SC Ruling: Debate Edition

[fraidycat]

Play nice! Debating ideas does not equal personal attacks or persecution. Please keep that in mind and let SWB relax today.

 

My thoughts: The U.S. is not a theocracy. Therefore we don't follow any religious texts for lawmaking purposes. Not the Bible, Quran, not the Torah, not the Shruti, etc.

 

Thankfully.

 

I can't wrap my head around not being grateful for that.

[Love]

I believe Jesus gave everyone free will, and it's not anyone's job to force other people to live according to the Bible.  

 

I think, as Christians, we need to reach people on a spiritual level, not force them legally to obey something they don't believe in.  

[EmseB]

I think before debating the merits of the ruling, one should read Roberts' dissent which doesn't enter into the realm of religion/theocracy (in fact, I get the idea he's generally for gay marriage), but the constitutionality and language of the opinion and what it means going forward legally.

[eternalsummer]

Religion is a mere vehicle for morality and truth, not the source.

 

The truth is that marriage, by nature, is heterosexual.

 

It is the union of the fundamental duality; yin and yang, male and female, bride and groom, husband and wife.  Opposites attract; 2 become 1, manifest, in principle, in the ability to procreate.

 

This is something we've seen recognized across cultures, independent of religion, around the world from the beginning of recorded time.

 

[poppy]

I think before debating the merits of the ruling, one should read Roberts' dissent which doesn't enter into the realm of religion/theocracy (in fact, I get the idea he's generally for gay marriage), but the constitutionality and language of the opinion and what it means going forward legally.

Why would it even be a question, if it were not for religion? (Some people's religion)

[Btervet]

Religion is a mere vehicle for morality and truth, not the source.

 

The truth is that marriage, by nature, is heterosexual.

 

It is the union of the fundamental duality; yin and yang, male and female, bride and groom, husband and wife. Opposites attract; 2 become 1, manifest, in principle, in the ability to procreate.

 

This is something we've seen recognized across cultures, independent of religion, around the world from the beginning of recorded time.

No.

 

Marriage is a social construct. There is no marriage without a society, there is just monogamy. Society is what gives us marriage. As a society, we have agreed that it is the Union of two consenting adults.

 

I'm pretty thrilled with that.

 

Marriage certainly isn't about only joining opposites. That's absurd. My DH and I are both yins, and our union had nothing to do with procreation. The idea that only two opposite people (in what aspects exactly? Sex, gender, religion, personality, politics, hair color???) making babies is what marriage is all about is depressing.

[fraidycat]

Religion is a mere vehicle for morality and truth, not the source.

 

The truth is that marriage, by nature, is heterosexual.

 

It is the union of the fundamental duality; yin and yang, male and female, bride and groom, husband and wife. Opposites attract; 2 become 1, manifest, in principle, in the ability to procreate.

 

This is something we've seen recognized across cultures, independent of religion, around the world from the beginning of recorded time.

Marriage is not anything by nature. It is a human construct - and historically a business decision, a transfer of property.

[mommaduck]

I want freedom for my faith, beliefs, practices, traditions. This means that others will have theirs as well. The people I've known to be behind the "turn America into a theocracy" are the type who would forbid my faith...no thank you. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Play nice! Debating ideas does not equal personal attacks or persecution. Please keep that in mind and let SWB relax today.

 

My thoughts: The U.S. is not a theocracy. Therefore we don't follow any religious texts for lawmaking purposes. Not the Bible, Quran, not the Torah, not the Shruti, etc.

 

Thankfully.

 

I can't wrap my head around not being grateful for that.

 

/thread

[eternalsummer]

Why would it even be a question, if it were not for religion? (Some people's religion)

 

I already addressed that.  Religion is a mere vehicle for morality and truth, not the source.

 

Marriage is a social construct. There is no marriage without a society, there is just monogamy. Society is what gives us marriage. As a society, we have agreed that it is the Union of two consenting adults.

 

I'm pretty thrilled with that.

 

Marriage certainly isn't about only joining opposites. That's absurd. My DH and I are both yins, and our union had nothing to do with procreation. The idea that only two opposite people (in what aspects exactly? Sex, gender, religion, personality, politics, hair color???) making babies is what marriage is all about is depressing.

 

Society is a biological construct that is naturally ordered.

 

Male and female represent the fundamental duality.  I don't think making babies is depressing.  It's a blessing.  It's how normal, healthy beings in nature behave.  That's life (literally).

[fraidycat]

I already addressed that.  Religion is a mere vehicle for morality and truth, not the source.

 

 

Society is a biological construct that is naturally ordered.

 

Male and female represent the fundamental duality.  I don't think making babies is depressing.  It's a blessing.  It's how normal, healthy beings in nature behave.  That's life (literally).

 

But marriage is not required to make babies.  That's life.  Literally.

 

Marriage is not about babies. To reduce it to that is depressing.

[Btervet]

Society is a biological construct that is naturally ordered.

 

Male and female represent the fundamental duality. I don't think making babies is depressing. It's a blessing. It's how normal, healthy beings in nature behave. That's life (literally).

I didn't say making babies was depressing. In fact I quite enjoyed making mine.

 

However, even if my DH and I couldn't or decided against making babies, we'd still be married. Marriage is about sharing a lifetime of love.

 

Also, if society is a bilological construct, and this society supports gay marriage, it looks like biology and nature are supporting the gays. Unless you meant something different?

[Hunter's Moon]

But marriage is not required to make babies. That's life. Literally.

 

Marriage is not about babies. To reduce it to that is depressing.

Amen!

 

My husband and I got married at the ripe ol' ages of 19 and 20, not so we could begin to procreate, but because we knew the legal protections provided by marriage were the next step in our relationship.

 

My husand and I are still waffling on whether we will have children, but that doesn't make our marriage any less of one. Nor does it for those who are infertile or otherwise without children.

[eternalsummer]

Marriage is not anything by nature. It is a human construct - and historically a business decision, a transfer of property.

 

Humans are biological constructs.  Historically marriage has always been much more than just a "business decision".  That's a cynical oversimplification, and wrong.  Property is secondary to life.

 

But marriage is not required to make babies.  That's life.  Literally.

 

Marriage is not about babies. To reduce it to that is depressing.

 

It's not required because marriage is an extension of the principle, not the other way around.

 

I didn't say making babies was depressing. In fact I quite enjoyed making mine.

 

However, even if my DH and I couldn't or decided against making babies, we'd still be married. Marriage is about sharing a lifetime of love.

 

Also, if society is a bilological construct, and this society supports gay marriage, it looks like biology and nature are supporting the gays. Unless you meant something different?

 

The fundamental duality (of which procreation is a manifestation) is there regardless (in a childless marriage between a man and a woman).

 

Regarding this society, I'd just say the rule of history is clear.  Normal, healthy societies worldwide have consistently held marriage to be heterosexual.  Our society, in contrast, is not healthy.  It is degenerate.  Historically we also observe that degeneracy accompanies collapse, time and again.  See Babylon, ancient Rome, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Baghdad caliphate, the Ottoman empire, and even Germany prior to World War 2.  Related;

 

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/17/371424790/between-world-wars-gay-culture-flourished-in-berlin

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

I want freedom for my faith, beliefs, practices, traditions. This means that others will have theirs as well. The people I've known to be behind the "turn America into a theocracy" are the type who would forbid my faith...no thank you.

 

Agreeing.

 

I think many I see objecting to this and other rulings, would be very surprised their particular faith would not be the right kind.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Humans are biological constructs.  Historically marriage has always been much more than just a "business decision".  That's a cynical oversimplification, and wrong.  Property is secondary to life.

 

 

It's not required because marriage is an extension of the principle, not the other way around.

 

 

The fundamental duality (of which procreation is a manifestation) is there regardless (in a childless marriage between a man and a woman).

 

Regarding this society, I'd just say the rule of history is clear.  Normal, healthy societies worldwide have consistently held marriage to be heterosexual.  Our society, in contrast, is not healthy.  It is degenerate.  Historically we also observe that degeneracy accompanies collapse, time and again.  See Babylon, ancient Rome, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Baghdad caliphate, the Ottoman empire, and even Germany prior to World War 2.  Related;

 

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/17/371424790/between-world-wars-gay-culture-flourished-in-berlin

 

Historically you are very wrong.  Very, very wrong. 

 

And again, while you are welcome to your views, trying to argue that loving, happy couples being able to have legal protections is somehow more degenerate than slavery and genocide would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.  And depressing.

 

[Guest]

Believe it or not, one can be opposed to same sex unions on both moral and legal grounds without theocratic leanings.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Believe it or not, one can be opposed to same sex unions on both moral and legal grounds without theocratic leanings.

 

I have heard that claim but haven't seen a clear argument for it yet.  The closest comes back to a "natural order" claim that doesn't really hold up.

[MotherGoose]

Mostly copying and pasting what I said in another thread:

I personally think that the government should get out of the business of marriage entirely and allow it to be a religious thing.  Rewrite and simplify the tax code to get rid of the tax advantages of marriage (I am pro Fair or maybe Flat Tax).  I know this would cause lots of problems of which I am not entirely aware, including things like wills and guardianship and all that would have to be worked out, as well as health insurance (and I don't claim to have all the answers, so please don't ask me innumerable questions about this and that) but I think it could be done by people smarter than me that make laws.  But don't call it marriage.  Surely we can agree that the term "marriage" came from, in our culture, the Bible?    

 

I am unhappy with the ruling, and the 5/4 ruling should indicate to everyone that there's not a "landslide" of public opinion in favor of it  as people would like it to seem.  My church says that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that it is designed for the procreation of children, which is biologically impossible in a same-sex relationship.  I am not, however, against gay couples adopting children in foster care who need a family.  I am kind to all people, and think they should have the right to live their lives as they wish, but not call it marriage, because marriage is between a man and a woman.   I was not happy to have to tell my children, when they said, "A girl at the pool has two mommies and no daddy.  How is that?" that yes she does have a father somewhere, even if she doesn't know him, because two mommies can't have a baby without a daddy.  I did tell them not to say anything to her about it and to be nice to her, of course.    

• Quote
• MultiQuote
• Edit
•  
•  

[Btervet]

Humans are biological constructs. Historically marriage has always been much more than just a "business decision". That's a cynical oversimplification, and wrong. Property is secondary to life.

 

 

It's not required because marriage is an extension of the principle, not the other way around.

 

 

The fundamental duality (of which procreation is a manifestation) is there regardless (in a childless marriage between a man and a woman).

 

Regarding this society, I'd just say the rule of history is clear. Normal, healthy societies worldwide have consistently held marriage to be heterosexual. Our society, in contrast, is not healthy. It is degenerate. Historically we also observe that degeneracy accompanies collapse, time and again. See Babylon, ancient Rome, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Baghdad caliphate, the Ottoman empire, and even Germany prior to World War 2. Related;

 

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/17/371424790/between-world-wars-gay-culture-flourished-in-berlin

I'm sorry but you aren't making sense.

You said marriage is a biological construct. It isn't. Marriage doesn't exist in nature, monogamy does. Marriage is a social construct. Biology says sperm plus egg makes baby. It doesn't say anything about the social construct of marriage.

 

Then you say social constructs are biological in nature. Social constructs are determined by societies. Our society now says gay marriage is a ok. Using your logic, that would imply that it is a biological necessity.

 

But then you say it is degenerate. Degenerate by what standard? Biology? Society? What? Degenerate because it doesn't produce babies?

 

Historical definitions mean nothing to me. Society changes. History was not all that great. I am glad I wasn't sold to whomever my dad approved of. I am glad our society has changed the rules of marriage time and time again. The world is better now.

[Flowing Brook]

I am opposed to today's rulings. However, I agree that I am no ones judge. I believe that one day we all have to answer to THE Judge.  And he  made marriage between one man and one women.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

Mostly copying and pasting what I said in another thread:

I personally think that the government should get out of the business of marriage entirely and allow it to be a religious thing.  Rewrite and simplify the tax code to get rid of the tax advantages of marriage (I am pro Fair or maybe Flat Tax).  I know this would cause lots of problems of which I am not entirely aware, including things like wills and guardianship and all that would have to be worked out, as well as health insurance (and I don't claim to have all the answers, so please don't ask me innumerable questions about this and that) but I think it could be done by people smarter than me that make laws.  But don't call it marriage.  Surely we can agree that the term "marriage" came from, in our culture, the Bible?   

 

 

Yet every culture has had its own version of marriage.

[albeto.]

Religion is a mere vehicle for morality and truth, not the source.

 

Religion is a mere vehicle for religion. Morality and truth are subjectively determined, as evidenced by the fact that cultures have different standards of morality and truth. Religion may or may not reflect social morals, and "homosexuality is a sin/wrong" is a moral claim that is losing relevance in our society. 

 

Society is a biological construct that is naturally ordered.

 

Male and female represent the fundamental duality. 

 

Sexual behavior, like all human behavior, exists on a spectrum of commonality. Homosexuality is just as "natural" as heterosexuality, as sexual drives are natural instincts. 

 

Human intellect allows us to decide what representations matter, our social nature allows us to modify that as information and ideas come forth.

 

Faith based ideas should no more determine civil rights when they come from an atheist than when they come from a theist. Your comments reveal beliefs that are not derived from information and fact, but assumptions about truth. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I am opposed to today's rulings. However, I agree that I am no ones judge. I believe that one day we all have to answer to THE Judge.  And he  made marriage between one man and one women.  

 

Then by no means should you marry a woman.

 

However, should your feelings about who will be your Judge be allowed to dictate the beliefs of the rest of society?

[*Lulu*]

Humans are biological constructs. Historically marriage has always been much more than just a "business decision". That's a cynical oversimplification, and wrong. Property is secondary to life.

 

 

It's not required because marriage is an extension of the principle, not the other way around.

 

 

The fundamental duality (of which procreation is a manifestation) is there regardless (in a childless marriage between a man and a woman).

 

Regarding this society, I'd just say the rule of history is clear. Normal, healthy societies worldwide have consistently held marriage to be heterosexual. Our society, in contrast, is not healthy. It is degenerate. Historically we also observe that degeneracy accompanies collapse, time and again. See Babylon, ancient Rome, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Baghdad caliphate, the Ottoman empire, and even Germany prior to World War 2. Related;

 

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/17/371424790/between-world-wars-gay-culture-flourished-in-berlin

History does not agree with you.

 

For most of civilization women were property and married off in ways that benefited the male heads of families. Just because some relationships formed by an arranged marriage were good and loving doesn't mean they all were. The idea of romantic love driving relational pairing is relatively new in the scheme of things.

[MotherGoose]

Yet every culture has had its own version of marriage.

 

Yes, but American culture and the American legal system was founded on principles from the Bible.  Our founding fathers said that the government did not have the right to force anyone to have any sort of religion, but they obviously and definitely used the principles from the Bible to construct the Constitution.  That was their moral guide as to what was simply right and wrong.  Other cultures may have had other ideas about their own versions of marriage but the in the US, for all but the last decade or two, the culture's idea of marriage was between a man and a woman.  Call it something else, but not marriage.

[fraidycat]

Humans are biological constructs.  Historically marriage has always been much more than just a "business decision".  That's a cynical oversimplification, and wrong.  Property is secondary to life.

 

 

It's not required because marriage is an extension of the principle, not the other way around.

 

 

The fundamental duality (of which procreation is a manifestation) is there regardless (in a childless marriage between a man and a woman).

 

Regarding this society, I'd just say the rule of history is clear.  Normal, healthy societies worldwide have consistently held marriage to be heterosexual.  Our society, in contrast, is not healthy.  It is degenerate.  Historically we also observe that degeneracy accompanies collapse, time and again.  See Babylon, ancient Rome, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Baghdad caliphate, the Ottoman empire, and even Germany prior to World War 2.  Related;

 

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/17/371424790/between-world-wars-gay-culture-flourished-in-berlin

 

If we're going to get into the imminent collapse of society (ours) - we can discuss that, but it is IMO, way off topic.  It would be all about ecology, economy, and (lack of) education. 

 

I'm not wrong about historical marriage.  It's not cynical, nor an oversimplification. Humans were (and in some cases still are) regarded as property, whether you choose to believe it or not. Bartered, traded - just like property.

[EmseB]

Why would it even be a question, if it were not for religion? (Some people's religion)

 

I'm not arguing about why marriage licensing evolved the way it did over time (which I think, historically speaking before our country was even in existence has its roots in biology more than religion).  But the fact is that it did.  So as to why it is a question, that's a long and anthropologically complex issue (which is actually pretty interesting if you like studying that sort of thing).  But regardless, when the country was founded, marriage was a certain thing.  Now the country (some of it) wants it to be expanded to include other relationships other than man/woman.  Okay, so we do that.  But, given the nature of our government, this ruling (whether you agree with it or not, want marriage expanded or not) should, IMO, be concerning.  And I think Justice Roberts did a very fair, evenhanded job of explaining why it should be concerning.

 

Or, are we okay with 5 unelected people (or really just 1 person) deciding things this way?  The most common thing I see on FB and other places is people celebrating the legal system when what they really mean is that they happen to agree with the court's decision.  And they define injustice as something they don't agree with, even if the legal merits are clearly not on their side.  It's all about emotion and agreement, and there's no critical application of the Constitution to any of it (and not just in this case, either).  I happen to think that the decision written today was/is a fine case to make for gay marriage.  But I don't think that is what the SCOTUS is supposed to do, as outlined in the Constitution. 

 

Is it okay to decide the law of the land this way as long as you agree with them?  And then we complain about it as undemocratic when the court doesn't decide in the way you or I or anyone else thinks is right?

 

Anyway, I just think it's a good idea to read the dissent before debating the merits of the decision, that's all.  It might give a more complete picture of the argument, rather than just assuming anyone who isn't happy with the ruling hates gay people or wants them to be unhappy.

[albeto.]

 

Mostly copying and pasting what I said in another thread:

I personally think that the government should get out of the business of marriage entirely and allow it to be a religious thing.  Rewrite and simplify the tax code to get rid of the tax advantages of marriage (I am pro Fair or maybe Flat Tax).  I know this would cause lots of problems of which I am not entirely aware, including things like wills and guardianship and all that would have to be worked out, as well as health insurance (and I don't claim to have all the answers, so please don't ask me innumerable questions about this and that) but I think it could be done by people smarter than me that make laws.  But don't call it marriage.  Surely we can agree that the term "marriage" came from, in our culture, the Bible?    

 

Only if we ignore the history of cultures whose social concept of marriage predates the founding documents of the xian religion, and those whose social concepts of marriage existed without benefit of knowledge of the xian theology. 

 

But why ignore information? Why pretend what isn't true?

 

I am unhappy with the ruling, and the 5/4 ruling should indicate to everyone that there's not a "landslide" of public opinion in favor of it  as people would like it to seem.  My church says that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that it is designed for the procreation of children, which is biologically impossible in a same-sex relationship.  I am not, however, against gay couples adopting children in foster care who need a family.  I am kind to all people, and think they should have the right to live their lives as they wish, but not call it marriage, because marriage is between a man and a woman.   I was not happy to have to tell my children, when they said, "A girl at the pool has two mommies and no daddy.  How is that?" that yes she does have a father somewhere, even if she doesn't know him, because two mommies can't have a baby without a daddy.  I did tell them not to say anything to her about it and to be nice to her, of course.    

 

Marriage is between a man and a woman in your church. This isn't a universally agreed upon social construct.

 

why would it take away happiness to explain to your children why a girl has two mommies?

[eternalsummer]

Historically you are very wrong.  Very, very wrong. 

 

And again, while you are welcome to your views, trying to argue that loving, happy couples being able to have legal protections is somehow more degenerate than slavery and genocide would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.  And depressing.

 

 

Historically marriages, in general, produced children.  Life is and has always been more central to relationships and society than mere property.

 

Your argument on slavery simply fails to understand the nature/definition of degeneracy.  People have been killing and raping and enslaving since the beginning of recorded time.  Not everything that is morally wrong is degenerate.  But again, 2 wrongs don't make a right.  You'll have to do better than that.

 

I'm sorry but you aren't making sense.

You said marriage is a biological construct. It isn't. Marriage doesn't exist in nature, monogamy does. Marriage is a social construct. Biology says sperm plus egg makes baby. It doesn't say anything about the social construct of marriage.

 

Then you say social constructs are biological in nature. Social constructs are determined by societies. Our society now says gay marriage is a ok. Using your logic, that would imply that it is a biological necessity.

 

But then you say it is degenerate. Degenerate by what standard? Biology? Society? What? Degenerate because it doesn't produce babies?

 

Historical definitions mean nothing to me. Society changes. History was not all that great. I am glad I wasn't sold to whomever my dad approved of. I am glad our society has changed the rules of marriage time and time again. The world is better now.

 

We are part of nature too.  Society is a biological construct.  Where else would it come from?  Never-never land?

 

Historical definitions may mean nothing to you, but it is the undeniable fact of thousands of years of evidence for what is consistently selected for (ie. what works).

 

Our current society is degenerate.  Degenerate societies are infrequent, short-lived, and nothing to be emulated.  People get sick and die too.  I don't recommend it.

 

Yet every culture has had its own version of marriage.

 

Yet, in each (secondary) iteration they've always been heterosexual.  The primary, basic architecture is consistent.  

 

Religion is a mere vehicle for religion. Morality and truth are subjectively determined, as evidenced by the fact that cultures have different standards of morality and truth. Religion may or may not reflect social morals, and "homosexuality is a sin/wrong" is a moral claim that is losing relevance in our society. 

 

 

Sexual behavior, like all human behavior, exists on a spectrum of commonality. Homosexuality is just as "natural" as heterosexuality, as sexual drives are natural instincts. 

 

Human intellect allows us to decide what representations matter, our social nature allows us to modify that as information and ideas come forth.

 

Faith based ideas should no more determine civil rights when they come from an atheist than when they come from a theist. Your comments reveal beliefs that are not derived from information and fact, but assumptions about truth. 

 

Morality and truth are not subjective.  We are subject to the same natural laws (see the laws of physics) that determine every other thing in the universe.  Different standards is like different weather in different places and in different seasons.  There is some natural variation through time and place, and yet, the primary truths are remarkably consistent.  This (the recognition of the heterosexual nature of marriage) happens to be one of them.

 

Regarding what is "natural", see;

 

http://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2008/07_25_2008/story1.htm

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yes, but American culture and the American legal system was founded on principles from the Bible.  Our founding fathers said that the government did not have the right to force anyone to have any sort of religion, but they obviously and definitely used the principles from the Bible to construct the Constitution.  That was their moral guide as to what was simply right and wrong.  Other cultures may have had other ideas about their own versions of marriage but the in the US, for all but the last decade or two, the culture's idea of marriage was between a man and a woman.  Call it something else, but not marriage.

 

Why? It will have the exact same legal rights.  Why should we change the word because a minority of the population cannot accept that societies and definitions of words change over time?

[Flowing Brook]

Then by no means should you marry a woman.

 

However, should your feelings about who will be your Judge be allowed to dictate the beliefs of the rest of society?

 

Since this is what I believe obviously I think I am right. Because I in my mind know I am right I wish everyone would believe the way I do. Should my beliefs dictate the rest of society? I think I have the right to voice my opinion and try to get my views to be the ones to be the rule. However, everyone else has that same right. So the majority will rule. I am saddened that the supreme court has the right now to over rule the states however, that is a whole nuther topic:)

[albeto.]

Morality and truth are not subjective.  We are subject to the same natural laws (see the laws of physics) that determine every other thing in the universe.  Different standards is like different weather in different places and in different seasons.  There is some natural variation through time and place, and yet, the primary truths are remarkably consistent.  This (the recognition of the heterosexual nature of marriage) happens to be one of them.

 

Regarding what is "natural", see the links to Calhoun's research and the Jane Goodall video.

 

Morality and truth surrounding sexual behavior in the context of legal marriage is subjective. We're not talking about general instincts like fairness or compassion here. We're talking about allowing the legal code to guarantee rights regardless of one's sexual identity. 

[MotherGoose]

Only if we ignore the history of cultures whose social concept of marriage predates the founding documents of the xian religion, and those whose social concepts of marriage existed without benefit of knowledge of the xian theology. 

 

But why ignore information? Why pretend what isn't true?

 

 

Marriage is between a man and a woman in your church. This isn't a universally agreed upon social construct.

 

why would it take away happiness to explain to your children why a girl has two mommies?

 

But OUR culture, MY culture, as Americans, was clearly and absolutely based on Christian values and the idea that MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman.  That fact should not be denied or ignored either.   Other cultures believe in all sorts of things that, I hope, never become legal in this culture.  

 

I guess I shouldn't have used the word happy.  Disappointed, maybe, upset, maybe.  I want my children to grow up with my morals, as does everyone, I would imagine.  I wasn't going to give the speech of "she has two mommies and isn't that wonderful" because I don't agree that it's wonderful. I don't agree.  I think two people have the right to do whatever they want, but I also have the right to believe that what they are doing is wrong and to teach my children that it's wrong.  We all teach our children our own version of morality. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm not arguing about why marriage licensing evolved the way it did over time (which I think, historically speaking before our country was even in existence has its roots in biology more than religion).  But the fact is that it did.  So as to why it is a question, that's a long and anthropologically complex issue (which is actually pretty interesting if you like studying that sort of thing).  But regardless, when the country was founded, marriage was a certain thing.  Now the country (some of it) wants it to be expanded to include other relationships other than man/woman.  Okay, so we do that.  But, given the nature of our government, this ruling (whether you agree with it or not, want marriage expanded or not) should, IMO, be concerning.  And I think Justice Roberts did a very fair, evenhanded job of explaining why it should be concerning.

 

Or, are we okay with 5 unelected people (or really just 1 person) deciding things this way?  The most common thing I see on FB and other places is people celebrating the legal system when what they really mean is that they happen to agree with the court's decision.  And they define injustice as something they don't agree with, even if the legal merits are clearly not on their side.  It's all about emotion and agreement, and there's no critical application of the Constitution to any of it (and not just in this case, either).  I happen to think that the decision written today was/is a fine case to make for gay marriage.  But I don't think that is what the SCOTUS is supposed to do, as outlined in the Constitution. 

 

Is it okay to decide the law of the land this way as long as you agree with them?  And then we complain about it as undemocratic when the court doesn't decide in the way you or I or anyone else thinks is right?

 

Anyway, I just think it's a good idea to read the dissent before debating the merits of the decision, that's all.  It might give a more complete picture of the argument, rather than just assuming anyone who isn't happy with the ruling hates gay people or wants them to be unhappy.

 

You sound shockingly like everyone who argued the SCOTUS over stepped its bounds when it ruled segregation was wrong.

 

And I declare shenanigans on the bolded because if that wasn't the case, states would not have been passing discriminatory laws to deny gays equal rights.

 

[albeto.]

But OUR culture, MY culture, as Americans, was clearly and absolutely based on Christian values and the idea that MARRIAGE is between a man and a woman.  That fact should not be denied or ignored either.

 

Goose, this isn't a fact. It's an argument presented by a fringe xian sect. There exists no evidence to suggest such a thing, and all evidence supports the opposite. The laws were very clearly created with the idea in mind that human intellect and rational thinking should determine what is moral, noble, and good, not blind faith to a king, heavenly or earthly. 

 

Thank you for answering my question. I'm sad to see it brings you distress. I remember when this issue brought me distress as well, so I sympathize. 

[eternalsummer]

History does not agree with you.

 

For most of civilization women were property and married off in ways that benefited the male heads of families. Just because some relationships formed by an arranged marriage were good and loving doesn't mean they all were. The idea of romantic love driving relational pairing is relatively new in the scheme of things.

 

Arranged marriages are one type, but by no means the rule, worldwide.  Even in the case of arranged marriages, there is much more at work than mere property.  It's simplistic and wrong to suggest otherwise.   If it were just about property arranged marriages wouldn't produce kids, eh?

 

 

If we're going to get into the imminent collapse of society (ours) - we can discuss that, but it is IMO, way off topic.  It would be all about ecology, economy, and (lack of) education. 

 

I'm not wrong about historical marriage.  It's not cynical, nor an oversimplification. Humans were (and in some cases still are) regarded as property, whether you choose to believe it or not. Bartered, traded - just like property.

 

The recognition that degeneracy accompanies collapse is relevant.  It puts the whole thing into its proper context.  There are many different elements of social decline and collapse; increased intellectual and moral degeneracy is one of them.  Regarding historical marriage, see above.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Let's play a game about the SCOTUS for a second.

 

Say state A gets together, and votes into its state constitution that one must be a Roman Catholic to hold a state office.  Would you agree this violates the 1st Amendment?  If so, what is the proper legal process for citizens within that state to address what they believe to be a violation of their rights under the Constitution of the United States?

[eternalsummer]

Morality and truth surrounding sexual behavior in the context of legal marriage is subjective. We're not talking about general instincts like fairness or compassion here. We're talking about allowing the legal code to guarantee rights regardless of one's sexual identity. 

 

We disagree.  If it were so subjective, how would you explain the fact that historically speaking, every culture and society on earth, independent of one another, all happened to maintain the same recognition of marriage as a heterosexual institution?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Since this is what I believe obviously I think I am right. Because I in my mind know I am right I wish everyone would believe the way I do. Should my beliefs dictate the rest of society? I think I have the right to voice my opinion and try to get my views to be the ones to be the rule. However, everyone else has that same right. So the majority will rule. I am saddened that the supreme court has the right now to over rule the states however, that is a whole nuther topic:)

 

Like when some states wanted to discriminate against blacks and the SCOTUS said they couldn't?  Every citizen, no matter what state they are in, has certain rights afforded to use by our Constitution.  It is the role of the SCOTUS to determine when the legislative or executive branches have over stepped and infringed up our rights.

[eternalsummer]

Let's play a game about the SCOTUS for a second.

 

Say state A gets together, and votes into its state constitution that one must be a Roman Catholic to hold a state office.  Would you agree this violates the 1st Amendment?  If so, what is the proper legal process for citizens within that state to address what they believe to be a violation of their rights under the Constitution of the United States?

 

 

Like when some states wanted to discriminate against blacks and the SCOTUS said they couldn't?  Every citizen, no matter what state they are in, has certain rights afforded to use by our Constitution.  It is the role of the SCOTUS to determine when the legislative or executive branches have over stepped and infringed up our rights.

 

False equivalency (x2).

[Runningmom80]

I find it very hard to believe that those opposed are opposed for any other reason than religious views.  Why is it "wrong" if the answer is not "because my religion says so?"  Homosexuality can be found in plenty of other species, so that throws the "nature" out of it.

 

I strongly believe in separation of church and state. 

 

 

Also "OUR" culture is mostly for gay marriage. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/06/26/supreme-court-affirms-right-to-gay-marriage

 

Sooooooo.....

 

[*Lulu*]

Arranged marriages are one type, but by no means the rule, worldwide. Even in the case of arranged marriages, there is much more at work than mere property. It's simplistic and wrong to suggest otherwise. If it were just about property arranged marriages wouldn't produce kids, eh?

 

 

 

The recognition that degeneracy accompanies collapse is relevant. It puts the whole thing into its proper context. There are many different elements of social decline and collapse; increased intellectual and moral degeneracy is one of them. Regarding historical marriage, see above.

WTH?

 

Procreation and property were and are still intertwined across the world in more than a few cultures. Arranged marriages were not just about property but about securing family lineages.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

False equivalency (x2).

 

So the SCOTUS did not step in to rectify what was an over reach by state governments? Explain.

[albeto.]

We disagree.  If it were so subjective, how would you explain the fact that historically speaking, every culture and society on earth, independent of one another, all happened to maintain the same recognition of marriage as a heterosexual institution?

 

Many maintained recognition of legitimate unions between homosexual unions as well, but I imagine it has to do more with the prevalence of the behavior in the community and the evolution of formalizing, legalizing, then challenging certain sexual behaviors. 

[eternalsummer]

I find it very hard to believe that those opposed are opposed for any other reason than religious views.  Why is it "wrong" if the answer is not "because my religion says so?"  Homosexuality can be found in plenty of other species, so that throws the "nature" out of it.

 

I strongly believe in separation of church and state. 

 

 

Also "OUR" culture is mostly for gay marriage. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/06/26/supreme-court-affirms-right-to-gay-marriage

 

Sooooooo.....

 

I'm not religious and I've already answered the objections contained here.

 

WTH?

 

Procreation and property were and are still intertwined across the world in more than a few cultures. Arranged marriages were not just about property but about securing family lineages.

 

Exactly.  That was the point I was making.  The person I was responding to was the one suggesting marriage was just a property arrangement.

 

So the SCOTUS did not step in to rectify what was an over reach by state governments? Explain.

 

No, because marriage law is the purview of the states to begin with.  Homosexuals had the equal right to marry (according to what marriage is - the union of members of the opposite sex).  It's not the fault of the law that they were not so inclined; nor do lawmakers have the obligation to distort the law to conform to to the whims of every identity self-interest group.

 

Many maintained recognition of legitimate unions between homosexual unions as well, but I imagine it has to do more with the prevalence of the behavior in the community and the evolution of formalizing, legalizing, then challenging certain sexual behaviors. 

 

"unions" are not marriage.  Some homosexual relationships were recognized and tolerated (though not, more often than not).  That's not the same thing as saying they were married.

[Guest]

Equality status was not what was decided. Marriage is a privelege, not a right, hence the limitations on the participants in number, type, age, lineage, and consent. A heterosexual female and a lesbian female have the exact same basic protections under the law - the equal protection clause wasn't what was affirmed in the majority decision.

 

An aside, but an important one.

[poppy]

Yes, but American culture and the American legal system was founded on principles from the Bible. Our founding fathers said that the government did not have the right to force anyone to have any sort of religion, but they obviously and definitely used the principles from the Bible to construct the Constitution. That was their moral guide as to what was simply right and wrong. Other cultures may have had other ideas about their own versions of marriage but the in the US, for all but the last decade or two, the culture's idea of marriage was between a man and a woman. Call it something else, but not marriage.

For most of American history women could not vote , and there was plenty of Biblical justification for that. There really is zero Biblical support for that monumental political change in the US .... But I think most of us would agree that the change was a positive one. One example of many.

 

I also don't think they used the Bible to construct the Constitution. Judeo Christian tradition , yes. The bible , no. The vast majority of the rules listed in the Bible are not a factor. Christ us not a factor at all. Really it is a product of English history than anything else. Because it was written by ex-Brits.

[CaffeineDiary]

My church says that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that it is designed for the procreation of children, which is biologically impossible in a same-sex relationship. 

 

 

Does your church forbid women over 50, or impotent or infertile men, from getting married?  Just checking.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

 

No, because marriage law is the purview of the states to begin with.  Homosexuals had the equal right to marry (according to what marriage is - the union of members of the opposite sex).  It's not the fault of the law that they were not so inclined; nor do lawmakers have the obligation to distort the law to conform to to the whims of every identity self-interest group.

 

And states felt it was their right to determine which water fountains people could use, except doing so violated the Constitution.  Therefore the SCOTUS had struck down the state laws.