it has a distinctively postmodern meaning.

To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has held that “liberty” under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradi-tion.’” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 701, 720–721 (1997). And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights. See United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S.




Scalia:
If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began:

​

'The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.



Thomas:
Nor, under the broader definition, can they claim that the States have restricted their ability to go about their daily lives as they would be able to absent governmental restrictions. Petitioners do not ask this Court to order the States to stop restricting their ability to enter same-sex relationships, to engage in intimate behavior, to make vows to their partners in public ceremonies, to engage in religious wedding ceremonies, to hold themselves out as married, or to raise children. The States have imposed no such restrictions. Nor have the States prevented petition-ers from approximating a number of incidents of marriage through private legal means, such as wills, trusts, and powers of attorney.

Instead, the States have refused to grant them govern-mental entitlements. Petitioners claim that as a matter of “liberty,” they are entitled to access privileges and benefits that exist solely because of the government. They want, for example, to receive the State’s imprimatur on their marriages—on state issued marriage licenses, death certif-icates, or other official forms. And they want to receive various monetary benefits, including reduced inheritance taxes upon the death of a spouse, compensation if a spouse dies as a result of a work-related injury, or loss of consor-tium damages in tort suits. But receiving governmental recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any un-derstanding of “liberty” that the Framers would have recognized

 

[JDragon]

^ yet none of this matters because the SCOTUS has spoken.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

They invented law.


Just remember that when the slope starts sliding down hill.

 

[Kiddo716]

they invented nothing. 14th amendment, equal protection.

 

[JDragon]

They invented law.

This is an invented argument.

Whenever a Supreme Court decides on a matter, it de facto creates new law. It decides on matters that have not finally been decided before and therefore settles the matter.

It therefore is a hollow arguments used mainly by politicians of all colors in all countries that have a constitutional court. Whenver the Court tells them they fucked up on a law, they go rabid and yell 'they have dem quasi-legislative powerz!!1!' but that really is the point of having a court that interpretes the constitution.