Supreme Court overturns Texas Sodomy Law (w00t!)

[Joe DeFuria]

So by that argument, the establishment of a "religion" for homosexuals so that we can have our marital status recognized would be unconstitutional.

I said "religion of Tiumbuktoo" (and not somthing like "Religion of Homosexuality") for a reason.

I did not say you needed to have a "religion for homosexuals", nor do you need one. A religion can be sexual orientation agnostic with respect to marriage.

You are free to create your own religion. It may have NOTHING to do with sexuality at all.

The state may have laws against marriage between, say a 20 year old, and a 10 year old.

Is that unconstitutional? The "only way" such a marriage could be recognized is via a "religion" that has no issue with it...

 

[RussSchultz]

Are you that focused on calling what you want marriage that you cannot realize that this amendment seems to be promoting exactly what you want?

Uhm, please restate that. I don't understand what you're getting at.

This amendment is essentially stating that the states cannot regulate MARRIAGE, but are allowed to regulate civil unions. This would remove marriage (the religious institution) from any special legal considerations and all of the population would be involved in civil unions (according to the state)

And I'm asking if you're so focused on your relationship being called a 'marriage' that you're willing to throw away the baby with the bathwater?

 

[Natoma]

Marriage was once defined by "the people" as a union between those of the same race only. Anything other than that was considered illegal. Yay Anti-Miscegenation Laws.

Yet the Supreme Court struck down these laws as unconstitutional. It seems that sometimes "the people" need to be led kicking and screaming when it violates the constitution, even if they can't stand it.

Or maybe the constitution ought to be altered. Rather then force something on a society that does not want it change the fu*king document. That pretty much epitomizes the elitist top down social engineering mentality, thanks for that.

So basically you support anti-miscegenation because the supreme court decision making miscegenation legal was forced upon a society that didn't want it and did not want to change.

That pretty much epitomizes a bigoted social engineering mentality, thanks for that.

To hell with you that was a misquoted phrase. You are comparing to whole different discrepancies with your race based argument. Homosexuality is not a race issue. I support interracial arrangements. Homosexuality is an action not a skin color. You know I support interracial marriage I have even said it before.

EDIT: You will take note that I have edited that posting to take out your unrelated argument.

Yes, you support interracial arrangements today. Yet if you were born 100 years ago you could have easily used the same line of argumentation against interracial arrangements then. And been just as vehemently against them.

There's a reason society supported the Jim Crow Laws for 70 some odd years.

 

[Sabastian]

If denying homosexuals the right to marry makes you a bigot then none could be more so then I. Marriage is about the natural family, tradition, part of my culture. It is naturally a heterosexual arrangement and one of the pillars that our culture and society is built on. [sarcasm]Oh, those poor homosexuals who are discriminated against.[/sarcasm] .. Hey I am sexist because I think men and women are different and racist too because I think blacks have superior set of genes, I thought that I would point these other labels for me that you forgot.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

So basically you support anti-miscegenation because the supreme court decision making miscegenation legal was forced upon a society that didn't want it and did not want to change.

So basically you support marriage between brother and sister, mother and daughter, Father and Son, Father and Daughter, a 20 year old and a 9 year old....two 5 year olds that insist they want to be married to each other...

Because "society" has no place to legislate morals?

The point is, your continued "extension" of miscegnation to homosexual marriage is not some given, and it's quite insulting to believe it to be. Unless you also believe that we can extend homosexual marriages to incest, underage, etc.

 

[Natoma]

If denying homosexuals the right to marry makes you a bigot then none could be more so then I. Marriage is about the natural family, tradition, part of my culture. It is naturally a heterosexual arrangement and one of the pillars that our culture and society is built on. [sarcasm]Oh, those poor homosexuals who are discriminated against.[/sarcasm] .. Hey I am sexist because I think men and women are different and racist too because I think blacks have superior set of genes, I thought that I would point these other labels for me that you forgot.

I suggest you read up on Loving v. Virginia.

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

He believed, just as you do, that marriage is about natural family, tradition, and part of the culture. The natural family back then was members of the same race. The tradition had always been members of the same race. Segregation was part of every facet of the culture. So why was he wrong in his beliefs wrt interracial coupling and you aren't wrt gay marriages?

 

[Sabastian]

Yes, you support interracial arrangements today. Yet if you were born 100 years ago you could have easily used the same line of argumentation against interracial arrangements then. And been just as vehemently against them.

There's a reason society supported the Jim Crow Laws for 70 some odd years.

No you can't. You’re using the constitution to destroy a part of culture and legitimize actions that are widely and strongly believed to be absolutely wrong. It isn't about Jim Crow Laws and racism it is about societal morals with regards to the actions of homosexuals, it isn't even remotely close to racism. This isn’t about equal treatment but an equal outcome no matter what choice you make with regards to your actions.

 

[Natoma]

So basically you support anti-miscegenation because the supreme court decision making miscegenation legal was forced upon a society that didn't want it and did not want to change.

So basically you support marriage between brother and sister, mother and daughter, Father and Son, Father and Daughter, a 20 year old and a 9 year old....two 5 year olds that insist they want to be married to each other...

Because "society" has no place to legislate morals?

The point is, your continued "extension" of miscegnation to homosexual marriage is not some given, and it's quite insulting to believe it to be. Unless you also believe that we can extend homosexual marriages to incest, underage, etc.

First, you can't extend homosexual marriages to anything because homosexual marriages don't exist in this country. Besides, we've discussed the problems behind incest, not to mention the problems of marriage between two beings that don't understand the implications of what they're doing (two 5 year olds? c'mon). Btw, it is legal in some countries for young men and young women to be married as soon as they're capable of reproduction. I see nothing wrong with their cultural allowances wrt that.

 

[Natoma]

Yes, you support interracial arrangements today. Yet if you were born 100 years ago you could have easily used the same line of argumentation against interracial arrangements then. And been just as vehemently against them.

There's a reason society supported the Jim Crow Laws for 70 some odd years.

No you can't. You’re using the constitution to destroy a part of culture and legitimize actions that are widely and strongly believed to be absolutely wrong. It isn't about Jim Crow Laws and racism it is about societal morals with regards to the actions of homosexuals, it isn't even remotely close to racism. This isn’t about equal treatment but an equal outcome no matter what choice you make with regards to your actions.

And you don't think these same nebulous arguments were used against those who wanted to ban, and keep banned, interracial marriages? See a couple of posts up where I quoted the judge from the Loving v. Virginia case.

 

[Sabastian]

Funny that when gays finally get the right to marry the institution should become irrelevant, heh that is what they were looking for anyhow. Because they have set a president any arrangement is now acceptable.

 

[Sabastian]

And you don't think these same nebulous arguments were used against those who wanted to ban, and keep banned, interracial marriages? See a couple of posts up where I quoted the judge from the Loving v. Virginia case.

No, I am not even using God in my arguments at all never have. The argument is not based on race it is based on actions.

 

[Natoma]

Funny that when gays finally get the right to marry the institution should become irrelevant, heh that is what they were looking for anyhow. Because they have set a president any arrangement is now acceptable.

Hello gays are not some "group" far off there. I'm a human being trying to talk to you. I'm not trying to destroy anything. Neither is my partner. Neither are any of the other gay men and women I know fighting for the same thing.

All we want is to be included as equal citizens in the country we love.

 

[Natoma]

And you don't think these same nebulous arguments were used against those who wanted to ban, and keep banned, interracial marriages? See a couple of posts up where I quoted the judge from the Loving v. Virginia case.

No, I am not even using God in my arguments at all never have. The argument is not based on race it is based on actions.

Whether or not you're using god in your arguments is irrelevant. The reasoning was the same to keep interracial marriages banned. It's the same hateful, bigoted, exclusionary thinking that people have used in the past.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

First, you can't extend homosexual marriages to anything because homosexual marriages don't exist in this country.

You know what I mean.

Besides, we've discussed the problems behind incest,

And your problem with it infriged upon the right for incestual partners to be happy and "recognized". It doesn't make sense in light of your current arguments. They want to be recongized, why shouldn't they be?

not to mention the problems of marriage between two beings that don't understand the implications of what they're doing (two 5 year olds? c'mon).

c'mon nothing.

What do you care if they understand what it means to be married. Does ANYONE really, until they are married? Shouldn't they be able to have the same trials and tribulations as anyone else? What is your inherent problem with two people, who honestly feel that they want to be married?

Btw, it is legal in some countries for young men and young women to be married as soon as they're capable of reproduction. I see nothing wrong with their cultural allowances wrt that.

Now this is interestiong....What does reproduction have to do with marriage? Isn't that constiturionally discriminitory? There's no "qual treatment" between those who are old enough to reproduce, and those who can't! Homosexuals can't reproduce (with one another)....so you would support a law that bans marriages on that basis?

You are drawing arbitrary and contradictory lines about when it's "OK" for the state to saction marriage and when it's not OK. (That's basically my point to you.) The states have their own moral guidelines to sanction marriage. You are saying that "homosexual" is not a valid moral guideline to even consider on one hand, but incest and age is not only something that should be considered, but something you agree with.

 

[Sabastian]

And you don't think these same nebulous arguments were used against those who wanted to ban, and keep banned, interracial marriages? See a couple of posts up where I quoted the judge from the Loving v. Virginia case.

No, I am not even using God in my arguments at all never have. The argument is not based on race it is based on actions.

Whether or not you're using god in your arguments is irrelevant. The reasoning was the same to keep interracial marriages banned. It's the same hateful, bigoted, exclusionary thinking that people have used in the past.

Can homosexuals reproduce? Maybe nature is bigoted and exclusionary.

 

[Sabastian]

The argument I have put in front of you is not based on racism or religion. It is a choice/actions argument. There is a difference between choosing to be discriminated against based on your actions of which are widely disapproved of and of questionable value to society and being discriminated against for your skin color.

 

[Natoma]

And you don't think these same nebulous arguments were used against those who wanted to ban, and keep banned, interracial marriages? See a couple of posts up where I quoted the judge from the Loving v. Virginia case.

No, I am not even using God in my arguments at all never have. The argument is not based on race it is based on actions.

Whether or not you're using god in your arguments is irrelevant. The reasoning was the same to keep interracial marriages banned. It's the same hateful, bigoted, exclusionary thinking that people have used in the past.

Can homosexuals reproduce? Maybe nature is bigoted and exclusionary.

Can Senior Citizens reproduce? Can the infertile reproduce? Can the paralyzed reproduce? Maybe nature is bigoted and exclusionary.

 

[Natoma]

The argument I have put in front of you is not based on racism or religion. It is a choice/actions argument. There is a difference between choosing to be discriminated against based on your actions of which are widely disapproved of and of questionable value to society and being discriminated against for your skin color.

If sexuality is a choice then I suppose we're all bisexual and we choose who we want to be with. So are you bisexual Sabastian? Do two guys humping get you off like a guy and a girl? Can you choose equally between the two scenarios?

Most people can not.

 

[Sabastian]

Can Senior Citizens reproduce? Can the infertile reproduce? Can the paralyzed reproduce? Maybe nature is bigoted and exclusionary.

Oh, god. Old age is not an act, infertility is not an act, being paralyzed is not a action. Homosexuality is an action.

 

[Sabastian]

The argument I have put in front of you is not based on racism or religion. It is a choice/actions argument. There is a difference between choosing to be discriminated against based on your actions of which are widely disapproved of and of questionable value to society and being discriminated against for your skin color.

If sexuality is a choice then I suppose we're all bisexual and we choose who we want to be with. So are you bisexual Sabastian? Do two guys humping get you off like a guy and a girl? Can you choose equally between the two scenarios?

Most people can not.

lol, no. But I bet you could...