- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 29,262
- Reaction score
- 10,126
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Having sex is indeed not any society's business, nor of real interest to society, but what is the society's business and interest is society itself, and that involves the production of introduction of proto-members into society - offspring, which invariably occurs by heterosexual unions, and this is how societies the world over are populated.
And it doesn't matter whether it was rare or not, it still existed. And even that doesn't matter because all that matters is how we, as a nation, recognize marriage, and that is done in how it works, not what restrictions are placed on it. The restrictions should be based in how the laws work, not an arbitrary trait like race, sex/gender, or religion.
You're right. What matters is what the state decides it will sanction and that's exactly what we have now; as it should be. And the decision today does not change that. There's nothing arbitrary about defining marriage as 1 man and 1 woman. It is the standard model around the world and through virtually all cultures despite claims that there were some deviances at one time or another. Exceptions don't make the rule.
Marriage involving a man and a woman is no more an irrelevant "restriction" to marriage, than biological fact is an irrelevant "restriction" to reproduction.
"How the law works" is actually based on the fact of human interaction in society, not how people want society to be, or want people to interact, dictated by law. The latter of which are known as "Social Engineering" dictate, and is rejected by our free society, and is not a legitimate authority of government under the Constitution.
You're arguing against a strawman, as I never once said the nature of homosexuality is grounds for disallowing SS marriage.Lets assume for a split second that you are right, that it is a birth defect even though there is no evidence that it actually is. Mentally handicapped people, which is considered a birth defect, are allowed to marry so obviously birth defects are not a pre-requisite for not allowing someone to marry. The same goes for any other birth defect out there. So your point fails as a reason to not allow them to marry.
Marriage involving a man and a woman is no more an irrelevant "restriction" to marriage, than biological fact is an irrelevant "restriction" to reproduction.
"How the law works" is actually based on the fact of human interaction in society, not how people want society to be, or want people to interact, dictated by law. The latter of which are known as "Social Engineering" dictate, and is rejected by our free society, and is not a legitimate authority of government under the Constitution.
Any ever call you a drama queen.
I hardly think we have worry about people reproducing.
Those cultures did not recognize marriage to be something other than heterosexual union, and did not recognize gay marriage universally, but specifically, ancient Greece and Rome only recognized gay unions among some select few, and did so only shortly before the collapse and overthrow of these sociheterosexual unions, and this is how societies the world over are populated.
You have a warp sense of freedom. Our society just became a little bit freer today.
The overturning of Prop 8, or in the larger context gay marriage, has no effect on stopping heterosexual marriage.This isn't about people reproducing, or worrying about people reproducing, this is about the fact of human reproduction, the fact that it can occur outside of a stable committed familial unit, and the fact that such reproduction is contrary to the interest of societies throughout mankind's history, hence the reason these societies have invariably, without exception, recognized the public commitment that is heterosexual marriage.
You yourself are undeniably a byproduct of those heterosexual unions, making your dismissal of their importance to society somewhat ironic.
Anyone ever call you.. naa ... never mind.
This isn't about people reproducing, or worrying about people reproducing, this is about the fact of human reproduction, the fact that it can occur outside of a stable committed familial unit, and the fact that such reproduction is contrary to the interest of societies throughout mankind's history, hence the reason these societies have invariably, without exception, recognized the public commitment that is heterosexual marriage.
You yourself are undeniably a byproduct of those heterosexual unions, making your dismissal of their importance to society somewhat ironic.
Anyone ever call you.. naa ... never mind.
Our society was just condemned today to its own painful death.
Scalia nailed it in his dissent, indicating "Diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this court in American democratic society". That diseased root is reference not only to a diseased tree, but the eventual demise of that tree. And we have the ancient Greeks and Romans before us as proof.
That's not freedom; it's utter stupidity.
Our society was just condemned today to its own painful death.
Scalia nailed it in his dissent, indicating "Diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this court in American democratic society". That diseased root is reference not only to a diseased tree, but the eventual demise of that tree. And we have the ancient Greeks and Romans before us as proof.
That's not freedom; it's utter stupidity.
Almost precisely the opposite is true, in fact: homosexual marriages had been known since the days of the Sacred Band of Thebes in antiquity, and were not done away with (and were, in fact, normalized by the Romans upon their absorption of the Persians with their homosexual temple weddings) until the ascension of Constantine and Christianity almost a thousand years later - and near the end of the Roman Empire.
Homosexuality is not a disease. And homosexuals have made massive positive contributions to society. Alan Turing who was literally tortured and eventually committed suicide is most often considered the father of the computer. They also form family units and raise well adjusted children.
They also do not form family units with their own children born of that relationship, but rather the children are only the result of severed social and biological ties, hence a harm to society.
They not only were done away with, but were outlawed, often under penalty of death.
They were not universally normalized by the Romans, but it was only recognized among a select few, along with the abandonment of Republican principles, the dissolution of the rule of law, and the creation of the deified Caesars, and this was right before the collapse of the Roman empire.
Wow, not only are children born out of wedlock a "harm to society", but so is the adoption of said children?The reference to 'diseased root" is not calling homosexuality a disease!
And while Homosexuals have made 'massive positive contributions to society", these contributions have not come as a result of them being homosexuals, which is the context of the discussion and Society's vested interest in heterosexual marriage.
They also do not form family units with their own children born of that relationship, but rather the children are only the result of severed social and biological ties, hence a harm to society.
Wow, not only are children born out of wedlock a "harm to society", but so is the adoption of said children?
I'm still confused on what the connection is between unwed mothers and gay marriage?Doom gloom the sky is falling!
You're arguing against a strawman, as I never once said the nature of homosexuality is grounds for disallowing SS marriage.
The grounds for disallowing SS marriage is that it violates definitive propriety of terms, as an SS couple is simply not "a man and a woman as husband and wife", which is what a "marriage" is and has been for over 12,000 years since the argicultural revolution, isolated tiny pockets of violation notwithstanding and, of course, invalid and powerless in their ability to redefine "marriage" any more than unjustified homicides gotten away with by the mafia or horrific governments had the power to broaden redefine "murder", obviously.
Any decision regarding DOMA will be rightly decided solely on states v. federal, not on whether DOMA violates equal protection.
Any decision on Prop 8 will be rightly decided based upon the actual arguments brought before the court, and Prop 8 argument was strangely strained, not at all an appeal to historic reality of definitive propriety of terms, so again, whatever the court decides here will not at all be a statement of SS couples should be allowed "marriage".
SS couples do deserve equal protection in their civil union domestic partnerships.
They just can't rightly call them "marriages".
I suggest the win-win term homarriage for them.
Most people support equal protection for them, just not the ridiculous oxymoronic use of the term "marriage", obviously and understandably.
Create homarriage civil union domestic partnerships for SS couples and everyone wins.
This decision does not strike that part of DOMA down and that part of DOMA is not unconstitutional. If Ohio does not (and it does not) want to recognize same-sex couples as married, it should not be required by the federal government to do so. That would merely be a back-door (no pun intended) to gay marriage in all 50 states and would further create the precedent that once the first state allows incest marriage (which is actually being debated as something that should be done in some circles) then all states would have to recognize that, too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?