To my gay friends

[Matthew]

Couples. Just two people in a marriage. Why? If the rationale is valid for same sex marriage it must also be valid for polygamy.

You're right. The ruling just defined marriage as also being between 2 same sex people. Since the SC could create that definition, they can create any.

 

[Kristin]

Whatever. How about real world?

What about it? You are the one who can't seem to articulate what you disagree with. Instead you go for drive-by insults.

 

[Kritchlow]

What about it? You are the one who can't seem to articulate what you disagree with. Instead you go for drive-by insults.

No drive by here...

I disagree with the entire premise of your post. You may not believe this, but many people get married because they want a commitment with their God, not because of economic reasons.

That was offensive to me, but than again, only liberals can be offended.

 

[Kristin]

No drive by here...

I disagree with the entire premise of your post. You may not believe this, but many people get married because they want a commitment with their God, not because of economic reasons.

That was offensive to me, but than again, only liberals can be offended.

I was speaking historically and in general terms. If you want to be offended you either must have been reincarnated or are a liberal. Or both.

 

[Katamarino]

Multiple partner marriages are next. God loves those.

He sure does!

Exodus 21:10

“If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife.”

 

[nddons]

Dude, you are in serious need of a history lesson. First, the 14th Amendment overturned Dred Scott, not the 13th. But this was still a country based on segregation, lawful discrimination etc. Ever heard of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and "separate but equal"?

In case you missed it, what ended segregation in this country was Brown v. Board of Education (1964). Another SCOTUS case, mind you, not a legislative act or amendment. Congress got it's act together the same year with the Civil Rights Act, and the following year with the Voting Rights Act, but it was the Supreme Court that had to step in and end segregation.

Regarding the 10th Amendment, its erosion started long before the current court and the Obergefell decision. Griswold v. Connecticut found a right to privacy in the "substantive" component of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The right to privacy is not an enumerated right in the Constitution, but is nonetheless a right granted federal constitutional protection.

Griswold is one of the most significant cases of the 20th century with respect to it's broad interpretation of the due process clause. If you really want to understand the courts ruling in Obergefell and how it relates to the 10th Amendment, you should start there, and then follow the evolution of this legal concept (and Scalia's highly entertaining opposition to it) in the cases that followed...Roe v. Wade (and it's progeny cases...Casey, Carhart...), Lawrence v. Texas, Loving v. Virginia etc.

Dude, you should go and play with your own straw men. I was not addressing everything from slavery to segregation to the civil rights movement. I was addressing slavery and slavery alone at Kristin's post 330.

 

[Flying Viking]

Dude, you should go and play with your own straw men. I was not addressing everything from slavery to segregation to the civil rights movement. I was addressing slavery and slavery alone at Kristin's post 330.

What does the 10th Amendment have to do with slavery?

 

[Becky]

I checked two and found neither had a stated requirement for consummation. No it is true in the days before no-fault divorce, failure to consummate could be grounds for a divorce, but that isn't exactly the same thing nor probably relevant in this day and age.

It seems to have been a requirement so that annulment could take place if consummation was never going to. But annulment in itself is kind of ridiculous ... supposedly, if annulled, the marriage "never happened." Right.

 

[Becky]

Ah yes! The society destroying special privilege of not being lynched. Not to mention those other special privileges that are special only if not conferred upon white males.

You must be hating the 20th and 21st centuries.

Kristin, I had higher hopes for you than swipes like this.

Think, girl! "Special privileges" have gone waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond freedom from lynching. And yes, they've tipped well into prejudice against males.

A gal I know actually asked me the other day to help her write recruiting literature in such a way that she could "attract more women" to her department, because she liked working with women and wanted her whole department to be female! I said, "But isn't that showing prejudice against males who might be qualified?" That concept seemed confusing to her. But it has become very real.

More than half of college graduates are female. Technically, males should get a little break when it comes to hiring, if we're being "fair?"

Speaking of special privileges, my doctor's office called with two questions "to update their records in accordance with ACA." 1) Am I Hispanic or non-Hispanic? 2) What is my preferred language? I thought we were all supposed to be color blind these days, and this inquiry didn't feel fair to me. I was able to discover that if I answered "Hispanic" and "Spanish," I would receive a host of benefits not available to me if I answered "non-Hispanic" and "English."

And so on.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

He sure does!

Exodus 21:10

“If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife.”

"If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy."

Brilliant. I think we should take more direction from the Old Tesltament. Love the way folks pick and choose some of the passages in the Old
Testament to tell others what God believes and then conveniently ignore the sections that are obviously ridiculous.


Still, very cool that it's OK to have multiple spouses. Maybe we should write that into law.

 

[Kritchlow]

I was speaking historically and in general terms. If you want to be offended you either must have been reincarnated or are a liberal. Or both.

You know, you always try to come across as the almighty opinion on everything.
Perhaps you should try to humble yourself a bit? Truth be told you are not as great as you think you are.

News flash: there are other opinions besides yours.

 

[VWGhiaBob]

While we're at it, maybe bring back slavery, since the Old Testament sanctions that too? Maybe this time around, it's the white race's turn to serve as slaves to other races?

"If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy."

Brilliant. I think we should take more direction from the Old Tesltament. Love the way folks pick and choose some of the passages in the Old
Testament to tell others what God believes and then conveniently ignore the sections that are obviously ridiculous.


Still, very cool that it's OK to have multiple spouses. Maybe we should write that into law.

 

[Kristin]

It seems to have been a requirement so that annulment could take place if consummation was never going to. But annulment in itself is kind of ridiculous ... supposedly, if annulled, the marriage "never happened." Right.

As I understand it, annulment is a Catholic thing. I might be wrong on that as I was raised in a very Protestant family.

 

[Kristin]

Kristin, I had higher hopes for you than swipes like this.

Think, girl! "Special privileges" have gone waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond freedom from lynching. And yes, they've tipped well into prejudice against males.

A gal I know actually asked me the other day to help her write recruiting literature in such a way that she could "attract more women" to her department, because she liked working with women and wanted her whole department to be female! I said, "But isn't that showing prejudice against males who might be qualified?" That concept seemed confusing to her. But it has become very real.

More than half of college graduates are female. Technically, males should get a little break when it comes to hiring, if we're being "fair?"

Speaking of special privileges, my doctor's office called with two questions "to update their records in accordance with ACA." 1) Am I Hispanic or non-Hispanic? 2) What is my preferred language? I thought we were all supposed to be color blind these days, and this inquiry didn't feel fair to me. I was able to discover that if I answered "Hispanic" and "Spanish," I would receive a host of benefits not available to me if I answered "non-Hispanic" and "English."

And so on.

And what special privileges are we referring to? Gathering statistical data is not a privilege and most such you are allowed to decline to answer. I always do when I can.

I agree that out governments, on all levels, don't hand out goodies equally. We have the best government that money, or interest groups, can buy. That that cannot be confused with laws preventing discrimination.

That more women are graduating from college doesn't mean that their are equal opportunities for women. We are still drastically under represented in many, many industries, not the least of what is aviation.

 

[Kristin]

You know, you always try to come across as the almighty opinion on everything.
Perhaps you should try to humble yourself a bit? Truth be told you are not as great as you think you are.

News flash: there are other opinions besides yours.

You do not appear to have an opinion, other than to express your hurtie feelings by attacking me personally. You have not addressed one wit of the substance of my statements, contenting yourself with childish ad hominem attacks. You make yourself look more foolish by the pixel.

 

[Gsxrpilot]

This is a very entertaining thread. I don't have to be angry, yell, cry, stomp my feet. We won. Slowly but surely society marches on and the bigots, racists, homophobes, haters, are left behind, dying off, etc. This world becomes a better place as a result.

I find it entertaining that some of the "bible-thumpers" on this thread sound much like radical Islamists who are now expecting their just reward only in the next life. As the haters age out, bigotry falls further and further out of fashion. And those of you longing for the "good old days", too bad, they're gone, and those of us who believe in the equality of all rather than the privilege of the few, are very happy they're gone.

 

[warthog1984]

As I understand it, annulment is a Catholic thing. I might be wrong on that as I was raised in a very Protestant family.

Annulment is also a * legal* thing. Hence why the various states list inability to consummate as grounds for annulment and/or at fault divorce.

But given your demonstrated inability to read, differentiate, and/or correctly deduce facts I don't hold much hope that'll trigger any synapses for you.

 

[warthog1984]

I find it entertaining that some of the "bible-thumpers" on this thread sound much like radical Islamists who are now expecting their just reward only in the next life.

What Bible thumpers? Besides FC's one post there hasn't been a Bible thumper or theological-based argument since Page 12.

Some of us are having a good debate; others are frothing at the mouth that "L'etat c'est pas moi"

 

[Kritchlow]

You do not appear to have an opinion, other than to express your hurtie feelings by attacking me personally. You have not addressed one wit of the substance of my statements, contenting yourself with childish ad hominem attacks. You make yourself look more foolish by the pixel.

Read earlier in the thread. I laid out my thoughts point by point.

 

[roncachamp]

That more women are graduating from college doesn't mean that their are equal opportunities for women. We are still drastically under represented in many, many industries, not the least of what is aviation.

That's because we live in a semi-free country. There would be more women in aviation if more women chose to go into aviation. Should it be different? Would you force more women to go into aviation to rectify this under-representation? Would you limit the number of men?

 

[Florida Cracker]

Ah yes! The society destroying special privilege of not being lynched. Not to mention those other special privileges that are special only if not conferred upon white males.

You must be hating the 20th and 21st centuries.

And you must be one of the specials kinds of stupid.

Congratulations, the short bus will be by to pick you in time for school...

 

[DFH65]

This is a very entertaining thread. I don't have to be angry, yell, cry, stomp my feet. We won. Slowly but surely society marches on and the bigots, racists, homophobes, haters, are left behind, dying off, etc. This world becomes a better place as a result.

I find it entertaining that some of the "bible-thumpers" on this thread sound much like radical Islamists who are now expecting their just reward only in the next life. As the haters age out, bigotry falls further and further out of fashion. And those of you longing for the "good old days", too bad, they're gone, and those of us who believe in the equality of all rather than the privilege of the few, are very happy they're gone.

You make two mistake in this post in my opinion and feel free to go back and read all of my posts on this subject. I am a Christian and I have done none of what you describe.

The mistake that you made like others with your same view is that simply assume that because Christians don't agree with you they are bigots, racists and homophobes. It is possible to disagree with someone without hating or fearing them I would simply state that I have disagreements with a lot of people that I love.

Here is the thing, if I believe based on my faith that an activity (regardless of what that is) is not good for you (or me) whether it is spiritual or physical my concern for your participation in that activity is driven by my love for you and my desire for what I believe based on what scripture tells us is best for you and society as a whole. You don't have to agree with me, you don't have to change your life at all, that is what free will is all about BUT that doesn't change my concern for you based on love not hate.

The second error you make is comparing those that disagree with you with ISIS or referring to Christians as Bible thumpers which is discriminatory and hateful based on your own bigotry and therefor hypocritical to your point. You are doing the same thing you are accusing others of.

 

[roncachamp]

This is a very entertaining thread. I don't have to be angry, yell, cry, stomp my feet. We won. Slowly but surely society marches on and the bigots, racists, homophobes, haters, are left behind, dying off, etc. This world becomes a better place as a result.

I find it entertaining that some of the "bible-thumpers" on this thread sound much like radical Islamists who are now expecting their just reward only in the next life. As the haters age out, bigotry falls further and further out of fashion. And those of you longing for the "good old days", too bad, they're gone, and those of us who believe in the equality of all rather than the privilege of the few, are very happy they're gone.

What about gays who view same sex-marriage as an absurdity? Do you consider them to be bigots and homophobes?

 

[AuntPeggy]

What about gays who view same sex-marriage as an absurdity? Do you consider them to be bigots and homophobes?

Oh, my goodness, yes. http://gayhomophobe.com/

 

[Gerhardt]

Just two people in a marriage. Why? If the rationale is valid for same sex marriage it must also be valid for polygamy.

The way you connect dots is scary.

What about gays who view same sex-marriage as an absurdity? Do you consider them to be bigots and homophobes?

uhhh, yeah. But I'm also a firm believer that everyone has a right to their personal beliefs. The fact that you don't like homosexuality doesn't bother me in the least. You are absolutely entitled to your own beliefs, every bit as much as gay people are entitled to theirs.

I've liked females my entire life. I don't understand what attracts gay people to one another. But I know that they are, and it doesn't bother me.

What is kinda scary is to see all the outward hatred against homosexuals. There are some people in need of serious help with their mental health on this thread.

 

[roncachamp]

The way you connect dots is scary.

It gets better. The rationale used to make a same-sex marriage in one state valid in all of them can be applied to many things. For example, a concealed carry permit issued by any state must be valid in all of them.

 

[azure]

The way you connect dots is scary.

Actually, I'm not aware of anything in the reasoning Kennedy used that wouldn't apply equally well to polyamory. I'm just not sure that's a valid argument against the decision.

 

[narchee]

For some, the lack of consummation (technically impossible) in a gay marriage means there is no marriage. But hey, that's another thread!

By what definition of consummation? Every definition I've seen is along the lines of what is below.

Full Definition of CONSUMMATE

transitive verb
1
a : finish, complete <consummate a business deal>
b : to make perfect
c : achieve

2
: to make (marital union) complete by sexual intercourse <consummate a marriage>

 

[pilot_dude]

Do you have to make a choice to be straight every day? That's got to be a horrible way for you to live.
How often do you switch your choices?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Shall we discuss "college lesbians"? Quite popular for a percentage of females to engage in homosexual behavior, and "come out of the closet", during college only to revert back to heterosexual behavior shortly after departing the university.
I know six personally who have gone through the change only to change back. My wife has been in academia for over 25 years and sees the same thing annually.

 

[warthog1984]

By what definition of consummation?

 

[azure]

Shall we discuss "college lesbians"? Quite popular for a percentage of females to engage in homosexual behavior, and "come out of the closet", during college only to revert back to heterosexual behavior shortly after departing the university.
I know six personally who have gone through the change only to change back. My wife has been in academia for over 25 years and sees the same thing annually.

The key word, of course, is "behavior". Anyone can engage in homosexual or heterosexual behavior, regardless of orientation. Quite different from being unable to find a meaningful long-term relationship except with a person of a certain sex. So I agree that the behavior is a choice, but the orientation is not. Assuming you are straight, do you think you could find satisfaction in an intimate relationship with another man?

Some people who cannot understand this are actually bisexual. Of the "college lesbians" you're talking about, my impression is that many are in fact bisexual. (We used to call them LUGs - Lesbian Until Graduation.)

 

[MadseasoN]

We won.

This single sentence defines what is wrong with people these days. Everything is a competition between two sides. Critical thinking be damned as long as you 'win'.

 

[pilot_dude]

Much of the objections to SSM will be lessened by having more educated citizens or allowing nature to take its course with the Boomers ( and older) dying off

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And the blacks, don't forget the blacks.

 

[Matthew]

Actually, I'm not aware of anything in the reasoning Kennedy used that wouldn't apply equally well to polyamory. I'm just not sure that's a valid argument against the decision.

Which is why many people believe that should have been a decision left to the States. There is no Constitutional definition of what marriage "is", so States have had the authority to define it. Even the Federal government forms that have a checkbox for "married" have to defer to the State's definition and a State marriage license record. Some States will have different definitions, and that's just fine - the people get to have their say. That does mean that in some States gay marriage may never be legal, so the real solution would have been to remind States that they do need to recognize valid marriage licenses issued in other States. Maybe, over time, all States would legalize it, maybe not. What happened though, is that the Court took away the State power and created a definition of marriage, one that only includes 2 people. Why did they stop at 2? Because traditionally marriage always involved 2 people? Well, traditionally, marriage always involved 2 opposite sex people, but the Court changed that definition. If they can change the definition of marriage now, there isn't anything stopping them from changing it again later.

edit:

Here's a snip from Roberts' dissention:

"Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one."

 

[pilot_dude]

The key word, of course, is "behavior". Anyone can engage in homosexual or heterosexual behavior, regardless of orientation. Quite different from being unable to find a meaningful long-term relationship except with a person of a certain sex. So I agree that the behavior is a choice, but the orientation is not. Assuming you are straight, do you think you could find satisfaction in an intimate relationship with another man?

Some people who cannot understand this are actually bisexual. Of the "college lesbians" you're talking about, my impression is that many are in fact bisexual. (We used to call them LUGs - Lesbian Until Graduation.)

I concede actions may or may not determine orientation, per se. However, when the six I referenced earlier come out of the closet and proclaim they are homosexual I have to take them at their word. Well, until they decide they are no longer homosexual then I become confused.
Bisexuality is an interesting topic but may be outside the scope of this thread.
Yes, LUG is the term I have heard but didn't commit it to memory hence me putting "college lesbian" in quotes. Thanks.

 

[DJTorrente]

This single sentence defines what is wrong with people these days. Everything is a competition between two sides. Critical thinking be damned as long as you 'win'.

I don't agree. It isn't so much a simple expression of who won. It's a difference between: "We won because you suck, eat **** and die while I earn six figures off the tax money of fifty of you stupid peasants;" (Gruber springs to mind) and "The country is going to be better off for everyone because the better ideas prevailed."

Brendan Eich is an excellent example; as is the violence against the LDS church after Prop 8 prevailed at the California ballot box in 2008.

Its also the insufferable spiking of the football by the militant activists:

To those who have a chip on their shoulder and shortcut macros for the words "bigot" and "homophobe", maybe the reason people don't like you is because you're simply an *******.

 

[Gsxrpilot]

This single sentence defines what is wrong with people these days. Everything is a competition between two sides. Critical thinking be damned as long as you 'win'.

Coming from someone for whom this has been very personal for the last 20 years... equality and decency won. And after so many years of pain, I'm done caring about how the other side feels about it. So yes, WE won. Deal with it.

BTW I don't hate anyone on the other side of the issue. I'll be at KOSH this year, come by the Mooney tent and I'll buy you a Backward Tail Ale . I just don't care that the SCOTUS decision upsets those opposed.

 

[roncachamp]

BTW I don't hate anyone on the other side of the issue. I'll be at KOSH this year, come by the Mooney tent and I'll buy you a Backward Tail Ale . I just don't care that the SCOTUS decision upsets those opposed.

The SCOTUS decision upsets everyone who thinks the US Constitution should be adhered to, without regard to their position on same-sex marriage.

 

[DJTorrente]

Coming from someone for whom this has been very personal for the last 20 years... equality and decency won. And after so many years of pain, I'm done caring about how the other side feels about it. So yes, WE won. Deal with it.

You just admitted it's not about equality, its about retribution. Equality is just a tool; a convenient label. The entire premise underlying the gaymarriage argument is a fraud.

BTW I don't hate anyone on the other side of the issue. I'll be at KOSH this year, come by the Mooney tent and I'll buy you a Backward Tail Ale .

Cheeky. Amusing. But not the least bit magnanimous.

I just don't care that the SCOTUS decision upsets those opposed.

Because you can't possibly image the shoe being on the other foot. One day it will be your ox being gored.

 

[nddons]

You make two mistake in this post in my opinion and feel free to go back and read all of my posts on this subject. I am a Christian and I have done none of what you describe.



The mistake that you made like others with your same view is that simply assume that because Christians don't agree with you they are bigots, racists and homophobes. It is possible to disagree with someone without hating or fearing them I would simply state that I have disagreements with a lot of people that I love.



Here is the thing, if I believe based on my faith that an activity (regardless of what that is) is not good for you (or me) whether it is spiritual or physical my concern for your participation in that activity is driven by my love for you and my desire for what I believe based on what scripture tells us is best for you and society as a whole. You don't have to agree with me, you don't have to change your life at all, that is what free will is all about BUT that doesn't change my concern for you based on love not hate.



The second error you make is comparing those that disagree with you with ISIS or referring to Christians as Bible thumpers which is discriminatory and hateful based on your own bigotry and therefor hypocritical to your point. You are doing the same thing you are accusing others of.

You're much more kind to gsxpilot than he or she deserves, but your post is well written and on point.

The more I know some militant gay activists, the more I see THEM as the bigots, and the more I fear for my gay friends who just want to live their lives in peace with their partner without being lumped in with activist bigots.