to you know where in a handbasket thnx SCOTUS

[tomtexan]

[Jim Beaux]

The insanity has to stop. I cant believe there are some advocating the merits of this. Gay sex offers no benefits to the species. Natural law dictates that the slowest buffalo gets left behind.

Gay sex is naturally repulsive. It is supposed to be - and yes, I am a normal homophobic.

Absent of superficial PC rhetoric, the fact is homophobia is a natural instinct. Legitimate sexual pursuits are the way the world works. Extending marriage rights to gays not only gives them advantages over the average straight citizen, but it also lends legitimacy to an aberration, something that's not nor will ever be valid.

Extending the courts rationale leaves the door wide open for every deviate pursuit the mind can imagine.

On second thought, I want a plural marriage. I saw a very attractive stop sign that I want to bring into my marriage. I also intend to draw social security benefits for us three when I retire.

[cb1000rider]

Jim, I think we're discussing marriage, not sex. Easy to confuse the two, but SCOTUS is ruling on marriage, so I'll try to stick to topics central to that.

This thread has actually been remarkably calm and well discussed!

"the fact is homophobia is a natural instinct"

K... Ignoring the fact that such a statement has some cultural parallels across the decades, we'll take that at face value.. And apparently there have been studies on it - largely if it's a social reaction or if it's a legitimate evolutionary response. Basically, I agree that it's a legit idea. You're arguing that homophobia is perfectly natural.. If that's so wouldn't anything else that exists in nature be "natural" too?

I don't know that being "natural" is a good excuse for any behavior, as we'll always have behaviors outside the median that are just as natural. If we want everyone to behave approximately the same way, only within a very narrow margin of that normal bell curve, that's probably not America. It'd make for boring politics and really meaningless debates.

Q: How do you know a homosexual when you see one? Short of a pride parade or special interest event, can you point them out? Know which co-workers? Know which forum members? Hard to be afraid of people that look like you, dress like you, but have different behavior in their own homes... Just like the OC people, it's easy to get mad at in-your-face behavior that we don't like.. I totally get that and I'm with you... I really don't think that's the majority. I don't know how you can be afraid of something you come across every day, but probably don't know about.

Extending marriage rights to gays not only gives them advantages over the average straight citizen..

I can't come up with an example. What are you thinking about? What bought about this whole issue was a legitimate difference in rights and privileged not afforded to a "class" of people. If those disadvantages didn't exist, I for one could completely ignore calls to change anything and would have zero compassion for an equality issue. The morality issue is stone cold, but we don't exactly class people by their level of personal morality unless that morality hits "criminal". If we did, we'd have to discriminate against all the gluttons, drunks, adulterers, liars, and general backyard BBQ type sinners.

You've already stated that the normal reaction is fear/anxiety (phobia) from normal people. Being the target of that phobia is inherently a huge social disadvantage. It's a disadvantage when getting hired, it's a disadvantage when walking down the street, and it's a disadvantage when you meet a bunch of perfectly natural homophobic strangers in a dark alley. Given a proclivity either way, which lifestyle would be easier? Don't just consider today, consider the last 60 years or so... I've got a hard time thinking about it as an advantage.

PS. Anyone who wants plural marriage can have it... Me, I've got my hands full already.

[C-dub]

The thought that all or any of this whole thing is about love is utterly false. Most liberals have been lied to again and are too whatever to realize they've been duped. On FB, I wondered what would become of everyone's conceal carry licenses and if all states would be forced to recognize them equally based on the same clause this ruling was based on. One of my liberal friends responded with, "Yeah bummer, but at least love is recognized in all states now." Poor guy. I responded with, "Love was not prohibited."

It is all about money and little else. And maybe about destroying Christianity.

[mr1337]

I just don't get why people are so vehemently against something that will never affect their own lives.

You're Christian? Great! Me too! Doesn't mean I have to shove my views down other people's throats, creating laws to ensure they comply with my religious beliefs. I don't think blue laws have a place in a country founded on the principles of separation of Church and State.

The fertility rate argument is a weak one at best. As someone who doesn't want (and possibly can't) kids right now, that puts me into equal blame for not popping out babies (and apparently its negative impact on society) as someone who marries someone of their own gender.

If we are not going to have equal marriage rights based on religious subtexts, let's also outlaw divorce, adultery, explicit literature and films, lying, profanity, not attending church, intoxication, and getting tattoos. All of those go against God's word, yet they are still legal here in the Land of the Free because of the rights people have and the fact that the government shouldn't be making laws that are religiously motivated.

I would be completely okay with the government getting out of the marriage business. Treat married people the same as single people. Make it a religious-only institution not even recognized by the government. Then, let the government issue Civil Unions to anyone who wants one that actually mean something legally. People who get married through their church should also get a civil union from the government. Then, people on their 3rd marriage who are upset about the sanctity of marriage being destroyed by the recent Supreme Court decision can rest easy knowing that two men or two women can not get married, but yet still protecting the rights of those people by allowing them the same protections that hetero couples enjoy like tax benefits, health benefits, hospital visitation rights, and inheritance that were previously denied to unmarried same-sex couples.

With all of that said, the decision has ZERO impact on my life. I am happily married to my wife, and that is not going to change just because of the decision.

Or as the saying goes: If you're against gay marriage, don't get gay married.

[KD5NRH]

Then, Polygamy laws should be on the chopping block. If gays can marry, as a Muslim why I cannot marry up to 4 ladies at the same time. Ah, I will always be broke 4X!

Not satisfied with only one mother in law?

Soon after, Incest laws would be terminated.

I know a pair of sisters I wouldn't mind marrying, which also bypasses the multiple inlaws issue.

[KD5NRH]

If we are not going to have equal marriage rights based on religious subtexts, let's also outlaw divorce, adultery, explicit literature and films, lying, profanity, not attending church, intoxication, and getting tattoos.

You forgot indoor toilets. (Deuteronomy 23:12)

[Jim Beaux]

Jim, I think we're discussing marriage, not sex. Easy to confuse the two, but SCOTUS is ruling on marriage, so I'll try to stick to topics central to that.

This thread has actually been remarkably calm and well discussed!

"the fact is homophobia is a natural instinct"

K... Ignoring the fact that such a statement has some cultural parallels across the decades, we'll take that at face value.. And apparently there have been studies on it - largely if it's a social reaction or if it's a legitimate evolutionary response. Basically, I agree that it's a legit idea. You're arguing that homophobia is perfectly natural.. If that's so wouldn't anything else that exists in nature be "natural" too?

I don't know that being "natural" is a good excuse for any behavior, as we'll always have behaviors outside the median that are just as natural. If we want everyone to behave approximately the same way, only within a very narrow margin of that normal bell curve, that's probably not America. It'd make for boring politics and really meaningless debates.

Q: How do you know a homosexual when you see one? Short of a pride parade or special interest event, can you point them out? Know which co-workers? Know which forum members? Hard to be afraid of people that look like you, dress like you, but have different behavior in their own homes... Just like the OC people, it's easy to get mad at in-your-face behavior that we don't like.. I totally get that and I'm with you... I really don't think that's the majority. I don't know how you can be afraid of something you come across every day, but probably don't know about.

Extending marriage rights to gays not only gives them advantages over the average straight citizen..

I can't come up with an example. What are you thinking about? What bought about this whole issue was a legitimate difference in rights and privileged not afforded to a "class" of people. If those disadvantages didn't exist, I for one could completely ignore calls to change anything and would have zero compassion for an equality issue. The morality issue is stone cold, but we don't exactly class people by their level of personal morality unless that morality hits "criminal". If we did, we'd have to discriminate against all the gluttons, drunks, adulterers, liars, and general backyard BBQ type sinners.

You've already stated that the normal reaction is fear/anxiety (phobia) from normal people. Being the target of that phobia is inherently a huge social disadvantage. It's a disadvantage when getting hired, it's a disadvantage when walking down the street, and it's a disadvantage when you meet a bunch of perfectly natural homophobic strangers in a dark alley. Given a proclivity either way, which lifestyle would be easier? Don't just consider today, consider the last 60 years or so... I've got a hard time thinking about it as an advantage.

PS. Anyone who wants plural marriage can have it... Me, I've got my hands full already.

CB why is the subject of sexual deviation so important in the social world/work place? What is the contribution? Why is it a priority to be recognized & accepted for something that should be private as one's sexual preference? I dont care and dont want to know if you have your hands full.

If that is the primary value one wants to present to mainstream society, one will not be accepted by mainstream society. Being gay will not keep one from being hired. Dressing inappropriately and touting what you do in the bedroom will. Wanna a job? It's simple, act rational and be prudent.

Rhetoric doesnt equal logic. I stated my opinion very clear & that's all you get. There is nothing wrong with me or my opinion. Once again, it's simple, if you wanna be accepted by mainstream, you gotta behave mainstream.

BTW I saw what you did - Phobia also means an aversion or repulsion.

[ShootDontTalk]

I just don't get why people are so vehemently against something that will never affect their own lives.

I could care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes. In that respect, you are right. It will never affect my life.

On the other hand, if my THINKING and SPEAKING about my personal convictions about homosexuality become threatened because of people deciding they have a right to silence all dissent and religious objections by legal means, or otherwise, then this decision will affect me in my personal life. If you baked wedding cakes you might understand where this is headed.

Supreme Court decisions have a way of affecting everyone's lives, sooner or later. To deny that basic fact just implies that one may not have lived long enough.

[jmra]

I just don't get why people are so vehemently against something that will never affect their own lives.

I could care less what people do in the privacy of their own homes. In that respect, you are right. It will never affect my life.

On the other hand, if my THINKING and SPEAKING about my personal convictions about homosexuality become threatened because of people deciding they have a right to silence all dissent and religious objections by legal means, or otherwise, then this decision will affect me in my personal life. If you baked wedding cakes you might understand where this is headed.

Supreme Court decisions have a way of affecting everyone's lives, sooner or later. To deny that basic fact just implies that one may not have lived long enough.

If a church charges a fee for a wedding between a man and woman will that church now be required to make the same available to a same sex couple? Will a Christian college whose students access federal grants be required to provide married housing for same sex couples if they provide housing for married couples?
Will a minister be charged with a hate crime for refusing to join a same sex couple? These are all logical steps of progression down the current path. If you are a Christian and you don't believe this affects you then you are wearing blinders.

[cb1000rider]

CB why is the subject of sexual deviation so important in the social world/work place? What is the contribution? Why is it a priority to be recognized & accepted for something that should be private as one's sexual preference? I dont care and dont want to know if you have your hands full.

I don't think that it's a workplace subject at all. It shouldn't be discussed. However, the fact remains that it's relatively easy to turn up social associations without having first hand knowledge of the specifics of social deviation. The first time I ran into it in my working career was due to me asking, "what did you do this weekend"? The answer was a particular bar.. It still took a few weeks before it clicked. Answering that question was a real risk.

If that is the primary value one wants to present to mainstream society, one will not be accepted by mainstream society. Being gay will not keep one from being hired. Dressing inappropriately and touting what you do in the bedroom will. Wanna a job? It's simple, act rational and be prudent.
Rhetoric doesnt equal logic. I stated my opinion very clear & that's all you get. There is nothing wrong with me or my opinion. Once again, it's simple, if you wanna be accepted by mainstream, you gotta behave mainstream.
BTW I saw what you did - Phobia also means an aversion or repulsion.

What goes on the in bedroom has no value to mainstream society. It shouldn't be introduced in the workplace. That's not what SCOTUS ruled on. We've got lots of what you'd deem to be deviation in the hetero society too - why is this particular one so offensive?

I don't think there is anything wrong with your opinion. Your opinion is just as valid as mine and I've got zero problem with it. I'm simply taking the stated basis for your opinion and arguing counter points. It's just respectful discussion, that's all. Just because we don't have the same opinion doesn't mean that we can't discuss things...

IE: I took it that part of your argument was that the phobia was perfectly natural and therefore acceptable. I just pointed out that I can use exactly the same basis to justify the behavior. Point / counter-point. Discussion. Respectful on both sides. It's certainly part of how I learn to consider things.

All I get is your opinion? So you can ask me questions, but you can't answer mine? I understand your opinion. I'm trying to understand what it's based on. I do that through questions.

Historically, "being gay" has been met with discrimination. That is, it's not necessarily the act that is discriminated against, it could be a rumor, slander, or it could be a true statement about someone that isn't being in your face with a lifestyle. From a moral perspective, I think we should treat all the undesirable moral behavior equally, but I don't think we're so good at doing that... It's hard for me to get my head around why this is treated so differently within communities that are trying to uphold moral standards.

BTW I saw what you did - Phobia also means an aversion or repulsion.

You're right to call me out if I change the meaning of your words, but in this particular case, I took a dictionary definition. I actually looked it up before posting, to make sure I had it right. If you meant it another way, please explain.

"noun fear, horror, terror, thing about (informal), obsession, dislike, dread, hatred, loathing, distaste, revulsion, aversion to, repulsion, irrational fear, detestation, overwhelming anxiety about..."

I understand the fear around what the courts "might" do beyond this. And as much as I don't believe most of it, I could certainly get behind what everyone agrees is the right solution - getting the govt out of the "marriage" business...

[K.Mooneyham]

I was going to pass on this one, but I did think of one thing that bothers me about this ruling, not tied to any sort of moral stance on the subject. The thing that bothers me is that the SCOTUS ruled on something that isn't in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights basically says that anything not called out specifically, is left up to the States or People, respectively. So, IMHO, this is the SCOTUS extending the reach of the Constitution into another area where it wasn't written to go, and thus extending Federal government reach somewhere it wasn't intended to go. I don't agree with him on everything, but I do agree with Rand Paul on this particular item about being just another case of overreach. And we've seen before that the Feds like to overreach on firearms every time they can; I don't like them having any more items to stand on if its not in the Constitution.

[VMI77]

Before the ruling the purpose of marriage was child rearing in a stable family situation. Marriage was expected to be a greater commitment than two people living together, with greater responsibilities, especially to the children. Now the purpose of marriage is to allow to people who love each other obtain the same benefits as marriage with regard to legalities such as rights of survivorship, medical power of attorney, etc.

Easy divorce laws and feminism destroyed marriage as the kind of institution you're talking about long before this SC decision. Marriage is a bad deal for a lot of young single men today.

[ShootDontTalk]

I understand the fear around what the courts "might" do beyond this. And as much as I don't believe most of it, I could certainly get behind what everyone agrees is the right solution - getting the govt out of the "marriage" business...

I think that is going to be the end result: States will cease to issue marriage licenses altogether and forbid public officials from performing ceremonies. Then marital status will just be between the individual and the IRS. That will be a happy state of affairs. And I predict the multi billion dollar a year wedding industry will react badly.

Of course the Feds could authorize IRS officials to perform ceremonies.

Churches and ministers have a simple, legal out. They will add to their bylaws that the church alone has the right to define marriage, that neither the church nor the minister may allow, sanction, or perform any marriage ceremony except for those couples who have read and signed a copy of the bylaws, who have been members in good standing for more than one year, and who present themselves before the membership of the church body who will then vote to authorize the ceremony, or not.

If rejected, there are barriers in place before you can take legal action: you agreed to the church bylaws when you joined, you signed the bylaws, marriage ceremonies are not offered as a ministry of the church to non-members, if you disagree with the agreed-upon conditions and vote, you're free to seek out someone else who will marry you.

[TXBO]

.... What bought about this whole issue was a legitimate difference in rights and privileged not afforded to a "class" of people. If those disadvantages didn't exist, I for one could completely ignore calls to change anything and would have zero compassion for an equality issue. ....

Then this ruling certainly has fixed nothing. The real problem is the government creating inequities. One can't create a privileged class and then claim inequality because of the exclusion of a small percentage to that population.

There are over 105 million unmarried adults living in the US. That equates to roughly 44% of the adult US population. The homosexual population is estimated at .5%. There is no equality when 44% of the population does not enjoy the same benefits as the privileged class.

When someone sounds the war drums to remove inequities and inequalities in any government program, I'll saddle up and ride with them. If they only care to benefit from the inequities created by government, then they'll have to ride without me.