Lawmaker Warns Supreme Court May End Gay Marriage: 'Prepare for the Worst' - Newsweek

And So It Begins...

Don't you mean continues?

We were told our worse fears were imaginary and unlikely.

Yet only the meanest of MAGA want families torn asunder.

there's 4 LGBTQ members within my extended family. coincidentally, they're all from the most religious and right wing elements. why is that?

I have 2 that I know of.  One from a fairly liberal branch of the family, one from a very conservative one.  The one whose mother is very conservative married a black man, and was ostracized by the family for a while, so I would think she'd understand about marriage equality, but I guess it's good for her, but not for her gay son.

as the black sheep in both sides of my families, I like to force my penchant for exposing any hypocrisy I see. it's despised by maga my age and older, respected by the sane, but appreciated by all those that are younger. I don't give a fuck what the maga thumpers think ...

Morning.... always good to have a black sheep in the family..

It livens things up and adds to the spice of life...and keeps people on their toes ...

Now what to have for breakfast..eggs, toast , cereal..ahh decisions decisions..

I had an omelet topped with green chile and sour cream ... eh ... I should have gone with my usual eggs, bacon, biscuits and gravy. no, not those kind of biscuits you bloody ripper ...

That omelet sounds good.

I've never managed to acquire a taste for sausage gravy, although I do love a good biscuit (not cookie).

I thought Vegemite on toast was the mandated breakfast down under?

Almost all the school teachers in the county seat where I attended grade through high school were lifelong single women who kept to themselves, living close together in one neighborhood. They also socialized with and sat close by each other at church and events.

People thought what people thought. Nobody had a problem with what was unsaid because they were good teachers and were tough enough for playground duty and to dish out punishment. This was common. Rural America had its secrets. Two women ranchers lived together as men for sixty years. Two men would have got kilt!

Well they do say change is as good as a holiday...besides can't have to much of a good thing...

Dumb question...your glorious leader the Orange one....if/when he brings in all the new legislation/rules and turns the country upside down..(see Devangy then you will be like us) and his 4 years expires..(pity he didn't) does the next poor buggar have to undo all that he has done??

If that is the case the whole country would grind to a halt reversing everything that the Orange one has brought in...

my mom still makes the gravy with bacon grease. I don't care either way, since it's all about the white gravy and pepper shaker to me ...

Vegemite on toast

don't get me started ...

does the next poor buggar have to undo all that he has done?? If that is the case the whole country would grind to a halt reversing everything that the Orange one has brought in...

welcome to democracy mate, and that's the way it's been so far this century. however, with the way the orange menace is running amuck, it's a good bet that most of the cult will probably need to be exterminated for just cause before they put the US any deeper into the russian bin ...

my mom still makes the gravy with bacon grease.

I've only ever seen it made with sausage.  Mom used to make it all the time, but since Dad's appetite has decreased with age, she doesn't make it as often.

does the next poor buggar have to undo all that he has done??

I echo Dev on this one.  It's just the way of things.

Unfortunately, this time around, the next several buggers will have an uphill battle regaining the trust of our allies, if we still have any left.

welcome to democracy mate

Ummm... The Donald promised that we wouldn't have to vote again. While I don't trust most of his promises, I'm pretty sure he means to keep this one.

[deleted][✘]

To be honest I don't think that will be much of a problem..

The general consensus around the world and the allies is roll on 2028..

We all have to deal with rotten oranges in the bowl and when it's time, you turf them out..

We just feel sorry for you mob in the meantime...

No doubt something will crop up between us and the US.. it's bound too...one thing at least our Vegemite is safe..

Wonder what he did with the 500 million cheque we just coughed up for AUKUS...not that it appeared he knew what that was...bit of a worry...😁

I hope you're right.  I've been on an international forum where the sentiment against us is pretty strong.

It was no different to when he got his ear scratched...the world leaders all offered commiserations, platitudes etc  and shocking....

But behind closed doors it was crap they missed...

Everyone is just waiting for the next 4 years to pass and then it will be...next!!!

Most people with half a brain can see what Trump is like..yep you mob will probably cop some flak but the people who know Americans will offer nothing but commiserations...

Republican lawmakers in several states have introduced various measures encouraging the Supreme Court to strike down Obergefell v. Hodges

Why? If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t be in one. How does it hurt anyone?

"[The decision] defaced the definition of marriage,

How do you deface a definition?

undermined our God-given rights

Your God-given rights are fine.

increased persecution of Christians

No, it hasn’t. There is no persecution of Christians in this country. For example, no one is trying to outlaw Christian marriage.

confused the American family structure."

There is no such thing.

I’m so tired of religious conservatives pretending to be persecuted simply because other people don’t live like they do.

I’m so tired of religious conservatives pretending to be persecuted simply because other people don’t live like they do.

Like they do?  No they're too hypocritical for that.  More like because other people don’t live like they tell them to

How does it hurt anyone?

Depends on what a person considers moral. The moral definition of marriage, in my opinion, is a union between one man and one woman. It appears you believe it is between two people, irrespective of gender. I have seen stories where people wanted to marry themselves or some animal. 

The point is, when something is whatever you want it to be it hurts society because everything becomes undefined. There's no solid ground for a common frame of reference. I think pedophilia is as immoral as gay marriage. You, presumably, think gay marriage is just fine. What about someone who thinks a 40 year old man marrying a 13 year old boy should be legally recognized if they both consent? The natural argument is that the 13 year old isn't mature enough to make informed consent, yet many who would say so would also say that 13 year old boy is mature enough to make life altering changes to their body because the child "feels" like he's in the wrong body. That's called cognitive dissonance, and it's growing in our society. 

When I was a kid, I never could have imagined that gay marriage would ever be a thing. Now it is. Now I have to wonder when, not if, pedophiles become a legally protected class. After all, there's already been a push to go from the pejorative "pedophile" to "minor attracted individuals". 

How do you deface a definition?

When you give it a meaning it never had. 

There is no persecution of Christians in this country.

That would be a matter of perspective. While we certainly don't experience the deadly kind of persecution Christians face in places like Africa, Asia and the Middle East, the media demonizes the white Christian male, people inflict endless lawsuits on people like bakers who will not bend to their will and so on. 

There is no such thing.

Well, to be more precise, although there is a concerted effort to destroy the American family structure, it's still there in a lot of places, although it's been incredibly weakened. However, the family structure, American or otherwise, has been the single greatest factor in any society throughout history, until Communism showed up. 

I’m so tired of religious conservatives pretending to be persecuted simply because other people don’t live like they do.

I agree, somewhat. Persecution isn't the right word any more than saying Japan persecuted America during WWII. Not really the right term for what is actually a war. 

Depends on what a person considers moral.

Only for the people getting married. What you consider moral is irrelevant to my marriage. I don’t get to tell you how to be married, and you don’t get to tell me how to be married.

The point is, when something is whatever you want it to be it hurts society because everything becomes undefined. There's no solid ground for a common frame of reference.

You do not need to know how my marriage is defined because you are not part of it. 

None of your other silly horror story analogies are in play here. We’re talking about two consenting adults. The only difference is one couple is two people of different sex and the other people are of the same sex. Years of legal gay marriage has not led to calls for marrying 13 year olds. In fact, the only places in America that would be so inclined are the states most likely to try and outlaw gay marriage.

When I was a kid, I never could have imagined that gay marriage would ever be a thing. Now it is. Now I have to wonder when, not if, pedophiles become a legally protected class.

Your impulse to connect homosexuality with pedophilia is a prejudice that educated people discarded more than 50 years ago.

the media demonizes the white Christian male

The only ones being demonized are the ones who are assholes trying to control people who aren’t like them. White males still enjoy more power and privilege than any other demographic group. White men are doing just fine, but some of them lack the fortitude to allow others to live as they will in peace.

people inflict endless lawsuits on people like bakers who will not bend to their will and so on. 

Hardly endless.

there is a concerted effort to destroy the American family structure

Not only is there no such thing as an American family structure, there is no concerted effort to destroy this mythical institution. There are an endless variety of families in this country and in the world. What makes a family a good one is the people in it, not its structure. Gay people have struggled for the right to share in the blessings of marriage, just as their straight brothers and sisters do. There is no justification for denying them that blessing.

We have all sorts of resolutions or attempts at legislation to do away with gay marriage. There is no such resolution to do away with straight marriage. You are not a victim.

I think pedophilia is as immoral as gay marriage.

And everyone has a right to their opinion. Some might believe that Christians are selfish spawns of Satan that corrupt everything and anything around them as they practiced forced conversion at the point of a sword for centuries and have so much blood on their hands it will never wash off. Others believe most Christians are generally good people and that most understand that there is a big difference between pedophilia (the raping of children too young to consent regardless of gender), and homosexuals who are adults and who choose to be intimate with other adults regardless of gender. Most rational persons understand that to declare gay marriage illegal again, would be violating gay Americans rights. It's as simple as that. Anyone who has a problem with that can go cry in the fucking corner if they like, that's up to them, but they should never be allowed to strip law abiding tax paying adult American citizens of their right to love who they want all because of their own personal religious beliefs. That would be an establishment of religion to make such a law based on your or anyone else's religious beliefs.

the media demonizes the white Christian male

Lol. That's just too fucking adorable.

there is a concerted effort to destroy the American family structure

Rightwing religious conservatives have been working hard to prevent or destroy happy family structures for decades by attempting to stop gay couples from adopting. All these qualified loving parents ready to accept tens of thousands of unwanted children into their homes and hearts, but not if some Christians get their way!

I agree, somewhat. Persecution isn't the right word any more than saying Japan persecuted America during WWII. Not really the right term for what is actually a war. 

So, you're saying it's not just persecution, it's a "war on Christians"? It seems you're actually claiming that secular non-Christians have "bombed" Christians spiritual Pearl Harbor, no? Isn't the fantasy "war on Christian's" trope a bit too tired nowadays? I mean come on, we hear it every fucking year now and have for years and yet 88% of our congress still claim to be Christians, only 6% are Jewish, the other 6% are a mix of nones and others, but you really see a "war" on Christians? How exactly does a majority Christian controlled nation go to war with Christianity?

Only for the people getting married.

Did you forget the question I was responding to? 

How does it hurt anyone?

The point behind my reply is that when there is no standard, what is morally acceptable degrades. Sixty years ago, few people would have imagined gay marriage would be considered acceptable. Sixty years from now, will 40 year old men be marrying 13 year old boys? Women marrying their dogs? For most of human history, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Now, in much of the world, it's not.

The reason is some people's interpretation of what morality consists of. It's subjective, so they say "what makes your morality better than mine?" and use that to justify gay marriage. Once we do that, then the pedophile can use the same reasoning. Worse, the stage is being set for them. If a child can make the decision it can't possibly be mature enough to make concerning sex changes, then upon what grounds can anyone claim a 13 year old boy can't marry if he wants to? A man his cow or a woman her dog? Who are you to subject them to your morality? 

Do you understand, now? I don't care about how you personally feel about gay marriage. I'm answering your question about how it hurts society to not have a standard. 

You do not need to know how my marriage is defined because you are not part of it.

So, then. You would, by that reasoning, not have a problem with a 13 year old boy marrying a 40 year old man as long as they both consented. I mean, since you're not a part of it. Good to know. 

Your impulse to connect homosexuality with pedophilia is a prejudice that educated people discarded more than 50 years ago.

It's not an impulse and the only connection is that I find both to be immoral. You guys always try to create the straw man that I'm saying they are related, as if one leads to the other. I guess you guys do that so you can feel like you're making some valid point or something. 

The only ones being demonized are the ones who are assholes trying to control people who aren’t like them.

Kind of funny how only your side gets to dictate how our society should be without being labeled as assholes or trying to control people. Thing is, we have just as much right to influence and shape our society as you do. 

Not only is there no such thing as an American family structure, there is no concerted effort to destroy this mythical institution.

This is so obviously untrue historically that I have to wonder if you're trying to make a point other than what these words indicate. In every society, the family structure has consisted of a mother, father and the children. What is it you think represent this variety you speak of? 

You are not a victim.

Didn't say I was so I wonder what made you say this. 

That comment contains quite a bit of religious bigotry.  Equating gay marriage to moral degradation is bigoted.

It also ignores the fact that religion has historically looked the other way or even encouraged that 13-year-old marrying the 40-year-old, so long as the older partner was male and the younger female.

Religion persecutes those who harm nobody while engaging in consensual relations as adults, and defends the harming and legal enslavement of children for the sexual pleasure of men.

trying to control people

How is allowing consenting adults to marry controlling people?  It's the opposite.

“How is allowing consenting adults to marry controlling people?  It's the opposite.“

.

There is only one group attempting to control people, and it’s almost always done under the muddied and muddled interpretations of those up on that Steep Hill. And from the Steeple they a tempt and assert to pervert, as the perversion of the incursion to fight “against “ control over an a tempt to be a Pro whilst simultaneously a Con, strolls into territory i feel tends to troll under a tunnel of sighs, that can only bridge US further a part of A whole is the result and the toll, house cookie cutlets too many be Conned into the job they were never appointed. 47 never anointed, for needed is the ointment to quell the uprising of pseudo fears who create actual tears  from peep holes unable to see and be gay and Happy U C, just as they don’t wish to be told how to live, 

they seem to not be lucid of the hippocracy they tend to give, 

as asserted attempts to control others

about who is aloud under covers

is three sheets to the wind up marching soldiers banned from band camp cause they lost their pie eyed pipers’ cub, four clauses shed and shred light infractions hell bent on distractions depleting the traction’s as peeled out are the layers of sinking foundations, just like our nations’, that was built on the bedrocks, 

that Fred Flintstone is undermining like only an animated attention starved

Drama Queen attention fiend can’t help but beg for, all as he has been locked out like the prehistoric cat he was attempting to put out for the night, cause the ones who use such issues to confuse the tissues, that can cause quite the mess, whence the Happy tissues become confused and a distraction from the true concerns that the tissues required to blow one knows, that the true meaningful issues get engulfed in deep flames of snot asz important tissues hiding so many of the true issues that should be the real ones attracting the real concerns.

  It reminds of that slippery slope, where as we are told once one gun law goes in effect, there will not be a way to interject in the removal of an amendment second to the first and third play absurd when called out for balking at running to walk the next player via nay sayer in what is read about red meet to vegan defeat by the thousands of small paper cold cuts the cheese melt formunda the deck dealt , a trump card to fealty regard felt, buy an insecure not won cast spelt by that which spells division through incision that cuts out our higher ground that once we held high, now it’s smoke mirrors and hair and heir dying and die ing eggs zactly that witch we cannot have afforded to be on bored with, as all are instruments used by gravity to bring US Down, as we have not leaders to look up, just lying cheaters to destruct the more perfect Union, that has brought about a less perfect Division, that multiplied, while distracted and Lied Too, 

like the carried tune in the decisive decision, that when lied, will subtract when Lied Too

So, you're saying it's not just persecution, it's a "war on Christians"?

Please read the quoted comment again more carefully. I stated that persecution was not the right word, did I not? So why do you have me saying it's persecution? And while I can see how you arrived at "war on Christians", that would not accurately reflect what I meant by war. The war I meant concerns what morality is and who ultimately determines what that is. It is not a war "on" any group specifically, it's a war "between" competing beliefs concerning these things. Therefore, it would be as accurate to say the war is on atheists as much as it is on Christians, for instance. The war between "progressive Christian movements" and actual Christians. It is societal struggle for these things on a macro level. 

All of you are reading my comments on the wrong level. You all think I'm talking about specific or individual things. I'm not. I'm talking about what societies are based on and who gets to decide that? I already know none of you are going to agree with my views on those individual or specific things so I would not waste my time trying to convince you to hold some other view.

Rather, I'm trying to get you all to back up a bit and see the bigger picture. It was once inconceivable that gay marriage would be an accepted practice. Now it is. It was once inconceivable that children would be allowed, and even encouraged, to make irreversible, life altering modifications to their own bodies based on the feelings of the moment, a decision they could not possibly be prepared to make. Worse, even having the government do all it can to encourage it and make it happen. Now it is a reality in many places. Anyone who says it's inconceivable that, in the not-too-distant future, children will be encouraged to marry adults if they feel like it. People will be able to marry their animals or themselves or have group marriages. 

Know why? Because once you mess with the standard, what you mess with reality and declare something untrue as true, it's inevitable. I've already shown you examples in the previous paragraph that have actually happened. It's the shift from preferring what is true to what you want to be true. The move from duty and values to hedonism. 

How is allowing consenting adults to marry controlling people?  It's the opposite.

Leading question. How your side attempts to control society concerning this issue is attempting to force those who disagree with gay marriage to accept it as legitimate on some level. Hence, suing a baker for refusing to make a gay-themed wedding cake or refusing to photograph a gay wedding. Forcing them to participate in something they think is wrong. People who reject their friends because they do not have the proper supportive attitude toward gay people. Campaigns to portray those like me as bigoted because of my views when in reality, I'm only bigoted in your view and according to your worldview, rather than some agreed upon standard. Are you bigoted because you reject pedophiles as a legitimate sexual orientation suitable for society? Yes, you are, from their point of view. 

We have different beliefs. The point behind everything I've said in this thread is, who decides what beliefs are, or should be, a part of what makes up our society? You guys just assume that your beliefs are the ones on the side of angels so, automatically, I'm the bad guy because I don't agree. The question is, who made you, or your side, the arbiter of such things? What authority do you claim to decide I'm bigoted, especially when all your charge of bigotry rests on is that I'm not in agreement with your moral standards? Why should your standards be the standards rather than mine? 

Obergefell doesn't address gay wedding cakes or photographers.

An attempt to overturn it is controlling the actions of adults in a supposedly free society.

My standards are in accordance with my Constitutional right to freedom from religion.  Yours are in opposition to it.  I'm not trying to stop you from marrying anybody.  Theocrats are trying to take away my friends' right to be married.  One of us is for freedom.  One opposes it.

and defends the harming and legal enslavement of children for the sexual pleasure of men.

Um. Care to explain that? 

My standards are in accordance with my Constitutional right to freedom from religion.  Yours are in opposition to it.

Actually, I am in opposition to your interpretation of what the Constitution has to say on the subject, not in opposition to the Constitution itself. That's the point you're not getting. In other words, you are behaving in the same manner you claim I'm behaving. 

One of us is for freedom.  One opposes it.

Not really. As I have said many times before, if two guys want to live their lives as if they were married, that's their business. I object to it being called a marriage in both the definitional sense and legal sense, since, in my view, it's neither. It should be called something else. Else it is forced on society as something legitimate when it isn't to a great many people.  

Care to explain that?

sandy isn't a priest, preacher, youth minister, or a republican politician. try asking one of them ...

gee, I wonder whatever happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

[✘]

It's pretty self-explanatory.

Religious institutions often support, and have even forced, the marriage of underage girls to men much older than themselves.  On occasion, they are even forced to marry men who have raped them.

Once trapped in marriage, due to lack of financial resources and early pregnancies, they are  de facto  slaves of the men they've married.

cnn

tahirih

The Tahirih Justice Center webpage contains multiple stories of women forced to marry early, by religious parents, to religious men, who were then abused.  This is Morgan's.  Her forced marriage happened near where I live.

When I was 16, my parents entered into a marriage agreement with my first husband, who was 10 years
older than I. Since I was trafficked between the ages of 3 and 23, this arranged marriage was simply one
more event in which I was required to “be obedient to my parents,” as this Biblical injunction was often
touted. My step-father had facilitated my entry into being trafficked for experimentation, pornography,
prostitution, and domestic labor until I was effectively passed to the man who became my legal
husband.
The marriage license was obtained in Virginia. My mother signed it while my step-father, my husbandto-be, and myself were crowded at the Clerk’s counter at the Front Royal Courthouse. We were new
residents of the town, since my parents had moved my brothers and I from rural Pennsylvania just a few
weeks after the engagement. While the wedding ceremony took place 3 weeks after I turned 17, the
marriage license was obtained while I was still 16.
No one in that town or in the religious community we briefly became a part of knew us. Walking down
the aisle in a winter-white dress my mother had chosen, and being looked at by a sea of a 100 unknown
faces, nearly caused me to pass out from rapid and shallow breathing. In a few minutes’ time, with
few words spoken, I became a child-bride, destined to be owned by a man with violent tendencies and
unhealed trauma of his own.
At the wedding reception my fever spiked to 103°, because, as I discovered the next day, I had
contracted mononucleosis. Back to my wedding night: my new legal guardian took me early to the motel.
14
I was given a negligee that was too large for my body type. Evidently, we consummated the marriage, but
I remember nothing more until about 4:00 a.m. the next morning. I was awakened in an icy bath. My
husband was trying to bring my fever down from 104°. It didn’t work. I was taken to the emergency room
for an examination. When the attending physician learned that I was an underage bride, he directed all
the exam questions to my new legal guardian. If I had not been laying on the exam table, with my feet in
stirrups and put through a pelvic exam, I would have been entirely invisible – even to myself.
Thinking back on the events that led to this legal marriage, I believe the initial agreement was reached
when I was 14. I recall my step-father mentioning two men’s names, men he believed I should go to as a
wife. I certainly felt shocked, but my experiences had taught me not to show my authentic feelings. One
man was shorter than I and at least 18
years older – so in my adolescent mind
I was relieved it turned out to be the
younger man.
The man who became my first husband
had, at the age of 21, tried to go into
the military to turn his life around.
Because of his 4-felony record, he was
rejected by the army. At 22 he became
a newly converted Jehovah’s Witness.
Eventually I would learn about his
family’s pattern of violence. Being
raised in a strong Catholic household,
this violence included beatings from
his father, isolation, several years-worth
of molestation by an older brother,
and later, when he sought help from
a priest, that priest molested him. At
13, he ran away from that situation and joined a Southern California gang, becoming addicted to drugs
but still attending a high school, and learning to pimp out girls. While still in his teens, he was drawn
to work in a restaurant. The owner mentored him through several years, despite the fact that he served
time on 4 different sentences, as a juvenile. His last confinement was for beating up a police officer and
stealing his gun, shortly before his 20th birthday. And now you know what my parents thought of me.

Here is Trevicia's story, even more chilling:

Since she was a very young girl, Trevicia remembers her mother
having difficulty coping, and times when she would be sent to
live with friends or relatives. At the age of 12, her mother started
discussing Trevicia’s marriage with church leaders, and by 13 she
was coaching Trevicia for marriage. When an ex-convict joined
the congregation, the church leadership believed that getting him
married was the best way to help him reintegrate into society. This
man was a violent felon, but he was also the nephew of the head
of the church. It was decided that Trevicia would be the one to
rehabilitate him.
She was a high school freshman when her mother picked her up from school, and, as Trevicia piled
into the backseat with her textbooks, her mother announced that Trevicia would be married that very
day. There was no discussion, no explanation. Afraid to question her mother, Trevicia sat shocked
and confused on the drive to the Houston courthouse. She was just 14 years old, still wearing the red
knickers she had put on for her audition for the school’s performance of Annie. The groom was 26
years old, and just out of prison. Despite these obvious red flags,
the Justice of the Peace performed the marriage as if there was
nothing alarming about the picture in front of him. 

I object to it being called a marriage in both the definitional sense and legal sense, since, in my view, it's neither.

Tough beans.

 I object to it being called a marriage in both the definitional sense and legal sense, since, in my view, it's neither.

What makes it different?

What makes it different?

the associated churches getting a pay day ...

that child bride bullshit is still happening in the LDS deseret west ...

Else it is forced on society as something legitimate when it isn't to a great many people.  

Unethical exploitative business practices are not "legitimate" to a great many people either, but are generally legal.  As long as gay marriage is legal its legitimate. 

Do you think Elon Musk became the richest man in the world by being mainly ethical?  I seriously doubt it.  But the rich write the laws, so why shouldn't the "woke" get to write a few laws? 

The moral definition of marriage, in my opinion, is a union between one man and one woman.

How do you come to that definition?

Religious institutions often support, and have even forced, the marriage of underage girls to men much older than themselves.

About what I expected you to say. These things do happen but they are exceptions, not the rule. These stories represent just one way in which parents of any background can be horrible to their children and is not therefore exceptional simply because religion is involved in some way. 

Tough beans.

I see that you, and everyone else jumping on the righteous indignation bandwagon aren't going to answer my question. Since you aren't likely to, then I'm done here. I'm here to have a discussion, not provide you guys entertainment. Have a nice day. 

Sixty years from now, will 40 year old men be marrying 13 year old boys?

You’re just in love with this prejudiced analogy, aren’t you? You keep bringing it up. I can’t think of a reason why 40 year old men would be marrying 13 year old boys, but you are obsessed with this idea. Don’t ask me to explain your obsession or to explain it away. It’s up to you to justify this bizarre take, not me. “Anything can happen” is not a reasonable argument.

For most of human history, marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

Homophobic bigotry is often based on this feeble claim that marriage has some kind of eternal, never changing form, but nothing could be further from the truth.

First of all, for millennia, marriage generally was an institution for the rich or powerful. Regular peasants just shacked up with each other. That’s because for a long time, marriage was a tool of political or economic contracts and alliances and regular poor folk had neither money nor power. The idea of consenting adults joining together in logeal matrimony on their own volition because of romantic love is barely two centuries old, perhaps less.

There is nothing special or biblical about monogamy. Usually, religious conservatives are the ones claiming some immutable standard for marriage, but the Bible is replete with a variety of adult arrangements.

Adam and Eve, for example are not even married. They just live together and make babies. Abraham fathered children with both his wife and her slave. By Hebrew law, a married man also married the widow of his deceased brother, and she had no say in the matter (aka forced bigamy). In fact, several men in the Bible have multiple wives. Solomon had 700 wives and even more concubines. Female POWs were given to soldiers and expected to submit to them sexually. Male and female slaves could be forced by their masters to be with each other.

So don’t bother trying to sell me on the idea that there is some biblical gold standard for marriage that involves only one man and only one woman.

So, then. You would, by that reasoning, not have a problem with a 13 year old boy marrying a 40 year old man as long as they both consented.

No, because, as I have said, and you deliberately ignore, the 13 year old is not a consenting adult.

It's not an impulse and the only connection is that I find both to be immoral. You guys always try to create the straw man that I'm saying they are related, as if one leads to the other.

Murder and littering are immoral, too, but you don’t seek to equate those acts with gay marriage. The only one bringing up the 13 year old is you. You bear full responsibility.

Kind of funny how only your side gets to dictate how our society should be

Not at all. My “side” isn’t trying to tell you who you can or cannot marry. That’s all your side.

Didn't say I was so I wonder what made you say this. 

All of your whining about persecution and a war against Christianity or society (which I assume you to mean Christian society).

I'm here to have a discussion, not provide you guys entertainment.

gee, that takes the fun out of most theological discourse ...

So, you know it's happening, but want us to ignore it.  "Pay no attention to the rapist slaveowner behind the pulpit."

But them gays, now, they're immoral.

In the comment to which I replied, you did not ask a question.  You made a statement about how you thought gay marriage isn't marriage, and shouldn't be called that.

You don't get to dictate the definition of marriage for others.

In the comment to which I replied, you did not ask a question.  You made a statement about how you thought gay marriage isn't marriage, and shouldn't be called that.

That is correct. However, you ignore the fact that the statement wasn't made in isolation but, rather, in support of the question. 

You don't get to dictate the definition of marriage for others.

Nor do you get to change the definition to fit your desires. 

The point behind everything I've said in this thread is, who decides what beliefs are, or should be, a part of what makes up our society?

Beliefs should be grounded in sound evidence.   Without such grounding one could literally believe anything.  

If one believes that homosexual marriages are categorically wrong then one should be able to make a [fact | strong-evidence]-based case as to why.   Homosexuals are a natural consequence of biology.   Why deny adult, sane, willing homosexuals the societal rights and privileges of marriage?

And just stick with the basics:  two adult human beings committing themselves to each other.   Pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, incest, etc. are clearly very different circumstances.

your deity isn't an american citizen and has no vote, or rights, beyond the establishment clause ...

Nor do you get to change the definition to fit your desires. 

My married lesbian friends are married, despite what you say.  I didn't have to change a thing.

YOU, of course, had to, to claim that "one man, one woman" marriage is biblical, because the Bible was hunky-dory with polygyny and the owing of sex slaves (only by men, of course).  Your definition is not consistent with its own source.

your deity isn't an american citizen

$5 Million will get It there.

married lesbian friends

vagitarians?

I got to run all the LGBTQ leads in my sales organization, because everybody else had their heads up their asses. breaking into those referral networks moved me into another income bracket and I can thank the restaurant industry for enlightening me.

thumpers will never effect change on this planet, despite 2+ millennium of threats, intimidation, and millions of innocent deaths ...

Except, "Biblical Marriage" is actually between one man and one woman and another woman and another woman and so on and so on and sometimes also with their servants and handmaidens...

It would have to show itself

I'm a fan of Mrs. Betty Bowers.

I think getting the necessary documentation for citizenship would be a problem.  Who signed God's birth certificate?  Himself?  There's a problem with the timeline there.

Officially the Catholic Church does not recognize marriages not sanctioned by the Catholic Church or performed by a Catholic priest. Which, has zero effect as to any marriage's legality!

And, don't even think about getting approved for a divorce...

like cain got his wife from another village. it's hilarious when xtians try to build on top of non-load bearing walls. the LDS church foundations are collapsing into their basements as we speak ...

he'd never get across the border, and if he did, his psycho hypocrite believers would have him deported ...

oops, no real xtian has $5 million in cash ...

You’re just in love with this prejudiced analogy, aren’t you?

It's not that difficult a concept to understand, Tacos! Once it was A. Then the gays came along and made it A and B. Then the trans made it A and B and C. Then they destroyed any identity having to do with gender and kids and people started to come up with some sexuality no one ever heard of before just to outdo each other and we ended up with A and B and C and an infinite subset somewhere between C and D. The point, Tacos!, is where does it end and what's the criteria for it ending???? What if E is adults and kids having sex if both consent? Who are you to stop them if you're not personally involved? 

Pretty sure you understand this but chose to go with the ad hominem attack instead. 

This thread has turned into a clown show  and echo chamber. 

echo chamber.

As opposed to insisting on morality being determined by one's own thoughts on what a deity whose existence is not evidenced would want.  That's not an echo chamber at all.

I think getting the necessary documentation for citizenship would be a problem.  Who signed God's birth certificate?  Himself?  There's a problem with the timeline there.

What if E is adults and kids having sex if both consent?

Minors are incapable of consenting. Even if they so desire.

Once it was A.

No it wasn’t. It was never A. I just demonstrated that to you by listing just some of the many ways adults hook up according to the law in the Bible. Let me say that again: it has never been just one way. Your entire premise there is incorrect.

some sexuality no one ever heard of before…where does it end and what's the criteria for it ending????

I have no idea. Why do you need for it to end? How is it impacting your life?

A key feature of human civilization is that we are always learning new things. Gay people have always existed. Gay animals exist. It is an ordinary variation. However, over the course of the last century plus, we (meaning sexual and psychological experts) have studied the phenomenon and come to learn quite a bit about it that we never even conceived of before. That’s why gay marriage isn’t as traditional. We didn’t understand it.

We now understand that being gay is not some kind of moral failing, nor is it dangerous. Good, intelligent people - many of whom are devoted followers of Christ or some other religion - happen to be attracted to someone of their sex rather than another sex. They seek to express their love for another through the bonds of matrimony. Because they cannot make their own children, they often adopt and exist in healthy, loving families.

You have no right to deny them that. You also have no right to marginalize them by creating unnecessary, exclusionary laws intended to restrict their pursuit of happiness. You may say they should settle for civil unions, but that is unacceptable. It still marginalizes them. You like civil unions so much? You go first.

Pretty sure you understand this but chose to go with the ad hominem attack instead.

Save that whining. I have already told you I don’t buy into this right wing victimization bullshit. Nobody has attacked you - only your point of view.

You have no right to deny them that. You also have no right to marginalize them by creating unnecessary, exclusionary laws intended to restrict their pursuit of happiness. You may say they should settle for civil unions, but that is unacceptable. It still marginalizes them. You like civil unions so much? You go first.

You say these things because you believe you have the moral grounds to do so. Where does your morality come from and what authority do you appeal to in order to back it up?

Do not say "The Constitution", since it is just the product of a human mind and is demonstrably fallible. The initial provisions of the Constitution protected slavery, for instance, and needed to be corrected. This means that the Constitution can be made to say whatever we want it to say, and therefore, cannot be the source. Put another way, the Constitution is not the source of morality. That is, the Constitution doesn't tell us what morality is. It's the other way round. The constitution is just a record of what we think morality consists of. 

Save that whining. I have already told you I don’t buy into this right wing victimization bullshit. Nobody has attacked you - only your point of view.

Um, yeah. What you said was:

You’re just in love with this prejudiced analogy, aren’t you? You keep bringing it up. I can’t think of a reason why 40 year old men would be marrying 13 year old boys, but you are obsessed with this idea. Don’t ask me to explain your obsession or to explain it away. It’s up to you to justify this bizarre take, not me. “Anything can happen” is not a reasonable argument.

Rather than address the point and subsequent question I raised, you responded with this. Now, I don't feel victimized by this in the least, primarily because your good opinion of my moral viewpoint is completely unnecessary to my peace of mind. I am not bothered in the least by what anyone in here says about me and, for that reason, would not consider myself a victim of any of you. 

What does bother me greatly, however, is that I am trying to engage in something meaningful with you and all I get is the same tired effort to shame me for my beliefs. I accept that your morality is not the same as mine. I have not, nor will I, denigrate you for holding your beliefs. Instead, I am trying to engage you concerning why you believe your morality is better or more justified than mine by demonstrable objective evidence. Instead, I have to waste my time listening to how much you despise my morality, as if that wasn't something I already know. 

So, for the last time. what makes you think your morality, and those who agree with it, should be the basis of our society rather than mine and those who think like me? How do you justify it? 

I have seen stories where people wanted to marry themselves or some animal. 

This law is not about 'them' or pedophiles. . . .is it? So that is laying an opening for a "rabbit-hole."

I think pedophilia is as immoral as gay marriage.

Why? You did not bother to clarify. And, I just know you wish to be clear in this discussions. Tell us what a pedophile worldview has to do with same-sex marriage approved and law in the United States.

 Do tell us plainly why this not another 'rabbit hole' for the discussion to get lost inside. 

That would be a matter of perspective. While we certainly don't experience the deadly kind of persecution Christians face in places like Africa, Asia and the Middle East, the media demonizes the white Christian male, people inflict endless lawsuits on people like bakers who will not bend to their will and so on.

That is not persecution or demonization. Persecution and demonization manifests as exclusion and violence, not as inclusion, diversity, and equality of opinion and living conditions.

Political warfare on the LGBTQ community is offensive. Time for the LGBTQ community to stop defending itself from attack and go on the offensive to protect itself. 

Do not say "The Constitution", since it is just the product of a human mind and is demonstrably fallible.

So is religion.

Where does your morality come from and what authority do you appeal to in order to back it up?

You presume that morality must come from an authoritative source.

Why do you think that is necessary?   Do you not see that morality differs culturally (and even individually based on their experiences)?    Do you accept the possibility that morality is learned?   That we learn to understand the difference between right and wrong based on a history of human beings engaging in trial and error (reinforcement learning)?   That morality is ultimately a set of learned guidelines whose effect have been shown to be advantageous to a culture?

It should be obvious why we find it immoral to murder someone ... especially those who are defenseless and innocent like children.   This is likely an easily learned lesson.   It is no mystery why we would have learned that stealing, lying, rape, slavery, etc. are ultimately bad for civil society. 

Not only does morality as an emergent property of living and interacting with other beings explain the basics, it also explains why cultures will differ in details of morality.   Why some cultures will murder daughters if they disgrace the family name, or why some cultures did not consider slavery to be immoral.  And why morality differs (in details) among individuals due to their different experiences and mental states.

The notion that morality must come from God is begging the question.   It essentially argues that since morality must come from an authoritative source greater than a human mind (a presupposition), and since morality exists it must have come from such an authoritative source.   And then this argument goes on to say that this authoritative source matches the definition of God.

My view is that common, societal/cultural morality evolved naturally just as language evolved naturally.   We learned what is ultimately in the best interests of human beings coexisting in a social order.

My view is that common, societal/cultural morality evolved naturally.

And i would say that it is still evolving even today .

Hence the conflicts we see  due to disagreements .

That 'dig' about "war on Christians" is a self-styled fear-mongering that is used 'every' voting cycle to turn out Christians for any number of conservative causes. It's propaganda and its a utility device that works. Pastors on the political Right are actively using the tactic to galvanize the vote against those they CHOOSE to demonize—the other utility device.

My advice is the LGBTQ community and associates go on the offensive against it. 

The point behind my reply is that when there is no standard, what is morally acceptable degrades. Sixty years ago, few people would have imagined gay marriage would be considered acceptable. Sixty years from now, will 40 year old men be marrying 13 year old boys? Women marrying their dogs? For most of human history, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Now, in much of the world, it's not.

The point is conflagration. Homosexuals do not 'slide' into pedophilia or bestiality (with dogs). The comment is offensive and show a lack of respect for a proper discussion since you have been told this already (time and time again). 

Yes, Christians have had the 'run of the place' in this country and world for many years but that does not make give Christians ownership and make tradition a possession of Christians alone. Christians should not be jealous of others. It goes against what Spirit teaches.

So, then. You would, by that reasoning, not have a problem with a 13 year old boy marrying a 40 year old man as long as they both consented. I mean, since you're not a part of it. Good to know. 

And a deliberately evil one at that.

It's not an impulse and the only connection is that I find both to be immoral. You guys always try to create the straw man that I'm saying they are related, as if one leads to the other. I guess you guys do that so you can feel like you're making some valid point or something. 

What you find immoral is a matter of faith. . . and opinion based on what you are 'taught.' We will remind the collective "you" essentially that there is no linkage to what a pedophile does with a non-consenting child and what consenting adults—either sex do together, thereby causing no harm to one another. BTW, there are many forms of what you would call immorality and yet you do not link either of those to your deliberate and offensive 'pick' of immorality in this discussion.

You say these things because you believe you have the moral grounds to do so. Where does your morality come from and what authority do you appeal to in order to back it up?

That’s some bullshit right there. You want to interfere in someone else’s life, and when they object, you demand they produce authority for resisting that interference. Meanwhile, you have demonstrated no authority to tell other people who they can or cannot marry.

I have explained that homosexuality is natural, healthy, and safe. This is very well studied and understood now. It is therefore incumbent on you to explain why gay people should be treated differently than straight people.

What does bother me greatly, however, is that I am trying to engage in something meaningful with you and all I get is the same tired effort to shame me for my beliefs.

I believe you should be ashamed for the belief. But even that is merely an attack on the belief, not you personally. Still, the ease with which you are distracted by that, and focus on what you claim are ad hominem attacks, shows that you aren’t prepared to make an actual, persuasive argument justifying this exclusion of gay people from the institution of marriage.

So, for the last time. what makes you think your morality, and those who agree with it, should be the basis of our society rather than mine and those who think like me? How do you justify it? 

The last time? It’s the first time. I never said gay marriage should be the basis for society. I don’t even know what you mean by “basis for society” or how that would work.

Not long ago in America, homosexuality was criminalized. It still is in some parts of the world. There is no valid justification for that. Even where it is decriminalized, denying basic rights to people just because they are gay is similarly unjustified, and rooted - as Justice Kennedy explained - in an irrational animus. I share that opinion.

If correlation is proof of causation, then the only conclusion must be that being and evangelical youth leader or pastor is an obvious and almost irrefutable indicator of pedophilia...

The comment is offensive and show a lack of respect for a proper discussion since you have been told this already (time and time again). 

People who continue with argument do not deserve to be engaged. It's the same argument time and again.

Kind of funny how only your side gets to dictate how our society should be without being labeled as assholes or trying to control people. Thing is, we have just as much right to influence and shape our society as you do. 

The difference is "your side" is offensive and mean-spirited and 'driven' to drive into other people's lives in a country we are repeatedly (and delusional apparently) to believe is free. Influence people to be free as long as they do no harm: Nobody can disagree with "your side' over and about that! Stop meddling, mocking, and demonizing and effectively dividing people (voters) because that is evil personified.

Or, anybody willing to take on the arduous task of working with youth today—including team sport coaches. 

To be clear, my point is homosexuality is not pedophilia and that should be obvious when explained ONCE to a person who has been misinformed or 'clumsy' on the subject matter.  Homosexuals seek consenting relationships on the adult spectrum, while pedophiles seek out intimacy and relationships with minors. And, oh, by the way, pedophilia has its on 'branch' on the sexual attraction 'tree.'

Yes. Still, I, we, have to push back (and even go on the offensive) 'everywhere' because letting certain reprobates and 'repeaters' have the floor to themselves is understood by him or her to be winning. They are not winning. They are evil and vindictive people and nobody should let them alone as they strike out to destroy other people's lives once more!

You say these things because you believe you have the moral grounds to do so. Where does your morality come from and what authority do you appeal to in order to back it up?

That’s some bullshit right there. You want to interfere in someone else’s life, and when they object, you demand they produce authority for resisting that interference. Meanwhile, you have demonstrated no authority to tell other people who they can or cannot marry.

Bullshit? So, you don't believe you have moral grounds for your position? Or do you believe you do not need some authority to which to appeal to in order to justify your moral position? That is, it's valid just because you feel it is? You say "I have explained that homosexuality is natural, healthy, and safe. This is very well studied and understood now" but don't seem to realize such a view is  only held by you and those who think as you do. You think as you do because you start from certain presuppositions before believing what you do about homosexuality. For those who do not share those presuppositions, your argument is flawed and erroneous. 

It is therefore incumbent on you to explain why gay people should be treated differently than straight people.

No, it's not, since that isn't the subject I'm addressing here. Nor would I waste my time attempting such a thing. I will attempt, again, to explain the subject I'm addressing.

I believe A. You believe B. It literally doesn't matter what A and B concern when it involves morality. What matters is that neither of us can empirically prove our position is the correct one in the manner of, say, proving that the earth is spherical in shape. The fact is our beliefs concerning whatever subject A and B addresses begin with suppositions held before even addressing the subject that informs A and B. 

If that is true, then upon what basis do you claim your morality is superior to mine? If you think I'm literally asking you to prove that it is, you haven't understood anything I've said because what I've said also prevents me from being able to prove mine is superior to yours in an inarguably objective sense. While I believe mine is superior to yours, I can't objectively prove it in the sense that I can prove the world is spherical in shape.  This is because we start from different suppositions and that is the point. So, the purpose of the question is to get you to realize this, not to actually answer it. That is why I keep asking you to present the authority behind your position. 

At this point, the question becomes, why am I trying to make this point? The reason is twofold. 

One reason is the responses I have received to the things I've said in this thread. I am trying to have a conversation about a topic that interests me and all I receive is grade school responses. I find that intently frustrating. Not because they affect me emotionally. They don't. I'm frustrated because everything anyone says, with the exception of TiG, are simply personal attacks rather than attempts to address the subject. My guess is that Perrie is, on some level, frustrated by what she has provided. A place where ideas can be discussed. But that isn't what this place is. It's just a platform for one side to taunt the other. 

The other, more important reason is to get you, and others, to realize that because someone disagrees with your point of view doesn't necessarily imply evil intent or that their position is wrong. While I could have an argument with you as to why homosexuality is immoral, doing so would be pointless without first attempting to change your presuppositions. If I said something about the immorality of homosexuality that changed your opinion, it wouldn't be because I proved homosexuality is wrong. It would be because I said something that changed your presuppositions. In the mean time, I recognize that you don't hold the beliefs you do because you intend evil. I recognize that you hold the views that you do because you believe that they are moral and I treat you that way. 

I believe you should be ashamed for the belief. But even that is merely an attack on the belief, not you personally.

Do you honestly believe an objective reader, with no stake in the conversation would read this quote....

You’re just in love with this prejudiced analogy, aren’t you? You keep bringing it up. I can’t think of a reason why 40 year old men would be marrying 13 year old boys, but you are obsessed with this idea. Don’t ask me to explain your obsession or to explain it away.

... would not consider this a personal attack? You aren't addressing what I said, you're questioning my motive for saying it. 

Still, the ease with which you are distracted by that, and focus on what you claim are ad hominem attacks, shows that you aren’t prepared to make an actual, persuasive argument justifying this exclusion of gay people from the institution of marriage.

That would be because it isn't the subject I am addressing. 

So, for the last time. what makes you think your morality, and those who agree with it, should be the basis of our society rather than mine and those who think like me? How do you justify it? 

The last time? It’s the first time. I never said gay marriage should be the basis for society. I don’t even know what you mean by “basis for society” or how that would work.

(sigh) I'm frigging not talking about gay marriage as the basis for society. I'm literally speaking of whatever your personal morality is, regardless of subject. You have some idea of what society should be, yes? What makes your view of whatever that is more morally relevant than someone else's? Upon what authority to you base your claims on???

Don't you get it? I'm not asking you to accept my moral claims simply because you can't empirically refute them. I'm asking you to understand that your moral views are simply that. Your moral views. That you hold them does not translate that they are therefore empirically moral. If you can do that, then you would take the following statement made by you as I do...

What does bother me greatly, however, is that I am trying to engage in something meaningful with you and all I get is the same tired effort to shame me for my beliefs.

I believe you should be ashamed for the belief.

That doesn't bother me in the least. In fact, I appreciate the honesty, although I already assumed as much. I understand that such a view stems from your view of morality and therefore, don't take it personally. That is, I agree that someone who acts immorally should feel shame. That we don't agree on what is moral in certain things doesn't negate that. 

And therein lies the problem. We both feel we are acting, or speaking, morally. Hence, why I keep hounding you about whence comes your authority. How else will we resolve who's right, if that's even possible? Our personal opinion is insufficient. 

Equality under the US Constitution trumps what you believe!

You think as you do because you start from certain presuppositions before believing what you do about homosexuality. For those who do not share those presuppositions, your argument is flawed and erroneous. 

The only ones starting with presuppositions are the religious conservatives who start the debate at "Homosexuality is a sin". Rational persons without presuppositions listen to the facts and science which clearly shows homosexuality is natural, healthy, and safe. Science doesn't care about dip shit bible thumpers opinions; it doesn't give a fuck if you think "it's gross" or "it's a sin".

The fact is our beliefs concerning whatever subject A and B addresses begin with suppositions held before even addressing the subject that informs A and B.

You start with a presupposition. I listened to the debate and listened to the evidence and seeing that NO ONE IS HARMED by two adults choosing to marry one another, I see no reason why not to rule in their favor. There is ZERO evidence that any religious conservative is harmed by any gay couple getting married. Those are the facts.

I'm not asking you to accept my moral claims simply because you can't empirically refute them. I'm asking you to understand that your moral views are simply that.

If your view is that gay marriage is immoral because God said so, then no one needs to "empirically refute" your claim. You can't empirically prove your God exists, so why should anyone spend even a moment trying to dispel your unproven beliefs? I understand that you believe you hold moral views, and you're entitled to that. However, unless you can prove either you or other religious conservatives are harmed by other people choosing to be gay and get married then keep your unproven beliefs and live them all you want, but keep them out of our laws and government. This is not a Christian nation, we have NO established religion and thus basing ANY laws on religion or banning consensual relationships between adults because of religious beliefs would violate the constitution.

That doesn't bother me in the least.

Color me surprised. A Christian who isn't bothered by bullying others, claiming unproven moral superiority and forcing their morality on society around them? I'm shocked I tell you, shocked... /s

So, you don't believe you have moral grounds for your position? Or do you believe you do not need some authority to which to appeal to in order to justify your moral position?

Oh I do have moral support. But I’m not trying to inflict my beliefs on your behavior, so I’m not obligated to justify it to you.

Our society, which you have referenced, holds personal liberty and the freedom to associate as foundational to our beliefs. Additionally, we believe that people should be treated equally under the law. 

So, if the state is going to sanction marriage, it must do so with respect for those values.

You want to use the state to violate my liberty. You want the state to make it illegal for me to have a state recognized marriage with another consenting adult because of our sex. 

You must justify this intrusion. The state has already tried and failed to justify it. “It’s immoral” has been your only justification, so far. That is insufficient. You speak of moral authority, but the only authority you have cited is your own personal feeling. Again, that is insufficient.

but don't seem to realize such a view is  only held by you and those who think as you do.

It’s not simply people who think as I do. I have already explained to you that this is the consensus of experts in the fields of biology and psychology. It is defined in educational and reference texts with the characterization I have used.

You think as you do because you start from certain presuppositions before believing what you do about homosexuality.

False. As a child, I thought homosexuality was weird and unnatural. It was common in our culture to fear and mock homosexual people. I had to learn about it before I came to my present understanding. It has nothing to do with presuppositions.

I'm literally speaking of whatever your personal morality is, regardless of subject.

No, this is shifting the goalposts. The seed is about laws prohibiting gay marriage and so is the discussion. 

Oh I do have moral support. But I’m not trying to inflict my beliefs on your behavior, so I’m not obligated to justify it to you.

No, you're not. I'm asking for the sake of discussion. That is, unless we both realize that, as individuals, our beliefs are just that; beliefs. I'm asking you to engage me on that level. Apparently, you are unwilling. 

Since this appears to be the case, I will not trouble either of us further. Have a nice day. 

Actually I think have justified my position very well. Especially in my previous post. Guess you chose not to read it.

Equality under the US Constitution trumps what you believe!

Really? Prove your golden calf is the source of morality, then.  

The most likely source(s) of morality is societal evolution.

Actually I think have justified my position very well. Especially in my previous post. Guess you chose not to read it.

Yes. Not only did you justify your position with what you said, I also attribute to you all the arguments I've heard in support of your argument that you didn't mention. I know them all. Well done. What you have not done is demonstrate why those justifications trump the justifications of my position. 

You are arguing B from the condition of A without establishing A is actually what you believe it is. The difference between us is that I recognize this but, apparently, you do not. Instead, you argue B as if we both agree on A. We do not. I cannot prove A any more than you can, in empirical terms, so I'm no more able to prove B than you are. Because of that, I speak to you on that level. You, however, do not. 

To put it differently, I believe you are blind to morality because you do not know my God. I also know that you believe the same thing about me. That I am blind because I don't understand whatever it is that informs your notion of morality. That is A. Don't you realize that arguing B, your notions concerning homosexuality for instance, which constitutes B, are meaningless unless we agree on A? Respectively, A is our source of morality. If we cannot agree on that, what point is there in arguing B? 

For that reason, I have refused to engage you on the morality of homosexuality beyond my stating that I believe it is immoral. It would be a waste of time. In order to have a meaningful discussion about it, we'd first have to start from the same place, which, obviously, we don't. So, why would I bother? Rather, I'd much prefer to engage you on why we differ on the subject to begin with. 

Based on your comments my morals stand on their own...

They are based on my ability to discern right from wrong!

Based on your comments my morals stand on their own...

Why would my comments be necessary for your morality to stand on their own? 

They are based on my ability to discern right from wrong!

And what is that ability based on? 

I 'find' that, and this is going to come off strange coming from me - a Christian and religious person, but let me say this on my behalf: I take my faith seriously and deeply enough to make it make sense and make it stand on its 'own' in its truth. I won't twist it to allow for my points of view. . . just to 'belong' and so I call out the 'big crap talkers' and am angry with them 'all day long.'  So then, I find that some people are hand-fed there beliefs and because they want to remain in the "center of the will" of there belief structure and rise in it. . . they go along to get along or accept anything that is given them for its own sake of belonging. 

Therefore, such people are religionists, and zealots, running around imagining they are afflicting themselves for God - when God has no need of their activities which actually are an offense and spiritually directionless. They can not properly defend themselves so they just act-out.

Well, for the LGBTQ+ community it is time to act out again and not allow themselves to be cornered and quartered by any group of zealots-be they religious confused or just Stupids are as stupid does.

The war between "progressive Christian movements" and actual Christians.

There is no war between progressive/liberal Christians and evangelical Christians. Because it takes two offensive sides in order to fight and progressive Christians simply strive to keep their Christian opposites off their turf. It begs the question that some would not honor their Lord by not starting a 'hatefest' and separation in the midst of our singular faith, simply because they can't abide living in peace with the Other. But, let's learn more about this 'war' between self-styled "actual" Christians and the Other less genuine Christians under the 'tent.'  Put it all out there for public consumption—already.

I already know none of you are going to agree with my views on those individual or specific things so I would not waste my time trying to convince you to hold some other view. Rather, I'm trying to get you all to back up a bit and see the bigger picture.

A digression. The above commits to 'fatalism' but then has expectations of us accepting what exactly: hope?! Incredible.

It was once inconceivable that gay marriage would be an accepted practice. Now it is. It was once inconceivable that children would be allowed, and even encouraged, to make irreversible, life altering modifications to their own bodies based on the feelings of the moment, a decision they could not possibly be prepared to make. Worse, even having the government do all it can to encourage it and make it happen. Now it is a reality in many places. Anyone who says it's inconceivable that, in the not-too-distant future, children will be encouraged to marry adults if they feel like it. People will be able to marry their animals or themselves or have group marriages. 

Now that's entrenched thinking, I see. It has been explained time and time again that homosexuals do not 'sleep' with children/minors at all. That is a different class of sexuality with its own definition and structure. . . for which it it ever becomes an growing "addition" instead of one suffered in this society-for it is already looked at/over in some places in the world. . .it still won't exist because of SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. Just realize that pedophilia is illegal and immoral because it involves children of both sexes: males and females.  Not just one sex: males or females.

We will tirelessly call out this conflation and ineptness to concede to a fact as often as it needs to be done.

Know why? Because once you mess with the standard, what you mess with reality and declare something untrue as true, it's inevitable. I've already shown you examples in the previous paragraph that have actually happened. It's the shift from preferring what is true to what you want to be true. The move from duty and values to hedonism. 

That's bull crap. And it is easy to falsify: 'Somebody' in this discussion is arguing for the sanctity of marriage as the standard, right?

But, has admitted to not being married or ever planning to marry.

So much for marriage being the standard. . .s/he won't even 'partake' and live a "satisfying" life before his or her God in a spiritual bond with another.

Now then the question: If marriage is the standard to teach, why the "hell" are so many so-called evangelicals committed to the single life of celibacy? It's obligatory to marry, thus magnifying holiness upon oneself and the marriage partner and any attending offspring.

And somebody wants to discuss hedonism. Let's discuss the pain single Christians of marrying age and consent are avoiding by ignoring their own spiritual "Standard"! (Now who is "messing with" the conservative standard; not doing their religious "duty"—Who?)

Emphatically.

[i]f two guys want to live their lives as if they were married, that's their business. I object to it being called a marriage in both the definitional sense and legal sense, since, in my view, it's neither.

So when did personal opinion become a "legal sense" respected by law in and of itself? More conflation.

Not much. For in marriages (truth be told) sex is performed in various forms, fashions, and positions- in and out of pregnancy-or done so simply for pleasure sake or ease. But the bigoted religious male types want to protect themselves from any hint of being perceived as "penetrable" even if it never-ever could be realized. They simply do not want the temptation (that should not exist for heterosexual males as a position to be in anyway).

Marriage is not the issue. These sanctimonious jerks don’t want gay people to exist, period.

Marriage is not the issue. These sanctimonious jerks don’t want gay people to exist, period.

Two types of marriage; holy matrimony and legal marriage. Someone should remind the SCOTUS that one is LEGAL and NOT a religious event. 

meh, there's too many fake thumpers on that bench. but no worries, the coming trump backlash will envelop the theocrats and set them back a century or two. fortunately, when their historical cycle repeats, it usually involves lots of wailing and memorials ...

personally, I always preferred the whole lions and tigers in an enclosed space solution ...

MAGA demand those they, "Don't Believe In", respect their beliefs...

Now how exactly is that supposed to work?

yeah, ask richard that ...

We atheists have been sounding the alarm of creeping Dominionism for many years, while conservatives acted like they’d never heard of it.  Sound familiar?  Think Project 2025.  Thou shalt not lie is apparently a negotiable command.

their 10 commandments are for everyone else and they're at the top of my priority list if the shit ever hits the fan ...

Why is anyone surprised?

During their confirmation hearings, Trump's appointees to the Court all said that Roe was settled law... and they overturned it at the first occasion.

Does anyone think they'll let gay marriage stand?

They won't go after racially mixed marriage as long as Clarence Thomas is there, but when he goes.......

In Friday's opinion, Thomas made no mention of  Loving v. Virginia , the landmark 1967 ruling by the Supreme Court that struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage. That decision relied in part on the substantive due process doctrine — and was cited in several subsequent decisions that did as well, including Obergefell in 2015. Thomas wants the Supreme Court to overturn landmark rulings that legalized contraception, same-sex marriage

He cannot and will not have it both ways; either all decisions based correctly on substantive due process are correct or

none of them are which would turn us back to Medieval times.

Somehow I don't think Thomas would be bothered by hypocrisy.

; either all decisions based correctly on substantive due process are correct or none of them 

That's just silly.  Feel free to read the Glucksberg case where a unanimous court set forth a test of when it can be applied and when it can't.  

rings, Trump's appointees to the Court all said that Roe was settled law.

No they didn't.

yeah, they did. will seeing the video montage again make you go away?

will seeing the video montage again make you go away?

Of course not. Since when has a reality had any effect at all?

Since when has a reality had any effect at all?

You can't show any such proof of what you claimed. 

They said it was a precedent. Which it obviously is. Anyone who claims they testified it was settled law is lying. 

They did not call it settled law (a precedent that is so strong that it is unlikely to be overturned) but they sure as hell indicated that Roe v. Wade was a long-standing precedent and gave no indication that they would consider overturning it.   And that is in response to questions probing to see if the nominee would consider overturning Roe v Wade.

factcheck

hey did not call it settled law

Correct. Bob wrongly claimed they did.  We will see if the reality of that has any effect at all.

d) but they sure as hell indicated that Roe v. Wade was a long-standing precedent

It was. It was 50  years old. That's a simple fact that no one could deny.   Imagine thinking simply agreeing that Roe is 50 years old means something other than recognition that it is 50 years old.   

And that is in response to questions probing to see if the nominee would consider overturning Roe v Wade.

Of  course they didn't. Do you think they should announce their opinions on a case before they hear it? That would be a breach of ethics. 

Read what they said and understand the meaning of their words in context.   You will not because you want to argue that they did not use the literal words 'settled law' (chickenshit nit-picking) while ignoring that they danced around that and gave the senators answers sufficient to convince them that they are not a threat to overturning Roe v Wade.

But, as we all know, they were indeed a threat to Roe v Wade.

ead what they said and understand the meaning of their words in context.

I do. I don't think you do.  

round that and gave the senators answers sufficient to convince them that they are not a threat to overturning Roe v Wade.

That's delusional. 

When the next democrat nominates a justice they will testify:  "dobbs is  a precedent of the Court . It's 10 years old. It's entitled to deference as a precedent. I'll evaluate any challenge in line with how the court handles precedent. I can't, of course, testify whether as to whether I'll vote to overturn it"  

They will say the exact same things as Kavanaugh and then vote to overturn Dobbs.   Only a fool would think that such testimony serves as a promise not to overturn it.   

Not a surprise that you refuse to recognize that they used words suggesting that Roe v. Wade was safe.

Do you think they should announce their opinions on a case before they hear it? That would be a breach of ethics. 

I don’t think that’s necessary. Where I think people have an issue in the confirmation hearings is when nominees are asked their opinions on settled cases and they only respond with the thing we already know: “it’s precedent.” It would be perfectly reasonable - and honest - for a nominee to declare that they think Roe or Griswold or Miranda, etc was decided wrongly or rightly. Sitting justices do that all the time. And we all had to do it in law school. The Senate should insist on that minimal level of candor.

All they did was make general, generic statements of fact and describe the deference due and factors to consider when overturning precedent.  It was general, formulaic tripe that serves as little more than a generalized intro to the process of con law.  Anyone who took it as something else is projecting their own political desires. 

The Senate should insist on that minimal level of candor.

 I think Kagan was correct when she testified "it's inappropriate for a nominee to ever give any indication of how she would rule in a case that would come before the Court.  And I think, too, it would be inappropriate to do so in a somewhat veiled manner by essentially grading past cases."

I don't think that will change anytime soon. 

Ummm... TiG... You agreed with Sean. Don't bother to try to walk that back. That's impossible. If you agree with one single word, you will inevitably be presented as agreeing with everything.

You should know that by now.

Gee bob, you get caught spreading misinformation and rather than take responsibility and admitting it  you make it personal. 

I guess we now know reality doesn't have any effect at all on progressive talking points.

The definition of "marriage" has evolved enormously over the millennia. For most of recorded history, marriage has been primarily a property contract. For most of recorded history, marriage has been polygamous. For most of recorded history, marriage has been indifferent to race (because "race" is a relatively recent sociological construct).

The limitations that ignorant fools want to put on marriage today are ridiculous.

they want it to be another one of those "only thumpers can join" bullshit clubs ...

Ignorant people often think that their personal experience is the same for everyone else and for all time.

The definition of "marriage" has evolved enormously over the millennia.

Fair point.

For most of recorded history, marriage has been primarily a property contract. For most of recorded history, marriage has been polygamous.

In much of the world, it still is.

For most of recorded history, marriage has been indifferent to race (because "race" is a relatively recent sociological construct).

Meh.  That's probably fair about our modern (idiotic) fixations on race, but there has always been some level of drama around marrying outside whatever is designated as an acceptable social/cultural group.

The limitations that ignorant fools want to put on marriage today are ridiculous.

Old habits die hard. 

I have not read through the comments above yet, but let me state here and now. Don't just look at what MAGA wishes to do (harm) to transfolks, LGBTQ folks, and women. . . they are coming for YOU: 'NEXT!'

MAGA is friend to MAGA—Only. 

First they came for the Communists....

Remember when we told only a few months ago that Project 2025 was a nothing burger, move along folks, nothing to see here, the sky is not falling....

Yeah, well....

They knew they were lying. We knew they were lying. And get this, so-called, "God's people" are using evil means to achieve their ends of 'lifting' the rights and freedoms of other people off of them! How are these evil religionists any different than other destroyers of the rights, liberties, and freedoms of others. They are not!

They are even bunglers of their own Faith! Making it unworthy to be shared with anybody outside of themselves.

"We've fought a long, hard fight to win marriage equality and we will always protect our family, our friends and neighbors from hateful attacks."

'MAGA, MAGA, why are you persecuting LGBTQ people'?

The "B" in LGBTQ is a human qualifier: Bisexual. Not Bestiality. In addition, there is isn't any 'P' at all for "Pedophile" in the acronym. We expect the uninitiated and the misinformed to wise up before they engage others in open discussion about same-sex marriage or its moral value.

I challenge 'anybody' willing to engage to a discussion on the moral/value of same-sex marriage and same-sex relationships. 

I don't think they know what any of those letters stand for...don't forget the + . That gives them carte blanche to add anything they want

And Again...

We have had enough of the hatred! Enough of their damn threats and religiously evil ways! Especially the insincere smiles and "god loves you" while they lie, cheat, and suck the civil rights and human rights out of others!

Condemn the offense of religious bigotry- NOW!

lol. 

Do you have any idea how desperate this persecution complex makes you look to non crazy people ?  

The government isn't executing gays. And those places  that do, Gaza, Iran etc., are the favorites of progressives. 

Legislating suppression of same-sex marriage is a type of destruction. And, it ain't going to make our society any healthier. Indeed, it will be a national setback. So don't go patting yourselves, plural, on the head and shoulders. Now share with us, please: What about homosexual marriage offends MAGAs the most.  I'm curious. Let's discuss.

You must understand, CB: the "freedom" that MAGA requires is the freedom to impose their ideas on everyone. If you try to limit their power to impose their will, then you are infringing on their "freedom".

"Freedom" is for MAGAs only.

That rationale of itself is not and can neve be the whole story. We must not allow it to be - not here; not there!

It's what America voted for.

"MAGA"-America. It's a fine distinction, certainly.

MAGA got a majority.

Of course, the 'great moralizers' on the site won't enter into an open discussion with someone s/he does not consider a Christian, be that as it may here is my question: 

Do the 'great moralizers' on this site want "model" citizens or a country full of "saints"?