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

[Belk]

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

Your religious beliefs have no bearing on the secular law of the US. You do not get to deny people equal protection on the basis of your religion.

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

That was not even pertinent to my question. The question was are couples who have children by non traditional means less likely to split up.

 

[theophilus777]

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.

I'd be ok with the latter. Make every legal marriage grandfathered in as the new nomenclature.

 

[Glass*Soul]

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.

I have not done a scholarly study on this, but it looks like the ancient Hebrews found fixing things into homogenous categories, like taxonomies, to have a sort of numinous quality to it. If you'll notice, the things that are abominations tend to be things that are sort of like this but sort of like that so that they don't fit any of the categories that were important to them. This lent a sense of wrongness, or fallenness to them. Perhaps an ick factor, but not in the same way that, for instance, snot has. It's a more a refined, intellectual disquiet. So, things that kinda look like ruminants but aren't, things that swim but don't have fins and scales, things that have too many legs or not enough, women who dress like men, men who don't have all their boy-parts, lies and deceit and anything that isn't quite what it seems to be are all abominations.

 

[theophilus777]

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.

And this is why things got sticky, Gov't over-stepping its bounds.

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.

Highly illogical. Nobody "must be treated differently," don't know where you got that from. The differences between a man and a woman vs two men "are not supported?" This makes no sense.

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.

Instead, you want to incite the ire of the worst kind of bullies, with no regard to the population distribution of this Country being such that vast areas are almost completely against this social policy. You are effectively willing to hang out your comrades in arms to dry. I have never witnessed Christians hate gays so intensely. (Admittedly, I've never witnessed WBC or their ilk, either)

How many cases do you think will be refused rather than prosecuted? You know it will happen.

 

[theophilus777]

I have not done a scholarly study on this, but it looks like the ancient Hebrews found fixing things into homogenous categories, like taxonomies, to have a sort of numinous quality to it. If you'll notice, the things that are abominations tend to be things that are sort of like this but sort of like that so that they don't fit any of the categories that were important to them. This lent a sense of wrongness, or fallenness to them. Perhaps an ick factor, but not in the same way that, for instance, snot has. It's a more a refined, intellectual disquiet. So, things that kinda look like ruminants but aren't, things that swim but don't have fins and scales, things that have too many legs or not enough, women who dress like men, men who don't have all their boy-parts, lies and deceit and anything that isn't quite what it seems to be are all abominations.

Interesting analysis! I'd be curious to see what Marius says about this?

 

[Belk]

And this is why things got sticky, Gov't over-stepping its bounds.

And I've seen many say the same. If you can get people to support the multiple billions of dollars it would take to change the legal code I have no objection.

Highly illogical. Nobody "must be treated differently," don't know where you got that from. The differences between a man and a woman vs two men "are not supported?" This makes no sense.

There are no rational reasons that two people in a committed relationship must be of the opposite sex in order to call it marriage. If there was SSM would not be winning court case after court case.

Instead, you want to incite the ire of the worst kind of bullies, with no regard to the population distribution of this Country being such that vast areas are almost completely against this social policy. You are effectively willing to hang out your comrades in arms to dry. I have never witnessed Christians hate gays so intensely. (Admittedly, I've never witnessed WBC or their ilk, either)

Yes, me nor my "comrades in arms" are going to back down simply because someone threatened to beat people up. They were doing that before and will continue to do so until people stand up and fight back. The answer in these situations is not to appease the bully because that just makes him all the more demanding the next time.

How many cases do you think will be refused rather than prosecuted? You know it will happen.

It might, but they will be fewer and father between then they were when homosexuals tried to hide away and no one cared about them. It is better to shine the light on those times it does happen and demand action then cower in fear that it might happen.

 

[Water Cross]

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.

Thank you.
Are you an attorney?

 

[Water Cross]

I'm not a lawyer and I don't even pretend to be one on the internet but if I have a go at this one what I come up with is - almost.

The legal change is made. It does not take effect yet.

This seems to be the precedent everywhere, with everyone waiting for SCOTUS to rule. (With the exception of a few clerks wanting to grant SSM licenses while they can, which will be interesting to see how that develops)

Thank you.

 

[theophilus777]

Yes, me nor my "comrades in arms" are going to back down simply because someone threatened to beat people up. They were doing that before and will continue to do so until people stand up and fight back. The answer in these situations is not to appease the bully because that just makes him all the more demanding the next time.

It might, but they will be fewer and father between then they were when homosexuals tried to hide away and no one cared about them. It is better to shine the light on those times it does happen and demand action then cower in fear that it might happen.

Kinda admirable, but still flawed. You are imagining a time when "no one cared about them." There have always been Churches that cared about "them," even when they didn't ordain gays or condone an actively gay lifestyle, teaching celibacy as an ideal instead. Also, when they tried to hide it would logically create fewer instances of violence than our immediate future on the current course. You're depicting the past worse than reality, in order to flavor the future as you hope. I'm all in favor of hope, but a staunch proponent of reality as well.

The entire movement seems brash to me

 

[Belk]

Kinda admirable, but still flawed. You are imagining a time when "no one cared about them." There have always been Churches that cared about "them," even when they didn't ordain gays or condone an actively gay lifestyle, teaching celibacy as an ideal instead. Also, when they tried to hide it would logically create fewer instances of violence than our immediate future on the current course. You're depicting the past worse than reality, in order to flavor the future as you hope. I'm all in favor of hope, but a staunch proponent of reality as well.

The entire movement seems brash to me

Not from what I heard by those who lived through it.

Stonewall Uprising . American Experience . WGBH | PBS

But even if you are correct I don't think going back in the closet is the right attitude.

 

[Cearbhall]

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

Yes. The government isn't supposed to govern other people's lives according to your religious beliefs. It's really funny to me when people try to make the marriages of strangers about themselves.

 

[theophilus777]

Not from what I heard by those who lived through it.

Stonewall Uprising . American Experience . WGBH | PBS

But even if you are correct I don't think going back in the closet is the right attitude.

Ah yes, the Summer of love, I remember it well. I lived less than 30 miles from there at the time. What point are you trying to make by raising the stonewall riots? You are talking about indisputably one of THE highest % of gay people on the planet at the time, perhaps rivaled only by Rhode Island, a mere stone's throw away compared to most US States. How is that relevant to anywhere other than another highly gay-centric area? What bearing does this have on the vast expanses of rough-neck redneck areas, where even gay-friendlys added to actual gays are still a tiny minority?

And again, nobody said anything about going back in the closet. Please do not retreat into creating strawmen, which is arguably worse.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Ah yes, the Summer of love, I remember it well. I lived less than 30 miles from there at the time. What point are you trying to make by raising the stonewall riots? You are talking about indisputably one of THE highest % of gay people on the planet at the time, perhaps rivaled only by Rhode Island, a mere stone's throw away compared to most US States. How is that relevant to anywhere other than another highly gay-centric area? What bearing does this have on the vast expanses of rough-neck redneck areas, where even gay-friendlys added to actual gays are still a tiny minority?

And again, nobody said anything about going back in the closet. Please do not retreat into creating strawmen, which is arguably worse.

They need to go back in the closet for the good of society.

Focusing on things like gay rights is focusing on the right to do sinful behavior which is something many religious people will never agree with unless God rewrites their holy texts.

What that means is its an issue that people will focus on other than issues like freedom. Armed military grade drones are about to sweep over the country and Christians are focused on teh gay people. Gay people should know better than to allow themselves to be used like this. The same government that is giving them freebies today will be quick to take them away and blame them for problems when the tide changes direction and the government needs a scapegoat. It happens time and time again throughout history.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Let's not derail this thread with a discussion about whether you feel homosexuality is immoral.


This is a thread about a judge's response to a specific argument advanced by the defendants: that of procreation and its purported relevance to banning same-sex marriage.

I'd love for people to evaluate that argument and give their thoughts.

 

[theophilus777]

This is a thread about a judge's response to a specific argument advanced by the defendants: that of procreation and its purported relevance to banning same-sex marriage.

I'd love for people to evaluate that argument and give their thoughts.

The Judge is absolutely right, that specific argument is a non-starter. /Thread

 

[Marius27]

Thank you.
Are you an attorney?

No, but my major was focused on law, and I had intended on going to law school.

 

[Marius27]

They need to go back in the closet for the good of society.

Lol what? That's not good for society, and nobody cares what you want gays to do. Christian Conservatives need to move to a different country if you all don't like it.

Focusing on things like gay rights is focusing on the right to do sinful behavior which is something many religious people will never agree with unless God rewrites their holy texts.

Many of us don't consider being gay sinful. That's your opinion. One that is every day becoming a smaller minority.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Let's not derail this thread with a discussion about whether you feel homosexuality is immoral.


This is a thread about a judge's response to a specific argument advanced by the defendants: that of procreation and its purported relevance to banning same-sex marriage.

I'd love for people to evaluate that argument and give their thoughts.

I didn't say how I feel. I said how many religious people feel. How I feel about it is... complicated.

What I posted is at the heart of the issue. I think. I could be wrong about that but I doubt it.

 

[Cearbhall]

This is a thread about a judge's response to a specific argument advanced by the defendants: that of procreation and its purported relevance to banning same-sex marriage.

I'd love for people to evaluate that argument and give their thoughts.

I agree with the judge. Those who came up with the state's argument are more than a bit incapable if they aren't aware of the fact that procreation isn't a requirement for any marriage in the US.

I do not believe SSM should automatically be allowed. Because it is a small groups definition of marriage not the whole of society.

55% at this point. I guess we're good to go, by that logic.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I think everyone ought to shove their orientation into the closet.

Remember how we're supposed to judge people on their character?