Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage a Right (5-4)

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
- Should a human be allowed to marry an animal?

- Should a brother be allowed to marry his sister? Should all incestuous relationships be legalized?

- Should a woman be allowed to marry multiple men?

My point is that where do we draw the line?

Humans came up with the norms of right and wrong (moral code) and outcome was an advanced civilization. It was better for humans to differentiate themselves from the animals.

Now, thanks to this legislation, we are heading back towards the era of barbarism and bestiality. I suppose, pro-incest movement would be next.

You people and your ridiculous slippery slopes, anyhow:

-An animal can't give consent

-There are known medical issues with incest, why it is looked down upon

-I don't see a problem with polygamy if done between consenting adults. Lol, at your "a woman", and not "people" though.

You draw the line at consenting adults. Might like you use that line in other scenarios.

Care to answer my questions now: Why do you care if two men or two women that you don't know marry? How does a Tim and Tom getting married affect you?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yes exact this^

There is already a movement of gay men wanting to have relationships with underage boys. Now of coarse when I posted on this. No one said anything. Everyone is to much of a pansy to come out and say that's wrong. They will ignore avoid, then when it's really a debate say "14th Ammendemnt!!!!"

NAMBLA has been a joke since its inception and people still recognize the "age of consent" under this ruling.

So another slippery slope 👇

In short, this ruling only applied to people that were always considered able to get married, only not in specific combinations. This expanded the combinations in a sensible way, but didn't change who is considered legally capable of engaging in marriage one bit.

---

Puerto Rico updated it's laws, just-in-case

US Supreme court decisions already apply there, but the governor gave an executive order instructing compliance.

Originally posted by Robtard
NAMBLA has been a joke since its inception and people still recognize the "age of consent" under this ruling.

So another slippery slope 👇

Doesn't matter, Gay Marriage used to be a joke as well.

I don't know how clearly I can be here. This is not about gay marriage, it's about the SC being turned into a legislative branch which it is not. Then changing the words of the constitution to fit their agenda.

How much you wanna bet churches, caters, bakers, wedding planners who don't believe in gay marriage will be sued now?

@Dave:

I know you don't like when people use "political correctness" as a measure for the validity of an argument. And in some cases, I agree; there are politically dangerous topics that nonetheless deserve a full hearing. But I hope that you can agree that there are some argumentative tactics that deserve to be shouted down because they are dishonest and deliberately hurtful. For example, let's look at this gem from Legend:
[incest bs]

Now, I am perfectly capable of giving a careful, point by point discussion about how a gay relationship is different from an incestuous one. There are a number of factors ranging from psychological health to opportunity for abuse that distinguish incestuous relationships. The same can be said for other negative practices that are often brought up like pedophilia or bestiality. From a purely argument-based standpoint those are really very weak tactics for the anti-gay marriage crowd to use.

However, there is a rhetorical edge to these comparisons that is as profoundly emotion-based as the criteria of "political correctness" itself. Specifically, the anti-gay partisan who throws around these comparisons does so without using much page space. The insinuation that gay people are pedophiles, or engage in bestiality, or incest, is enough to tie the idea to those practices in the minds of the crowd. The proponent of gay rights can certainly counter the argument, but it is more difficult to counter an insinuation. To help prevent anti-gay arguments use these kind of emotional appeals, it is critical that the response also use emotional appeals. One of the most powerful such appeals is a reference to propriety. So lambasting an argument as being not-politically-correct is (usually) not done because it cannot be defeated rationally, but because it is using a sort of rhetorical poison that doesn't rely on argumentation. Politically incorrect terms are like dirty-bombs that spread filth even when their delivery is off-target.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Doesn't matter, Gay Marriage used to be a joke as well.

I don't know how clearly I can be here. This is not about gay marriage, it's about the SC being turned into a legislative branch which it is not. Then changing the words of the constitution to fit their agenda.

How much you wanna bet churches, caters, bakers, wedding planners who don't believe in gay marriage will be sued now?

Now it seems as if you're comparing consenting adults getting married to people who want legal child-rape 👇

The writers of the Constitution had the intelligence to leave the Constitution open-ended in the form of Amendments. As pointed out here before by BF, the 14 Amendment is what the SC upheld in it's ruling. It's not a new Amendment.

Is that any different that a store being sued for not doing business due to race, religion, skin color etc?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Doesn't matter, Gay Marriage used to be a joke as well.

I don't know how clearly I can be here. This is not about gay marriage, it's about the SC being turned into a legislative branch which it is not. Then changing the words of the constitution to fit their agenda.

One, interpreting laws and the constitution is literally their job. Two, if they ruled the other way, your complaint would fit 100% as much. Three, this is nothing new, they have ruled on marriage in the exact same way in the past- most notably with interracial marriage 48 years ago. Four, a large number of other courts also examined things and four the an

How much you wanna bet churches, caters, bakers, wedding planners who don't believe in gay marriage will be sued now?

Oh, fun fact for you: Priests and Churches are never required to perform marriages. If they want to only perform marriages on left handed-to-left handed couples who've been members of their congregation for a prime number of years, they can.

The government has to do marriages, churches don't. The "But priests will be forced to marry gay people against their beliefs!" thing is just stupid paranoia that doesn't reflect legal reality and has nothing to do with the current ruling.

Remember, there's priests who wanted to perform these marriages but weren't allowed. Religious freedom was previously being impinged against the churches who wanted, now churches get to make the choice.

That's what happened here.

Originally posted by Robtard
-An animal can't give consent

Originally posted by Robtard
-There are known medical issues with incest, why it is looked down upon

And if medical issues are an argument, then gay-ism should not be promoted either:

HIV remains the largest health issue facing the gay community. From 2008 to 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), new HIV infections remained steady overall but rose a startling 22 percent in young gay men. At the current rates, more than half of college-aged gay men will become HIV-positive by the age of 50.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gay-marriage-is-great-but-how-about-some-love-for-the-aids-fightlove-will-tear-us-apart/2013/06/28/5b18c50c-ddd0-11e2-948c-d644453cf169_story.html

Originally posted by Robtard
-I don't see a problem with polygamy if done between consenting adults. Lol, at your "a woman", and not "people" though.

Originally posted by Robtard
You draw the line at consenting adults.

Originally posted by Robtard
Care to answer my questions now: Why do you care if two men or two women that you don't know marry? How does a Tim and Tom getting married affect you?

I believe in distinction between humans and wild animals and values that are productive for a civilization. People have spent centuries in defining moral code that define a civilization, why go back?

Originally posted by Robtard
Now it seems as if you're comparing consenting adults getting married to people who want legal child-rape 👇

The writers of the Constitution had the intelligence to leave the Constitution open-ended in the form of Amendments. As pointed out here before by BF, the 14 Amendment is what the SC upheld in it's ruling. It's not a new Amendment.

Is that any different that a store being sued for not doing business due to race, religion, skin color etc?

IOW: homosexuals can get married, and everyone who doesn't believe in it has to agree.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
A
What about children? Whom they will call father and mother?

They can call both parents one or the other.

Also note, quite often the alternative is simply having *one* legal parent.

Also-also note, gay couples are likely to adopt, and we have a notable shortage of adoptee parents, meaning it's a replacement for having *no* parents.

You are not focusing on the long-term implications of gay marriage.

I don't think you are, it's existed for decades in some countries without problem and helps alleviate some issues.

I believe in distinction between humans and wild animals.

And that hasn't changed one bit. Note that 100% of people in a gay marriage were recognized as competent to marry before this, just not allowed to do so with each other. Entirely different than your animal obsession.

People have spent centuries in defining moral code that define a civilization, why go back?

It's called going forward. People have been wrong about many things. They were wrong about slavery, about racial inequality, about duels being a good way to solve problems, and so on.

"It's old so therefore it must be right," Is not a good argument.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
An animal cannot give consent, neither refuse. Ever seen animal porn?

Argument is about consent, not medical issues.

And if medical issues are an argument, then gay-ism should not be promoted either:

HIV remains the largest health issue facing the gay community. From 2008 to 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), new HIV infections remained steady overall but rose a startling 22 percent in young gay men. At the current rates, more than half of college-aged gay men will become HIV-positive by the age of 50.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gay-marriage-is-great-but-how-about-some-love-for-the-aids-fightlove-will-tear-us-apart/2013/06/28/5b18c50c-ddd0-11e2-948c-d644453cf169_story.html

What about children? Whom they will call father and mother?

Then incest should be legalized too. Why not vouch for it?

You are not focusing on the long-term implications of gay marriage.

I believe in distinction between humans and wild animals. People have spent centuries in defining moral code that define a civilization, why go back?

-Yeah, an animal can't give consent. That's the point, giving consent.

-LoL, more heterosexuals have HIV than homosexuals overall. Under your rules we should make hetero-marriage illegal. Good job.

-What about children? I assume a child of a same-sex marriage would call their female parents "mother" and their male parents "father". Same as always. What an odd thing to worry about.

-Incest has been covered.

What are the long term implications of same-sex marriage?

That's not answering my question, that's just more vague fear-mongering "If we allow same-sex marriage, civilization will end!".

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
An animal cannot give consent, neither refuse. Ever seen animal porn?

Consent has to be given. You can't just have sex with passed out people just cause they didn't refuse.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Argument is about consent, not medical issues.

And if medical issues are an argument, then gay-ism should not be promoted either:

HIV remains the largest health issue facing the gay community. From 2008 to 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), new HIV infections remained steady overall but rose a startling 22 percent in young gay men. At the current rates, more than half of college-aged gay men will become HIV-positive by the age of 50.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gay-marriage-is-great-but-how-about-some-love-for-the-aids-fightlove-will-tear-us-apart/2013/06/28/5b18c50c-ddd0-11e2-948c-d644453cf169_story.html

Your argument is about consent. But the reason why incest is not legally allowed is because the offspring of such relations has a very high chance of extreme health issues. Not taking that into account is silly.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
What about children? Whom they will call father and mother?

That's really up to their socialisation, but I assume they will call the fathers father and the mothers mother.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
You are not focusing on the long-term implications of gay marriage.

I believe in distinction between humans and wild animals. People have spent centuries in defining moral code that define a civilization, why go back?

By that logic, why should slavery not still be allowed?

lol@ hiv.

did you guys forget any ignorant circlejerk talking points from 1983 or is that all of them?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
IOW: homosexuals can get married, and everyone who doesn't believe in it has to agree.

Everyone who doesn't believe in it has to do precisely jack squat, as it doesn't affect them.

Indeed, do precisely nothing and there's no problem.

You're the ones trying to stick your noses in other people's marriages.

How so many can feel so put-upon by something that doesn't directly affect them in any way, but positively impacts so many others, is impressive and completely sad at the same time.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
IOW: homosexuals can get married, and everyone who doesn't believe in it has to agree.

You're free to not like it, that's your right. You're not free to infringe of other people's rights though.

edit: I'm going to divorce my wife and same-sex marry Bardock42 so he can more easily become a US citizen. Then when that's done, divorce him and re-marry my wife 👆

@Dave:

I know you don't like when people use "political correctness" as a measure for the validity of an argument. And in some cases, I agree; there are politically dangerous topics that nonetheless deserve a full hearing. But I hope that you can agree that there are some argumentative tactics that deserve to be shouted down because they are dishonest and deliberately hurtful. For example, let's look at this gem from Legend:
[incest bs]

Now, I am perfectly capable of giving a careful, point by point discussion about how a gay relationship is different from an incestuous one. There are a number of factors ranging from psychological health to opportunity for abuse that distinguish incestuous relationships. The same can be said for other negative practices that are often brought up like pedophilia or bestiality. From a purely argument-based standpoint those are really very weak tactics for the anti-gay marriage crowd to use.

However, there is a rhetorical edge to these comparisons that is as profoundly emotion-based as the criteria of "political correctness" itself. Specifically, the anti-gay partisan who throws around these comparisons does so without using much page space. The insinuation that gay people are pedophiles, or engage in bestiality, or incest, is enough to tie the idea to those practices in the minds of the crowd. The proponent of gay rights can certainly counter the argument, but it is more difficult to counter an insinuation. To help prevent anti-gay arguments use these kind of emotional appeals, it is critical that the response also use emotional appeals. One of the most powerful such appeals is a reference to propriety. So lambasting an argument as being not-politically-correct is (usually) not done because it cannot be defeated rationally, but because it is using a sort of rhetorical poison that doesn't rely on argumentation. Politically incorrect terms are like dirty-bombs that spread filth even when their delivery is off-target.

God damn, some of you guys make ME seem liberal.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're free to not like it, that's your right. You're not free to infringe of other people's rights though.

edit: I'm going to divorce my wife and same-sex marry Bardock42 so he can more easily become a US citizen. Then when that's done, divorce him and re-marry my wife 👆

See your tactic is "you're" and "you" making this personally about me. Nice tactic but won't work.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
See your tactic is "you're" and "you" making this personally about me. Nice tactic but won't work.

This is wrong.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're free to not like it, that's your right. You're not free to infringe of other people's rights though.

"You're" "your" and "You're"

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
IOW: homosexuals can get married, and everyone who doesn't believe in it has to agree.