Supreme Court to Decide on Same-Sex Marriage

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Is interracial marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

The interracial marriages at issue were heterosexual relationships, and heterosexual relations are "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species. Interracial relationships fell in the circle of "survival" relationships; same-sex relationships fall outside it.

The Supreme Court can build upon the precedent and extend it.

That's the point. The Supreme Court would have to change its precedent to reach a pro-gay conclusion. The case law does not support a decision against the states.

Interracial marriages are not required for our very existence and survival as a species.

Try harder.

[Christian Democrats]

Marriage is secularly a contract to decide how the assets of the household are disposed if the union dissolves.

That's your subjective definition.

One just as easily can say, "Marriage is secularly a contract for exclusive sexual access, reproduction, and childrearing. Marriage means: if we ever have children together, we'll have certain rights and obligations on equal footing toward those children."

[Novorobo]

Why?

It's a fundamental right. See Loving v. Virginia.

Yes, the Supreme Court said that marriage is a fundamental right. When it used the word "marriage," it was referring to the definition of marriage at the time and the definition asserted by many today: the union of one man and one woman. Also, it declared marriage a fundamental right because it said that marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Is homosexuality "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

You're retroactively applying your modern definition to a word that did not have that meaning when it was used.

So you're condoning state-sponsored sex discrimination?

Marriage is secularly a contract to decide how the assets of the household are disposed if the union dissolves.

That's your subjective definition.

One just as easily can say, "Marriage is secularly a contract for exclusive sexual access, reproduction, and childrearing. Marriage means: if we ever have children together, we'll have certain rights and obligations on equal footing toward those children."

Such as adoption?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes, the Supreme Court said that marriage is a fundamental right. When it used the word "marriage," it was referring to the definition of marriage at the time and the definition asserted by many today: the union of one man and one woman. Also, it declared marriage a fundamental right because it said that marriage is "fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Is homosexuality "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

You're retroactively applying your modern definition to a word that did not have that meaning when it was used.

Folderol. You're applying a religious meaning to the word in a secular society, that has BEEN a secular society since its creation.

Do you not understand the First Amendment? Or the Treaty of Tripoli?

Do you REALLY have to ask?

[The United Territories of Providence]

I like the part where they got homosexuality declassified as a mental illness by protesting the APA incessantly rather than actually you know, use science.

Now we are at a a point today where people are claiming mental illnesses don't exist at all, nope it's just nuerodiversity! That's "progress" i guess:roll:

Sources por favor.

So people can choose to be Gay? Funny how it not being a choice used to be justification for why it wasn't wrong ,now that its mainstream people conveniatly drop that lie.
Homosexual sex is wrong and those who choose to engage it it are wrong.

I will admit the OP messed up with his wording on that end. But still no, we have shown that sexuality is not a choice.
Why is homosexual sex wrong?

Based on what? Obviously the founding fathers, the ones that wrote the constitution didn't think so, Thomas Jefferson thought that Homosexuals should be castrated.

The founding fathers also owned slaves and fought a war so they didn't have to pay taxes. They're also dead, so why should we care what they thought.

It's unconstitutional because it restricts our 9th amendment.

It is unnatural unless your definitionf for natural is "anything that occurs in nature", by that definition rape,necrophilia, incest and all other sorts of terrible things are also "natural". Most acts of Homosexuality in Nature involving males occur out of a display of dominance, more akin to prison rape than romance.

If you recognize that nature isn't pure and good, why do you care what is natural and what isn't?

Civil rights for all except those who disagree, that the point of this law right? Overturning what the people decided should be the law in their own states?

Laws that are based by tyranny by majority in state governments should be overturned by the federal government. State sovereignty is good and all until you start messing with other people's rights.

Yes look at our rising economy, racial harmony, adequate employment and infastructure.
I bet you live in nice mostly white community don't you?

No one said race relations were perfect. That doesn't change the fact that things are improving since the 1950s.

So it's NOT actually about marriage?
Didn't the first Gay married couple actually get divorced recently?

This has to do with people being treated equally regardless of sexuality, which does include marriage rights.

And so?

No, because their no point and this will end with more priests being force to perform ceremonies they find immoral or face legal reprocussions, how's that for civil rights

You don't know what marriage is do you?

I didn't mess up. I think sometimes you can choose to be gay, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Maybe not even necessarily gay, but just interested in engaging in sex with someone of the same gender, but not interested in having an actual relationship with love and emotions and pasta or what not. Homosexuality hurts no one, and if someone is born gay or chooses to be gay they should be treated just the same as a heterosexual person. I don't believe that the idea that sometimes people aren't born gay takes away from the argument for same-sex marriage. Gay is gay no matter how you get there.

[Benuty]

I hope you aren't talking to me.

Because we all know the Oedipus Complex is nothing, but good fiction.

I beg pardon? What are you talking about?

It seemed you were responding in a vague manner to both of us. I mean what else could "who gives a fuck?" stand for?

[Geilinor]

Is interracial marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

The interracial marriages at issue were heterosexual relationships, and heterosexual relations are "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species. Interracial relationships fell in the circle of "survival" relationships; same-sex relationships fall outside it.

The species would not cease to exist in the absence of marriage.

[Mavorpen]

The interracial marriages at issue were heterosexual relationships, and heterosexual relations are "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species. Interracial relationships fell in the circle of "survival" relationships; same-sex relationships fall outside it.


That's the point. The Supreme Court would have to change its precedent to reach a pro-gay conclusion. The case law does not support a decision against the states.

Interracial marriages are not required for our very existence and survival as a species.

Try harder.

Oh, and he also conveniently ignores that they said this right before the "fundamental to our very existence and survival" part:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

So it cites the Due Process Clause and states that the freedom to marry is "one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Funnily enough, we have the precedent set by SCOTUS when it comes to Due Process and homosexuality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
So yeah, not seeing ANY legitimate basis for Loving being a serious argument against gay marriage.

[54e]

I don't think the state should marry people. But if it must, then sure, let the homosexuals have at it (whether the court's inevitably convoluted decision will agree is obviously unclear).

I don't see why polygamy is still illegal?

[Christian Democrats]

The interracial marriages at issue were heterosexual relationships, and heterosexual relations are "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species.

You didn't answer my question. Are interracial marriages "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

Interracial relationships fell in the circle of "survival" relationships; same-sex relationships fall outside it.

No, they do not. Interracial relationships do not fall under it. Interracial relationships are not required for the species to exist and survive. And you know that. And that's why you don't want to answer a simple question.

The fundamental right to marry encompasses all relationships "fundamental to our very existence and survival."

White-white or black-black heterosexual relationships are subsets just as black-white relationships are a subset.

You're applying a religious meaning to the word in a secular society, that has BEEN a secular society since its creation.

It's not a religious definition of marriage; it's a valid definition of marriage. One of the most atheist countries in the developed world, Japan, has a constitution that defines marriage as a heterosexual relationship.

So you're condoning state-sponsored sex discrimination?

"[T]he two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one [sex] is different from a community composed of both." United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996) (quoting Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187, 193 (1946)).

[Tsaraine]

Many homosexual couples have children from earlier straight marriages, or they use surrogacy or IVF or adoption. So "homosexual" doesn't equal "incapable of having children". And even if it did, opposing marriage between people of the same gender on the grounds of "they can't have kids, therefore it's not vital to our survival" a) misses the secular legal and tax benefits attached to marriage by most nations, including the USA, and b) means that surely you also oppose marriage for infertile people, such as women past menopause, but c) of course not, because your argument is actually "gays are icky and I don't want to see or hear them, and would prefer to live in a world in which homosexuality did not exist".

[Benuty]

Tell me where do you get your myth worshipping ideals?

I get it from religion.

So you admit what exactly? That you are false about your ideals?

[Novorobo]

I don't think the state should marry people. But if it must, then sure, let the homosexuals have at it (whether the court's inevitably convoluted decision will agree is obviously unclear).

I don't see why polygamy is still illegal?

I think it has something to do with the fact that it's multiple relationships between multiple people, rather than the more clear-cut one relationship between two people. It's designed for the latter, and extending it to just any number of people could far more meaningfully be labelled arbitrary than to remove the sex-specific (and by extension sex-discriminatory) aspect of the definition.

"[T]he two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one [sex] is different from a community composed of both." United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996) (quoting Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187, 193 (1946)).

I see. So if the Supreme Court decides in favour of same-sex marriage, I suppose you'll be supporting that as well?

[Mavorpen]

The fundamental right to marry encompasses all relationships "fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Of which interracial marriage is not one. And you know that, evident by you refusing to answer a straightforward question.

White-white or black-black heterosexual relationships are subsets just as black-white relationships are a subset.

I'll ask a third time. Are interracial marriages "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

I get that you're stuck in your cycle of special pleading and cognitive dissonance, but it'd be nice for you to answer a simple question.

[Katganistan]

Whichever way this goes, it's a little sad that it won't have a name as good as Loving v. Virginia.

OMG IT'S ICKY v. US of America?

[Novorobo]

Whichever way this goes, it's a little sad that it won't have a name as good as Loving v. Virginia.

OMG IT'S ICKY v. US of America?

Maybe they could get Anthony Weiner involved?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Marriage is secularly a contract to decide how the assets of the household are disposed if the union dissolves.

That's your subjective definition.

One just as easily can say, "Marriage is secularly a contract for exclusive sexual access, reproduction, and childrearing. Marriage means: if we ever have children together, we'll have certain rights and obligations on equal footing toward those children."

Except the state hasn't defined it that way and thus it is irrelevant

[Katganistan]

Why would you want other people to be unjustly discriminated against?

It is not discrimination at all.

God, where did you learn history?!? What's with kids these days?!?!?!?

I learned it from my history teacher and internet sources.

Then your history teacher did a very poor job.

[United Russian Soviet States]

I get it from religion.

So you admit what exactly? That you are false about your ideals?

I did not admit that my ideas are false. You call it myth worship. I call it truth.

[Christian Democrats]

I'll ask a third time. Are interracial marriages "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

Damn, you're hard-headed. The Supreme Court said that the fundamental right to marry encompassed all relationships "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species. Any potentially procreative relationship falls under that heading.

[Geilinor]

So you're condoning state-sponsored sex discrimination?

"[T]he two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one [sex] is different from a community composed of both." United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996) (quoting Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187, 193 (1946)).

The decision you quote does not relate to same-sex marriage the way you think it does.

[Shaggai]

Marriage is secularly a contract to decide how the assets of the household are disposed if the union dissolves.

That's your subjective definition.

One just as easily can say, "Marriage is secularly a contract for exclusive sexual access, reproduction, and childrearing. Marriage means: if we ever have children together, we'll have certain rights and obligations on equal footing toward those children."

I'm pretty sure there's no law against extramarital sex.

[54e]

I don't think the state should marry people. But if it must, then sure, let the homosexuals have at it (whether the court's inevitably convoluted decision will agree is obviously unclear).

I don't see why polygamy is still illegal?

I think it has something to do with the fact that it's multiple relationships between multiple people, rather than the more clear-cut one relationship between two people. It's designed for the latter, and extending it to just any number of people could far more meaningfully be labelled arbitrary than to remove the sex-specific (and by extension sex-discriminatory) aspect of the definition.

I can see that. I guess I'm just a hippy

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You didn't answer my question. Are interracial marriages "fundamental to our very existence and survival" as a species?

No, they do not. Interracial relationships do not fall under it. Interracial relationships are not required for the species to exist and survive. And you know that. And that's why you don't want to answer a simple question.

The fundamental right to marry encompasses all relationships "fundamental to our very existence and survival."

White-white or black-black heterosexual relationships are subsets just as black-white relationships are a subset.

You're applying a religious meaning to the word in a secular society, that has BEEN a secular society since its creation.

It's not a religious definition of marriage; it's a valid definition of marriage. One of the most atheist countries in the developed world, Japan, has a constitution that defines marriage as a heterosexual relationship.

So you're condoning state-sponsored sex discrimination?

"[T]he two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one [sex] is different from a community composed of both." United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996) (quoting Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187, 193 (1946)).

Not talking about Japan and your definition isn't the only definition

[Katganistan]

After all, don't many of these same "gays are sinful!" type scream for LESS government intervention in their lives?

When they carp about "big government", what they mean is support for the welfare state. What they want is not only a smaller and more local government, but one that focuses on enforcing their moral values on society, while doing nothing for the poor and nothing to stop businessmen from doing whatever they please to whomever they wish without restriction. Welfare bad, business regulation bad, banning homosexuality and forcing women into their tradition sex roles good. See how that works?

And bailouts to business. I do see. It's a load of shit meant to keep the rich richer, the poor poorer, and to keep the poor conservatives thinking they've done the moral thing by kissing the asses of the rich and never ever having a chance of becoming rich themselves.

Because their chance at becoming rich is destroyed by helping poor folks like themselves, who HAPPEN to be $different in some stupid and superficial way$.