Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people'

[Marius27]

Please define this "ickiness." Is it synonymous with the Bible saying "abomination?" I ask because I have seen that alleged; it doesn't seem to be the case to me.

Nope, because abomination doesn't exist in Hebrew, nor does the original Hebrew word have the meaning the the English abomination does.

 

[theophilus777]

Nope, because abomination doesn't exist in Hebrew, nor does the original Hebrew word have the meaning the the English abomination does.

So what does the original say (and mean) in that instance?

 

[Marius27]

Any arguement against gay marriage really needs to based on fact, research and evidence.

None of which conservatives have on their side, hence why they lose every legal battle.

 

[Marius27]

When it says the order here is STAYED until further order of the Sixth Circuit. And that this is a final and appealable order, does that mean that nothing actually changes in the Kentucky Constitution regarding gay marriage? When this order, that which this PDF document pertains to, is Stayed?

It means the Kentucky law is unconstitutional by order of the court, but since these cases always get appealed, the stay prevents marriages from taking place yet to avoid legal complications in the event the 6th Circuit reverses it.

 

[Marius27]

So what does the original say (and mean) in that instance?

The Hebrew word means ritually impure/taboo. Since the Levitical laws were rules written to the Levite priesthood, it referred to practices that were seen as ritually prohibited so as not to be like the surrounding cultures. Wearing mixed fabrics, breaking bread with pagans, etc. were also "abominations". It's not a moral evil.

 

[theophilus777]

The ickiness factor is not a moral evil either, but a taboo. Arch said your use of "religious conservatism" was the abomination bit, with the ick factor being separate. Its looking more like they are one and the same. What do you think about that?

 

[elephunky]

The Hebrew word means ritually impure/taboo. Since the Levitical laws were rules written to the Levite priesthood, it referred to practices that were seen as ritually prohibited so as not to be like the surrounding cultures. Wearing mixed fabrics, breaking bread with pagans, etc. were also "abominations". It's not a moral evil.

Oh I thought that said bread making with pagans lol that wouldve been fun.

 

[Belk]

Dp

 

[Belk]

Do you really think you can support any of your claims? Marriage does not make a relationship more stable, nor more monogamous. And kids will be kids, regardless of who is raising them. They really aren't too concerned with if those folks happen to be married or not. By the time they even think to ask such questions, their formative years are past.

In the end, a couple will either remain together, or they won't. A piece of paper will not change that, either way. Having kids together sure changes things though! Something a same sex couple can never experience. Couples that go through the whole process of natural childbirth together have a new reason to stay together. No, it doesn't always work long-term, but there is a decided effect.

It is amazing how fast the arguments change, is not Raze? On minute marriage is a sacred institution that we should not change without measuring it's detrimental effects on society, the next it is no big deal and confers no real benefit to the longevity to the relationship of it's participants. It's having kids that is a benefit. But only if they are your very own kids and only if both of the parents participate in the process through procreative sex!

 

[Marius27]

The ickiness factor is not a moral evil either, but a taboo. Arch said your use of "religious conservatism" was the abomination bit, with the ick factor being separate. Its looking more like they are one and the same. What do you think about that?

I don't consider the icky factor to be related to religion at all. I find it somewhat odd personally, but to each their own.

 

[theophilus777]

I don't consider the icky factor to be related to religion at all. I find it somewhat odd personally, but to each their own.

Well there is support to that, because non-religious folks have the ickiness factor too. Its just hard to factor that in as equal to or distinct from religious conservatism if that refers to "abomination," because even though that is an English word, nobody ever uses it in real life. Its also easy to say that the religious taboo is because of people having the ick factor, so they made up that rule, which is something some people say. The lines blur.

 

[theophilus777]

It is amazing how fast the arguments change, is not Raze? On minute marriage is a sacred institution that we should not change without measuring it's detrimental effects on society, the next it is no big deal and confers no real benefit to the longevity to the relationship of it's participants. It's having kids that is a benefit. But only if they are your very own kids and only if both of the parents participate in the process through procreative sex!

What? No. This is an issue with more than one side to it. You know, complex. I wouldn't think anyone would find this surprising. Feel free to address any of those sides, but addressing all of them might be better.

 

[Aldebaran]

It is amazing how fast the arguments change, is not Raze? On minute marriage is a sacred institution that we should not change without measuring it's detrimental effects on society, the next it is no big deal and confers no real benefit to the longevity to the relationship of it's participants. It's having kids that is a benefit. But only if they are your very own kids and only if both of the parents participate in the process through procreative sex!

Where are you getting this from???

 

[Belk]

What? No. This is an issue with more than one side to it. You know, complex. I wouldn't think anyone would find this surprising. Feel free to address any of those sides, but addressing all of them might be better.

Does or does not marriage convey certain advantages to people who are married? Are couples who adopt or have children that are not biologically from both parents more likely to stay together?

 

[Aldebaran]

Does or does not marriage convey certain advantages to people who are married?

Yes. Should everyone be forced to recognize all of the advantages when it violates their religious beliefs (whether gay or straight)? No.

Are couples who adopt or have children that are not biologically from both parents more likely to stay together?

No. Read this: Why Gay Couples Might Be More Likely to Split - The Informed Reader - WSJ

 

[theophilus777]

Does or does not marriage convey certain advantages to people who are married?

It conveys costs. I find it humorous that gays are in such a hurry to sign up for the marriage penalty. I find it sad that the strongest case for SSM seems to be that no one can quantify what marriage advantages might be. I mean if that could be done, the argument for SSM vs civil unions disappears. So the strength of the argument is based on any advantage being nebulous. I see lots of people talking about lots of things, but no one willing to address that.

To me, marriage is the Blessing of God between 2 people, in the sight of "God and everybody." Religion not needed, as Adam and Eve had no religion when they were married, as the story is written. Most same sex couples aren't seeking that at all it seems to me, and those that do can find Churches to accommodate them. I don't think any of that falls within Gov't jurisdiction.

Civil rights are quantifiable and in the case of marriage are mainly economic, which is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Courts. Crying "civil rights" w/o being able to specify what those are is equal to crying "teh gayz." Gov't is pretty clear about what is within its jurisdiction, and SSM proponents should be able to specify what advantages they seek. Social acceptance is not within the jurisdiction of the Courts, and that is the only reason for pursuing marriage rather than civil union. (Assuming what civil rights are sought are specified and provided for under said civil union, of course)

Are couples who adopt or have children that are not biologically from both parents more likely to stay together?

What you're missing here is that staying together or not is dependent upon the integrity of the relationship. Couples that split do so mostly for 3 reasons: kids, money, and sex. Fundamental problems in all 3 areas in the same couple makes a very hard situation, with low likelihood of success. So the very same set of circumstances that will draw one couple closer together will break another couple apart. I seriously doubt this is substantially different for homosexuals, or due to factors like you are citing.

Either way, the bond a heterosexual couple experiences from the process of conception and childbirth is not equal in these "alternative lifestyles" you're bringing up. That is still something distinct, and part of what people allude to with the glib "sanctity of marriage" spiel. Neither does the fact that some heterosexual couples physically cannot reproduce make SSM in any way equal. The differences will still be there, and it's silly to pretend otherwise.

The catch phrase 'equal yet different' really doesn't pertain here. How about 'different and ok' instead? Wouldn't that ultimately be a lot healthier? Its certainly more realistic.

Another angle nobody has been willing to talk about is violence. When inter-racial marriage became the law of the land, someone else cited stats that 80% of US population was against it, and a decade later 94% were opposed. I seriously doubt those numbers, but its probably true that it increased the opposition, at least in some areas. How many people do you personally know who were victims of said violence? I know many, and I was living in a very culturally diverse and tolerant area when I knew them. Can we as a society really afford to jack around with this? Polls showing a slight majority favoring SSM still means some 150 MILLION people opposed, and a lot of geographical area where that sort of opposition tends to turn ugly. Comparisons to other Countries are irrelevant here. Each statistic is an actual person! Inciting further polarization is not wise.

 

[Cute Tink]

He's entitled to his opinion. But until he can find a clause in federal law that stops the progression of gay marriage in America, I don't care about his personal view. It can't affect the bench.

In fact, I'd like to see him come up with a solution to the rapid degradation that is happening in America in matters of laws protecting deviants and freakish behaviors.

The federal protection that just went into place prohibiting discrimination against transsexuals for one.
A man with a full beard and mustache, implant breasts, wearing a dress, and claiming to be a woman, can show up for work at the U.S. Treasury and demand to be referred to as a woman. And sue if he's not accommodated.

That's how far the ball is rolling this nation straight to being a laughing stock to other nations. And who pushes that? OBAMA! And the amoral-left.

This judge can have his opinion but until he comes up with a legal solution to stop the legal decay of America's moral identity, he's just a guy with a thought. When he comes up with a solution, bravo!

Glad to know you still haven't learned anything about transsexuals despite how often you "discuss" the subject.

Unfortunately for you, judges are bound by the Constitution, not by Christian morals. If only someone on the "moral right" (as opposed to the "amoral-left") could come up with an actual argument not based on "they are deviants and freaks", then perhaps your side could actually stand a chance in Court.

 

[Queller]

Do you really think you can support any of your claims? Marriage does not make a relationship more stable, nor more monogamous. And kids will be kids, regardless of who is raising them. They really aren't too concerned with if those folks happen to be married or not. By the time they even think to ask such questions, their formative years are past.

Sounds like an argument in favor of same-sex marriage to me.

In the end, a couple will either remain together, or they won't. A piece of paper will not change that, either way. Having kids together sure changes things though! Something a same sex couple can never experience. Couples that go through the whole process of natural childbirth together have a new reason to stay together. No, it doesn't always work long-term, but there is a decided effect.

Seems like a couple who goes through IVF, surrogacy or adoption would have a new reason to stay together as well.

 

[GenetoJean]

It conveys costs. I find it humorous that gays are in such a hurry to sign up for the marriage penalty. I find it sad that the strongest case for SSM seems to be that no one can quantify what marriage advantages might be. I mean if that could be done, the argument for SSM vs civil unions disappears. So the strength of the argument is based on any advantage being nebulous. I see lots of people talking about lots of things, but no one willing to address that.

To me, marriage is the Blessing of God between 2 people, in the sight of "God and everybody." Religion not needed, as Adam and Eve had no religion when they were married, as the story is written. Most same sex couples aren't seeking that at all it seems to me, and those that do can find Churches to accommodate them. I don't think any of that falls within Gov't jurisdiction.

Civil rights are quantifiable and in the case of marriage are mainly economic, which is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Courts. Crying "civil rights" w/o being able to specify what those are is equal to crying "teh gayz." Gov't is pretty clear about what is within its jurisdiction, and SSM proponents should be able to specify what advantages they seek. Social acceptance is not within the jurisdiction of the Courts, and that is the only reason for pursuing marriage rather than civil union. (Assuming what civil rights are sought are specified and provided for under said civil union, of course)

To me, legal marriage is to make families function more efficient. By having a marriage contract people automatically pick up right of survivorship, medical decision making, inheritance, and custody to name a few. It is innefficient and pointless to have two mechanisms to give the exacts same benefits so either allow same sex couples to marry or have every couple be required to get civil unions.

 

[Belk]

It conveys costs. I find it humorous that gays are in such a hurry to sign up for the marriage penalty. I find it sad that the strongest case for SSM seems to be that no one can quantify what marriage advantages might be. I mean if that could be done, the argument for SSM vs civil unions disappears. So the strength of the argument is based on any advantage being nebulous. I see lots of people talking about lots of things, but no one willing to address that.

No, the argument does not disappear. It remains exactly the same. Homosexuals have equal right to the institution of marriage.

To me, marriage is the Blessing of God between 2 people, in the sight of "God and everybody." Religion not needed, as Adam and Eve had no religion when they were married, as the story is written. Most same sex couples aren't seeking that at all it seems to me, and those that do can find Churches to accommodate them. I don't think any of that falls within Gov't jurisdiction.

Marriage is a legal term in the US (and other areas) and your personal view of it is not in anyone's consideration. The important piece is the many parts that are in the government and the large body of law surrounding it. If you want to make the case that government should not be involved in marriage in the first place I have no problem with that but the fact is that they are currently involved in marriage.

Civil rights are quantifiable and in the case of marriage are mainly economic, which is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Courts. Crying "civil rights" w/o being able to specify what those are is equal to crying "teh gayz." Gov't is pretty clear about what is within its jurisdiction, and SSM proponents should be able to specify what advantages they seek. Social acceptance is not within the jurisdiction of the Courts, and that is the only reason for pursuing marriage rather than civil union. (Assuming what civil rights are sought are specified and provided for under said civil union, of course)

Bunk. The reason for pursuing marriage is equality before the law. You do not get to assign a separate classification simply because you feel the word has some religious connotations. Now, if you want to change it so everyone has "civil unions" I will entertain the notion.

What you're missing here is that staying together or not is dependent upon the integrity of the relationship. Couples that split do so mostly for 3 reasons: kids, money, and sex. Fundamental problems in all 3 areas in the same couple makes a very hard situation, with low likelihood of success. So the very same set of circumstances that will draw one couple closer together will break another couple apart. I seriously doubt this is substantially different for homosexuals, or due to factors like you are citing.

So we agree that homosexual relationships are likely to respond to the exact same stimuli as heterosexual?

Either way, the bond a heterosexual couple experiences from the process of conception and childbirth is not equal in these "alternative lifestyles" you're bringing up. That is still something distinct, and part of what people allude to with the glib "sanctity of marriage" spiel. Neither does the fact that some heterosexual couples physically cannot reproduce make SSM in any way equal. The differences will still be there, and it's silly to pretend otherwise.

Show me the data that supports this Raze.

The catch phrase 'equal yet different' really doesn't pertain here. How about 'different and ok' instead? Wouldn't that ultimately be a lot healthier? Its certainly more realistic.

It is EXACTLY what applies here. You are trying to assert differences that are not supported and frankly irrelevant and then claiming people must be treated differently for reasons that do not make sense to anyone else.

Another angle nobody has been willing to talk about is violence. When inter-racial marriage became the law of the land, someone else cited stats that 80% of US population was against it, and a decade later 94% were opposed. I seriously doubt those numbers, but its probably true that it increased the opposition, at least in some areas. How many people do you personally know who were victims of said violence? I know many, and I was living in a very culturally diverse and tolerant area when I knew them. Can we as a society really afford to jack around with this? Polls showing a slight majority favoring SSM still means some 150 MILLION people opposed, and a lot of geographical area where that sort of opposition tends to turn ugly. Comparisons to other Countries are irrelevant here. Each statistic is an actual person! Inciting further polarization is not wise.

Yes, we certainly should not move forward with equality because if we do some people might act out illegally and hurt others. Let us, therefore, keep our society completely stagnant so that no one will feel threatened and hurt gay people. Like they did with alarming frequency when homosexuals were relegated to being second class citizens with no real police protections. Sorry, but the idea of not doing something because people who object might become violent is not a reason, it is an excuse to give into the worst sort of bully.