So much discrimination from the Left.... :^/

Michale

Michale

Actually this is rather superfluous and redundant. Family members related by blood already have a legally recognized relationship. Why bother to try to establish another one thru marriage? Marriage establishes a legal family bond for previously unrelated individuals. This goes back to the heart of the argument about lineage.

They'll be back with a brand new General...

http://tinyurl.com/qg4usts

Political correctness is destroying this country....

Michale

Does your church ban gay marriage? Then it should start paying taxes.
It’s difficult to see how the nationwide legalization of gay marriage could have any kind of significant negative repercussions for anybody who’s not gay. Difficult – but not impossible. Because now that the US government formally recognizes marriage equality as a fundamental right, it really shouldn’t skew the tax code so as to give millions of dollars in tax breaks to groups which remain steadfastly bigoted on the subject.

I’m talking, of course, about churches.

http://fusion.net/story/158096/does-your-church-ban-gay-marriage-then-it-should-start-paying-taxes/

Well, THAT didn't take long, eh? :^/

Michale

It's assumed that married couples will have sex, but if the specified support goes to the mother-in-law (or whatever obligations apply to extended family in a particular time and place), no one cares if they don't. The reverse isn't true: failure to support the mother-in-law (or whatever) isn't excused just because a couple has consummated their marriage.

The Democrat Party Candidate For POTUS...

"I heard on radio there is Cabinet mtg this am. Can I go?"
-Hillary Clinton

hehehehehehehehehehe

Michale

Conjugation ...

sum es est
sumus estis sunt

eram eras erat
eramis eratis erant

ero eris erit
erimis eritis erunt

Or did you mean having a big slab of wood across their necks?

In other words, why not say "sex" when you mean sex.

"Come on, Dan. You can't let this get to you. Come on, every red-blooded American male has had to face this problem at one time or another in his life."

"HELL NO!!!"
-Night Court

:D

Michale

Or perhaps they leave that to the individuals, since that part of marriage doesn't have a direct impact on taxes.

I can't speak to the origins of commonlaw marriage prior to the recognition of common law. however, the jewish marriage contract originated in the fifth century pre-jesus, and has had a uniform aramaic wording from the first century post-jesus through my sister-in-law's wedding this past november, the text of which includes marital conjugation - whatever that may mean.

yes, the economic (lineage/inheritance) aspects of marriage ARE important and are more consistently applicable than the sexual aspects. however, that doesn't necessarily make them MORE important in defining what marriage is. yes, there are exceptional cases where sex isn't possible. nonetheless, though it may not always be codified or enforced, some form of conjugation (or at least the desire for conjugation) has always been implicit.

JL

First, that's an area where reproduction is relevant, because of the biological effects of inbreeding.

Second, it doesn't even follow. I say marriage is essentially about controlling lineage for inheritance and related legal and social purposes, to which sex is obviously relevant. And I say marriage is also about controlling sexual behavior even when it's not relevant to reproduction, but only secondarily so. The taboo against incest would torpedo incestuous marriage on my version of what marriage is about, because you can't trace an approved-of lineage through a taboo conception. It would on any plausible version for that matter. So it can't possibly distinguish among them.

Sex may not be the most important part of the deal, but it's absolutely a vital part, without which it's not considered a marriage.

If that were true, the IRS would have to make sure that married couples consummated before approving our tax benefits.

One of the things that marriage does is to make sex ok with Catholic doctrine that says sex is only for procreation. But that's a minor detail, laughed at by non-Catholics, and completely secondary to marriage's role in regulating lineage. An annulment is basically a statement that the marriage never happened. You can't do that if it's been used in any way, even if the way it was used isn't essential to the nature of the institution.

[101]
I think the stipulation for a common law marriage is not the sexual act, but rather the longevity of a couple being together.

I think it's about having been regarded as a couple by both members and by their community. So a clandestine relationship can't count, no matter how long it lasts and, even if sex is involved. And a publicly acknowledged cohabitation would count, even if the community believes the man to be impotent.

Of course, the phrase is sometimes used as a euphemism for cohabitation without any kind of marriage.

[103]
i'm talking about contractual obligations, which originated well prior to the english development of common law

Marriage by habit and repute existed, and was relevant to inheritance and lineage as well as to social acceptability, long before the English common law. The normal name for the practice refers to the common law, but calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

For that matter, the practice now known as "common-law marriage" presumably existed long before there was anything so formal as a contract.

i'm talking about contractual obligations, which originated well prior to the english development of common law. i know about this only because my in-laws would not have approved my wedding without a traditional ketuvah.

JL

"OK, bet is on then.. :D And, when a church or priest is sued, will you concede that you were wrong??"

YES, I WILL. IF and when that happens.

"Does that mean the entire LEFT WING is intolerant??"

No, it does NOT. Just like I don't think that the entire right wing is intolerant either.

Wait a minute!!! Did hell just freeze over??? Did I really just hear Michale concede that NOT ALL of the left wing is intolerant???? :-D

"Everyone here will vigorously and enthusiastically oppose ANY attempt by the gay community to FORCE churches or ordained clergy to perform same sex marriages...

Yes or No??"

YES.

One, because it is not going to happen. And two, because if you defend one constitutional right, (Like the right to marriage equality.) you can't very well NOT defend all the others. (Like Freedom of Religion.) That would, after all, be hypocritical, wouldn't it Michale? :-D

And yes that includes the 2nd amendment too. We just disagree on the point at which, and on when and how much such regulation becomes too much, to the point where it actually infringes on the free exercise of that right.

There have been cases where those in their 80s or 90s have wed.. It's logical to assume that sex wasn't part of the marriage.... :D

conjugation of the non-platonic kind has been a legal condition for marriage as long as the instution of marriage has existed.

I assume you mean the "common law" types of marriage..

I could be wrong (it's been known to happen.. :D) but I think the stipulation for a common law marriage is not the sexual act, but rather the longevity of a couple being together...

Which raises an interesting side question. Would same sex couples qualify for common law marriages based on longevity??

I understand the logic of where you are coming from..

Since sex (or lack thereof) can be cited as a reason to dissolve a marriage, it's logical to conclude that the presence of sex is a requirement of marriage...

Interesting argument...

Michale

but those old people presumably did try to have sex at least once when the marriage began. yes, i concede that there are medical exceptions to the rule. however, and feel to cite a counter-example, conjugation of the non-platonic kind has been a legal condition for marriage as long as the instution of marriage has existed.

Is it so strange that I would meet ya'all on your own plane now?? :D

Having said that, let me be clear...

Is Obama responsible every ill this country faces??

Of course not.. Just like Bush wasn't responsible for every ill this country faced during his administration despite ya'alls attempts to paint it that way....

Is Obama responsible for a lot more than ya'all claim??

Abso-posit-loutly....

Michale

That was YA'ALL'S plane of reality during the Bush Administration..

Is it so strange that I would meet ya'all on your own plane now?? :D

Why else would you cite an article by Gary Hart and use it to condemn "Obama's America"?

Because we live in Obama's America.... Well, I do anyways.. :D

Michale

If so, then we ALL agreed to the same "mis-guided hysteria"....

We all agreed that, if Iran demanded that ALL sanctions be lifted at the signing of the deal that THAT would be a "bad deal" and Obama should walk away..

Today is 30 June 2015...

The deadline for the deal...

Iran is STILL demanding that all sanctions be lifted before any compliance be done....

Obama should walk away..

Michale

In your plane of reality, not only is Obama not blameless for the corruption in government that Senator Hart is condemning but, he is solely responsible for it.

Why else would you cite an article by Gary Hart and use it to condemn "Obama's America"?

You think you have portrayed your real motivation around here, on any given issue, as being pure as the driven snow but, well, you are mistaken. On the contrary, it's very hard to mistake your style as anything other than political hackery, I'm afraid to say.

OK, let's get it on record..

Everyone here will vigorously and enthusiastically oppose ANY attempt by the gay community to FORCE churches or ordained clergy to perform same sex marriages...

Yes or No??

Michale

I would have to disagree with that...

I can cite many cases where very old people are married and sex isn't part of their marriage..

Or people who have been injured or rendered unable to have sex...

Their marriages are still valid and true marriages..

I think the distinction you are looking for is whether or not the no sex arrangement of any given marriage is an agreed upon arrangement or an imposed arrangement..

If it is agreed upon, then that would seem to me to STRENGTHEN the case for a real marriage...

If it is imposed, then that would strengthen the case that it isn't a "real" marriage...

But I'll have to check with my wife before I can be sure.. :D heh

Michale

The Obama Administration has, once again, capitulated on a KEY requirement..

Iran must allow ALL inspections, not just civilian site inspections..

The Obama Administration has now given into Iran and stated they won't require Iran give inspections at military sites...

Look for news in the next few days that the Obama Administration has agreed to drop ALL sanction at the signing of the deal...

A point that is UNIVERSALLY agreed here in Weigantia, makes the Iran deal a "BAD DEAL"....

Michale

There is a proven and constant link between BIG government and CORRUPT government..

In other words, the bigger the government, the more likely it is corrupt...

And, you will note that he is not condemning Obama administration policies and tendencies for this sad and dangerous state of affairs but, rather he places blame squarely where it belongs - on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Yea... The government is corrupt, but Obama is blameless.. :^/

It is simply impossible to logically and rationally debate this issue if we can't both be on the same plane of reality... :D

Michale

Disagree. If sex weren't an essential part of marriage, it would be legal for people to marry members of their immediate family. Marriages that don't involve sex can end in anullment rather than divorce. Sex may not be the most important part of the deal, but it's absolutely a vital part, without which it's not considered a marriage.

JL

Dan.

whoops. sorry dan. also sorry to david, whose screen name starts with an a.

JL

No. The concept of equality can be illustrated by applying it to imaginary non-humans.

The people of the fourth planet of Delta Antliae B have two sexes for reproduction. Most ?AntB4ans, as they approach sexual maturity, find themselves feeling an urge to form a pair-bond with someone of the opposite sex. But 10% of the population is different. About three percent of the overall population is intersex, and another seven percent have a sexual orientation that renders them unable to form a typical ?AntB4an pair-bond. Instead, they have a drive to form a conditional pair-bond with an intersex person, who can form several such relationships. It then becomes a stable three-way bond when two of those people form a nearly typical pair-bond with each other, and the other conditional pair-bonds develop many of the same characteristics as those between ?AntB4an siblings.

A few lifetimes ago, the planet's dominant religion declared that the intersex people were inferior to typical people (despite evidence to the contrary), that they must be celibate, and that sexual attraction to them is an abomination. They were almost completely successful in forcing the 10% to be either celibate or very secretive. Now things are getting more individualistic. Triads again form much as they did before the Church suppressed them.

There are ?Ant4Ban legal institutions regulating socially acceptable sexual practices, inheritance, child-support obligations, and a few other obligations. Their traditional forms mostly date from the period of Church domination, but with strong influences from previous periods when triads were widely accepted. They dictate that there are _ statuses a person can have: child, approaching sexual maturity but not yet paired, conditionally pair-bonded, permanently pair-bonded with a commitment to celibacy in case of the partner's death, stably pair-bonded but without the commitment to celibacy, and permanently celibate (a state that comes much more naturally to ?AntB4ans than it does to humans). As it happens, all of these institutions can be applied quite readily to triads.

Now, the point of the whole story:

In that situation, I say that the principle of equality is applicable, and that it demands that triad-oriented ?AntB4ans be allowed equal access to the social and legal institutions used by typical ?AntB4ans.

Seems that Hart is agreeing with Tea Party groups that Big Government is Corrupt Government...

I think Senator Hart is saying that corrupt government is, you know, corrupt government and that it is very bad for the republic.

You said it yourself ... money in politics ... that is the problem Hart is laying out in the piece of his you cite.

And, you will note that he is not condemning Obama administration policies and tendencies for this sad and dangerous state of affairs but, rather he places blame squarely where it belongs - on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Dan. It's been a while. Maybe I should have just used my name, since most people do here, but it's longstanding habit that I always use dsws when I can.

i do however absolutely disagree with your assertion that marriage is not about sex

I don't think we're disagreeing on this part, actually. Of course it's somewhat about sex. I only said (not very clearly) that it's not so laser-focused on sex that a fetish for furniture would mean we have to either persecute the fetishists or let them marry their paraphernalia. If furniture could have determined who inherits an aristocratic title, then yeah, marriage would have applied to furniture.

Controlling people's sex lives, even beyond its role in procreation, has very often been a part of marriage, but never an essential part. The essential part is determining lineage for purposes like inheritance. If you live in a system where you inherit from your brother, ahead of his own children, with no choice in the matter for him or you, then you probably get his wife too.

good point about the change from one man, one or more women to one man, one woman, which was made fully uniform in the US in the late 1800's with utah's outlawing multiple wives. that's a change i hadn't remembered.

i do however absolutely disagree with your assertion that marriage is not about sex. i'm not saying it's ONLY about sex, but regulating sexual activity has been one of the components of marriage for most marriages - such that even in biblical times lack of sex was considered grounds for divorce. the traditional jewish ketuvah explicitly mentions sex, and has different financial commitments for virgins and non-virgins.

in modern times, i maintain that re-instituting even a more egalitarian version of poly marriage would pose a conundrum for supporters of marriage equality. does the "equality" necessarily dictate numerical equality as well? how can rights conferred to two be equal to those same rights conferred to three or four? to be clear, i have nothing against poly-commitment as a lifestyle choice, i'm just not sure how that fits into the US legal structure.

JL

Besides distinguishing between voluntary domestic arrangements and traditional coercive forms of polygamy, it's also important to distinguish between the practice of polygamy and the crime of bigamy. The difference is not what the etymology suggests. Bigamy is fraudulently taking on full monogamous marriage obligations with two or more people, each unaware of the others' existence.

Polygamy is not directly analogous to same-sex marriage: there is a category of people who are inherently homosexual, and there is no reason, other than sheer irrational animus, to forbid them from marrying; there is no category of people who are polygamous, and there are other reasons for disallowing polygamy besides animus against people who would choose to engage in it.

However, there's not justification for using government to suppress voluntary domestic arrangements where more than two people cohabit in stable intimate relationships. Nor is there justification for discriminating against such people, beyond what's necessary to protect people against fraudulent and coercive forms. If the bad guys let the issue drop, it will die out from lack of interest. But if they do try to restore respectability to their anti-gay bigotry by attacking the tiny number of people who do practice voluntary polygamy, they'll lose, and polygamy will be legalized.

Ridiculed?

Oh sure..

Life destroyed like the CEO of Mozilla??

Never happened..

However, the rules of marriage have always been changing in some way or another.

Yes, the rules have changed..

The LAWS have changed...

But the definition???

Man... Woman...

Constant for thousands of years..

It's one thing to argue for or against the change of definition. I can see where that could be a matter of opinion whether changing the definition is a good thing or a bad thing..

But to deny that the definition is BEING changed??

Well, that's just ignoring reality...

Michale

Well, that's not entirely true. The existence of the institution has been constant, as have the potential participants. However, the rules of marriage have always been changing in some way or another. In ancient Sparta the soldier was expected to learn via a same-sex relationship with his military mentor before bringing that knowledge home to procreate. Prior to the late 1900's, US marriage laws recognized nearly no rights at all for women - divorce was legal for men to initiate but illegal for women, even in the most extreme cases of abuse. so yes, it's always been opposite-gendered, but FAR from unchanged.

JL

that's no imaginary condition. anyone who speaks publicly against the rights of corporate personhood, if their voice gets loud enough for anyone to hear, does get ridiculed and attacked viciously by the corporate entities they are exposing.

Just one example from my field:

http://dianeravitch.net/2015/03/13/alert-bob-brauns-blog-has-been-attacked-and-closed-down-after-post-about-pearson-spying-on-students/

Later confirmed that it was an actual hacker attack, not a denial of service due to excessive web traffic. Unclear whether the hacker was acting on his or her own or under direction of some other person or "person."

There is absolutely NO REASON to think that Freedom Of Religion will protect priests or churches..

NO REASON whatsoever..

Michale

Why is it any different???

I will BET however much you want, because you and I both know that is never going to happen. That is a complete and total red herring.

OK, bet is on then.. :D And, when a church or priest is sued, will you concede that you were wrong??

Because there is a HUGE difference between a business and a church. A business requires a government license in order to operate and function. When was the last time a church needed a government license???

Really??

So, the 'license' issue is the ONLY issue you can hang your hat on??

If only he were just ONE example!!! How many more do you need or want me to cite Michale??? Pastor Steven Anderson in Tempe, Arizona, Pastor Charles Worley of North Carolina. Just a casual search turned up these two more. Do you call that tolerance Michale?? Because I really want to know....

I dunno.. What are you accusing these priests of??

But I tell ya what..

I'll even allow you can find DOZENS of examples. Maybe even HUNDREDS...

Just like I can find dozens and hundreds of examples of Left Wing intolerance...

Does that mean the entire LEFT WING is intolerant??

Is THAT what you are claiming??

Michale

Yes, Chris has not commented on the merits of the TPP but, I think we all know where he stands on the issue simply on the basis of what he deems to be impressive congressional Democrat action.

You might be right about the last part, too but, don't include me in the group that prefers to be stuck in the past.

I will BET however much you want, because you and I both know that is never going to happen.

There are about 321,180,749 people in this country. About 32,118,074 of those people are below 10th percentile intelligence. Probably about 20,234,386 of those people approve of marriage equality. Perhaps 2,023,439 of them can easily afford to file a frivolous lawsuit.

Are you seriously telling me we know that not one of them will do so against some bigoted church?

"Some idiot somewhere files a lawsuit, which instantly gets thrown out" is not a meaningful criterion for oppression of the poor Christian Crybabies.

Does that mean no, CW hasn't commented on the merits of TPP? Or does it mean that all that anyone ever feels a need to say about the merits of TPP is just a big "no"?

No, I do NOT. A government official performing a government function is not the same as a private individual or a member of the clergy performing in a religious ritual. You KNOW that.

"How much do you want to bet that, within a year, if not less, a priest or a church will be sued for refusing to perform a gay wedding??"

I will BET however much you want, because you and I both know that is never going to happen. That is a complete and total red herring.

"Freedom of Religion is not a valid defense for christian business owners.
Why on earth would you think it would be a valid defense for priests or churches.."

Because there is a HUGE difference between a business and a church. A business requires a government license in order to operate and function. When was the last time a church needed a government license???

If only he were just ONE example!!! How many more do you need or want me to cite Michale??? Pastor Steven Anderson in Tempe, Arizona, Pastor Charles Worley of North Carolina. Just a casual search turned up these two more. Do you call that tolerance Michale?? Because I really want to know....

sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own.

I only mention it because, apparently, ya'all have a different definition of "tolerance" than what is normal...

Michale

So, you agree with the Texas AG that no one in the state who refuses to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based on religious objection should be sued, fired or prosecuted/persecuted... :D

How much do you want to bet that, within a year, if not less, a priest or a church will be sued for refusing to perform a gay wedding??

Freedom of Religion is not a valid defense for christian business owners.

Why on earth would you think it would be a valid defense for priests or churches..

Step 4 "The sodomite suppression ballot act in CA."
"I.E. Gays should be rounded up and killed."

WOW.. You take one obviously disturbed nutcase and paint an entire movement with it, eh??

So, in your opinion ANYONE who dissents against gay marriage is the exact same as that ONE nutball, eh??

And you call that "tolerance"??? :D

Michale

Step 1 "We are simply against granting special rights."

Step 2 "We simply want religious freedom. We are victims."

Step 3 "Not allowing us to persecute others persecutes us."

Step 4 "The sodomite suppression ballot act in CA."
"I.E. Gays should be rounded up and killed."

And there you have it...

John

"And, if you are a priest or a church and you refuse to officiate or hold a gay wedding???

Under the law, the church and the priest can be destroyed..."

NO, they CANNOT. And you KNOW that to be a FACT Michale. 1st Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Religion. Otherwise, how many divorced Catholics do you know of who have been able to sue their Priest for refusing to perform a marriage for them hum???

Orthodox Christians Must Now Learn To Live as Exiles in Our Own Country

In that sense, social and religious conservatives must recognize that the Obergefell decision did not come from nowhere. It is the logical result of the Sexual Revolution, which valorized erotic liberty. It has been widely and correctly observed that heterosexuals began to devalue marriage long before same-sex marriage became an issue. The individualism at the heart of contemporary American culture is at the core of Obergefell — and at the core of modern American life.
http://time.com/3938050/orthodox-christians-must-now-learn-to-live-as-exiles-in-our-own-country/

In fact, I am UNDERSTATING the fear and persecution that christians will now have to endure at the hands of "tolerant" Lefties..

Michale

I'll give you a perfect example that is right up your alley...

Suppose you were forced, under penalty of law, to teach your students that corporations ARE people. That corporations have the same rights and freedoms of an actual person... That everything you hate about corporations was legal and permissible...

In short, what if you had to teach your students a "truth" that you know in your heart is NOT the truth, is NOT good and is NOT proper.. You had to teach your students something you knew down the very fiber of your being, your existence, was wrong and evil...

And, if you refused to teach your students as you are told, you would be fired and fined, prosecuted and persecuted...

How would you feel about THAT!??

Welcome to what christians are feeling right now...

Michale

Political correctness run amok...

Michale

Oh com'on, Joshua!! You KNOW that is not true..

If you are a baker and you follow your beliefs and refuse to cater a gay wedding or bake a cake for a gay couple your life get's destroyed..

We have SEEN that happen on several occasions..

And, if you are a priest or a church and you refuse to officiate or hold a gay wedding???

Under the law, the church and the priest can be destroyed...

Just like that same authority says that corporations are people and entitled to same first amendment rights as human people, and I have to suck it up (grr!).

And what if the court decreed that you had to not only ACCEPT that but you couldn't speak out against it for fear of being branded a "hater" and you had FACILITATE that if asked under threat of law??

How would you feel about that??

I am willing to wager that you would feel exactly how christians are feeling right now...

Yes, marriage is many thousands of years old,

Ya know, you are the FIRST person here to concede that point.. That the definition of marriage has been constant for thousands of years...

But so was Rule of Law when the Divine Right of Kings was older and much more established.

And now we are reverting to that Divine Right Of Kings, insofar as the tyranny of the minority sitting on the throne of Political Correctness...

Religious persecution and the lack of freedom to practice one's religion is EXACTLY why this country was formed..

And now we come full circle where government is persecuting the religious and preventing the free practice thereof...

Michale

No you don't. Unless you are an agent of the law, like a judge or justice of the peace. No religious institution or its agents is (or ever will be) forced to perform weddings for gay couples, if doing so goes against their beliefs. If you are an agent of the law, suck it up and deal with it - the Law (as interpreted by its highest authority) says it's a right enjoyed by everybody. Just like that same authority says that corporations are people and entitled to same first amendment rights as human people, and I have to suck it up (grr!).

Yes, marriage is many thousands of years old, and marriage equality is a very new phenomenon. But so was Rule of Law when the Divine Right of Kings was older and much more established.

JL

Ah, that would be a resounding ... NO!

:-)

And the usurpation of the integrity and principles of this country on the altar of ideological purity...

Ah, could you be a bit more specific?

I am on the Alcohol Diet...

In the last week, I lost 5 days...

Baa daa dum.... :D

Michale

Dood!!!

You and "straight talk" should **NEVER** be used in the same galaxy, let alone the same sentence!!

Seriously, I just spewed beer all over my keyboard!!!! :D

Michale

Now, isn't all that lying to God about "until death do us part" bad for the sanctity of "traditional" marriage?

"I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing."

The Straight Talk Express rolls on.

A Face Morph of Obama and Boehner...

That's just creepy!!! :D

Michale

And the usurpation of the integrity and principles of this country on the altar of ideological purity...

Michale

Step 1 "All we want is to come out of the closet"

Step 4 "All we want is your views and beliefs in the closet."

And there you have it...

Michale

Money in politics...

Something that CANNOT be blamed solely on the Right alone...

Hillary with her soontobe 2 BILLION DOLLAR campaign war chest..

And amount, I would point out is more than ALL the GOP Candidates project COMBINED...

That's my whole point.. We all agree what the problem is..

We just disagree as to who all is guilty of it...

Michale

I really want to get in the weeds with you on this one. :)

Well, try responding to this!

What do you feel have been the most corrupting influences on the republic during the years of the Obama administration?

Done..

Seems that Hart is agreeing with Tea Party groups that Big Government is Corrupt Government...

Michale

He was talking about the Republic in the here and now...

Now, if you're saying that the Obama Administration is not responsible for any of that, well......

I am not sure how to respond to that... :D

Michale

You think Senator Hart was writing about President Obama?

Perhaps you should read the article you cite again. Or, better yet, read the senator's latest book!

The issue of Corporate person-hood has only been a Leftist bugga-boo for around 10 years...

Religious beliefs have been around since the dawn of civilization and handed down by god himself...

Michale

One has to wonder how the Left would react if the SCOTUS issued a ruling that Corporations' person-hood be given 14th Amendment protections and that ALL Americans must acknowledge AND actively support a Corporations person-hood under penalty of hate-crime and/or discrimination charges...

My guess is the Left would be sounding an AWFUL lot like the Right sounds now.. :D

Michale

You mentioned before how you follow Gary Hart's blog..

Obama's America 'most corrupt republic ever'...
http://time.com/3937860/gary-hart-america-corruption/

Your thoughts??

Michale

All one has to do is point out that, 20-30 years ago, a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman was considered equally "absurd" and equally "ridiculous"...

As is usually the case, logic and rational thought is blinded by political ideology...

Michale

There will be a reconsideration of what constitutes a person, sometime in the next few decades: machines can already win at chess and Jeopardy!, and one of these days they'll be able to recognize a picture of a bird. (xkcd _dot_ com/1425/)

Many animals will also be recognized to have various rights. With the possible exception of whales, however, none will turn out to be competent to enter into marriage.

How so, exactly???

Michale

i tried a slight edit and the thing still can't get through the filter in spite of not having any links. what's the deal here, it's like the third time that's happened to me recently...

You recall the TOS episode THE PARADISE SYNDROME??

A certain combination of vowels and consonants caused the obelisk to open and emit a brain drain ray??

Similar concept here... Certain key word/letter combinations causes the filters to gobble things up...

Michale

First sexual activities of those types would have to be legally sanctioned, which they are not.

We're not talking sexual activity...

We're talking marriage...

But, credit where credit is due.. That is THE BEST rebuttal to my argument that I have EVER seen...

Kudos...

Change is inevitable,

Perhaps..

But THIS change was decided in a blink of an eye and ONLY to suit a very small percentage of American society...

In other words, this wasn't brought about by laws or popular vote, but rather imposed... FORCED on an American public that didn't AND DOESN'T want it..

THAT is the difference that is going to make ALL the difference..

The gay community will find themselves ostracized even MORE so now...

Nobody likes to be forced into things that they don't want..

If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone gay.

But you HAVE to service a gay wedding.. You HAVE to marry a gay couple...

There is SO much more to being part of a gay wedding than just being the groom/bride...

The idea that it doesn't involve anyone who doesn't want to be a part of it has ALREADY been proven to be one of the great lies...

Right up there with, "IF YOU LIKE YOUR HEALTH PLAN, YOU CAN KEEP YOUR HEALTH PLAN!!" and "I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN!!"...

The long and short of it is, we are STILL fighting the abortion battle long after the SCOTUS ruling..

This gay marriage ruling is going to be a LOT worse...

Michale

Change is inevitable, but the aspect of the change that you're not acknowledging is that the change is not a reduction but an expansion. It's not taking anything away from traditional married couples to add 10% more people to the list of those who can join their ranks. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone gay. But the change in the definition of marriage doesn't change marriage for anyone except those who are now included and previously weren't.

Of all the "slippery slope" arguments, the only one currently feasible based on our definitions of "sex" and "person" is poly marriage, and that one is still problematic because it would grant unequal rights rather than equal rights. The only way THIS supreme court will legalize any additional forms of marriage is if someone figures out how to have sex with a corporation.

JL

1.Then ya'all should have NO PROBLEM "expanding equality" so that people who want to marry their gerbil or their cars ALSO share in that "expanded equality"...

First sexual activities of those types would have to be legally sanctioned, which they are not. Although I didn't think Obergefell would go as far as it did, the "traditional" legal definition of marriage became untenable in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas. As soon as 2 humans having sex could not be considered illegal based on their gender, government deciding the acceptable gender of 2 humans marrying each other logically had to follow eventually.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/leona-helmsleys-dog-trouble-richest-world-dies-12/story?id=13810168&page=2

"So either I have a monster in my fridge or I am completely crazy."
"I don't think you're crazy."
"Oh great, that makes me feel so much better."
-GHOSTBUSTERS

:D

Michale

I understand exactly how you feel...

The vast majority of Americans, if not ALL Americans, felt the exact same way about gay marriage 20-30-40 years ago...

So, you are in good company... :D

Michale

No, I do not and, it is not.

And, I have no further comment on that sort of nonsense.

Abso-posit-loutly!!!

And, pre-Marriage Definition Change, I would have told that person, "Yer whacked... You can't do that.. Deal with it.."

But, now that we are all about changing the definition of marriage and "marriage equality" is the PC Watch Word...

Well, NOW it's clear that those who want to marry their gerbils and their cars have as much right to do so as those who want to marry their same sex loves...

To answer your question, I guess it's possible for people to love or to be in love with anything. I cannot, however, envision a scenario in which they marry it.

DING DING DING DING!!! WE HAVE A WINNER...

10, 20 or 30 years ago, people couldn't envision a scenario where a man would want to marry another man or a woman would want to marry another woman..

SO.....

Do you acknowledge the possibility that, 10, 20 or 30 years from now, people WILL want to marry their pets and their possessions and that the precedent established today will allow that...

Isn't that a possibility??

It's a great tell when reliance on the absurd is required to make an argument

10, 20, 30, years ago, a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman was JUST as absurd..

THAT is the point ya'all refuse to acknowledge...

And THAT is why ya'all will always lose this argument.. :D

Because what ya'all consider "absurd" today, everyone considered same sex marriage as "absurd" 2, 3 decades ago.....

Michale

No, as Bashi said, we did NOT change the definition of marriage. We expanded equality.

OK fine... If THAT is ya'all's story....

Then ya'all should have NO PROBLEM "expanding equality" so that people who want to marry their gerbil or their cars ALSO share in that "expanded equality"...

Right???

:D

Ya'all can spin it all you want. But the fact is, the definition of marriage has been changed to appease the lifestyle of a very VERY small percentage of the American people...

Michale

You ask,
Can you envision a scenario where a person might be as in love with their gerbil or their car as much as another person might be in love with their same-sex partner??

How about this:
Can you envision a scenario where a person might be as in love with their gerbil or their car as much as another person might be in love with their heterosexual partner??

To answer your question, I guess it's possible for people to love or to be in love with anything. I cannot, however, envision a scenario in which they marry it. Furthermore, I'll bet the farm that this SCOTUS or any other before or after it would unanimously agree with me.

It's a great tell when reliance on the absurd is required to make an argument.

“I just don’t feel good about it. I don’t feel right about it."

"People know that it's not my thing"

None of that God hates fags stuff. The Donald owns it.

So, what you're saying is that you believe in certain parts of the US Constitution but not in others? Really?

There is no conflict, by the way, between the recognition of religious freedom and that of equal protection under the law. They are both fundamental concepts of the highest law of the land and both should be celebrated.

THAT is true marriage equality whether anyone here can admit it or not..

Put it another way..

Can you envision a scenario where a person might be as in love with their gerbil or their car as much as another person might be in love with their same-sex partner??

Is that not possible in your world??

Michale

They could have had that with Civil Unions...

All this is is a big FRAK YOU from the gay activist community to the Church...

You can turn that into any monstrosity you wish and make the idiotic suggestion that people now have the right to marry inanimate objects

If people have the right to marry a same sex partner then they should have the right to marry whatever they wish.

THAT is true marriage equality whether anyone here can admit it or not..

discard a fundamental concept of the US Constitution that is equal protection under the law.

And yet, freedom from religious persecution comes before.. comes WAY before the equal protection clause..

Matter of fact, freedom from religious persecution is THE FIRST freedom of the entire US Constitution..

"These are the facts.. And they are undisputed.."

Michale

I have no problem with gay people being able to be married..I have a big problem, a HUGE problem with changing a definition that has been with us for thousands of years

That discrepancy demonstrates that you may have a bigger problem than you realize or are willing to admit. :)

This ruling does no such thing. This ruling simply recognizes the right of all Americans to marry the person they love and to benefit from all of the laws pertaining to marriage.

You can turn that into any monstrosity you wish and make the idiotic suggestion that people now have the right to marry inanimate objects but that nonsense will only reflect back on your own unique sensibility in the same way that your arguments based on religious freedom seem a thinly veiled attempt to discard a fundamental concept of the US Constitution that is equal protection under the law.

That both surprises and disappoints me though it really shouldn't. I've been surprised - pleasantly and otherwise - and disappointed by his judicial thinking since he became Chief Justice.

That's what I like about you Liz... You call a spade a spade... :D

The definition of marriage has changed to recognize the right that all Americans have to marry the person they love.

Do you have a problem with that?

Even that change isn't true marriage equality..

Let me adjust your statement to reflect TRUE marraige EQUALITY...

The definition of marriage has changed to recognize the right that all Americans have to marry the persons and/or the thing(s) they love.

THAT is true marriage equality in the purest since of the word..

Irregardless of all that, the simple fact that marriage has been defined as a man and woma(e)n..

That definition is irrevocably changed...

There can be no debate on that because it's a simple statement of fact...

I have no problem with gay people being able to be married..

I have a big problem, a HUGE problem with changing a definition that has been with us for thousands of years at the behest of a small VERY SMALL group of people who want to foist their lifestyle on others who are not comfortable with that lifestyle...

And, if the SCOTUS had ruled that ALL Americans **MUST** attend church and must profess their belief in god, then I am betting ya'all would have as big of a problem with that....

In other words, I have a problem with ANY ruling that forces a belief on those who choose not to share that belief..

And, as sure as the sun rises and sets, the bullying gay activists will use this ruling as a witch hunt that will make Joe McCarthy look like Mother Theresa...

Because, with this ruling, the American people have even MORE incentive to push against the gay activists and their bullying campaign...

SCOTUS did not do the gay community any favors..

Michale

That's quite an interesting quote you highlighted there, Michale.

That's a quote from an American who not only does not believe in American exceptionalism but does not even understand the fundamental judicial concept of 'equal under the law' or promote the advancement and enlightenment of societies over millennia.

The Chief Justice asks, "Who do we think we are?"

I'd like to know his answer.

The definition of marriage has changed to recognize the right that all Americans have to marry the person they love.

Do you have a problem with that?

You were saying, Liz?? :D

Well, with these two decisions, Chief Justice Roberts has demonstrated that he has a very low bar of judicial idiocy below which, he will not stoop.

That both surprises and disappoints me though it really shouldn't. I've been surprised - pleasantly and otherwise - and disappointed by his judicial thinking since he became Chief Justice.

NO ONE with more than 2 brain cells to rub together can make the claim that the definition of marriage has not changed...

For THOUSANDS of years, the ONE constant in marriage, then ONE single aspect that made marriage marriage was MAN and WOMAN...

This is irrefutable fact...

And to listen to people around here saying, "Oh the definition of marriage hasn't changed!!"

And saying it with a straight face, even!!

I just have to marvel at the Orweillan talking points...

"We are at war with Eastasia.. We have always been at war with Eastasia."

It's positively kafka.. Made even MORE so by the fact that I bet ya'all actually BELIEVE that!!

That ya'all actually BELIEVE that the definition of marriage is the same now as it was last week...

Talk about ideological enslavement!!

Michale

You mean, like ya'all treat Republicans??? :D

You prove my point for me..

As far as ya'all are concerned, people that don't think like you do, that don't toe YOUR Party line can be treated like shit. They can be discriminated against and vilified and demonized and destroyed...

THAT is perfectly acceptable...

There's a word for it..

HYPOCRISY....

Michale

Like I said.. You only see what you want to see...

Anyone who doesn't toe the line and believe as you believe??

Well, they don't have any rights at all....

Michale