BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 09:16 PM

Here, let me help:    CLICKY.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 09:09 PM

Read a little science, Guest. You're back in the Dark Ages.

If you feel like screwing a light socket, have at it!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 08:45 PM

So if I choose to screw a light socket, God made me do it? Where you stick your thing is a choice. It may be a compulsion, but it's still a choice. You can control compulsive behavior. Homosexuality is not caused by genetics, no more than you're 'born a Jew'. Judaism is a religion and a choice, not a condition of birth.

Skin color and gender are conditions of birth. Transgender is a condition of birth. But making a choice to screw someone of your own sex is not a condition of birth. It is a choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 08:17 PM

Guest: "And anybody who still thinks being gay is a choice has been living under a rock."

Exactly so! Although homophobes dig their heels in and deny the findings of science, sexual orientation has been long established as being of genetic and hormonal origin—NOT a matter of choice.

Let me put it this way: If God made a person homosexual, why should he or she be denied the right to marry?

Don Firth

P. S. No work at all, Jeri. This is an old argument that's been going on in the Mudcat B.S. section for years

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 07:39 PM

marriage is about society/culture controlling behavior
Actually it's about placing a monetary value on access to a twat. Preferably one that is attached to a female capable of breeding.

It really used to be about making babies. But it isn't any more, so let's not insist that it still be, or pretend that it's what it still is.

And anybody who still thinks being gay is a choice has been living under a rock.

Many even argue that children raised in a religion don't get to choose that either.

Mrr

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 07:31 PM

Why is the criticism of Christians allowed here but not the criticism of gays? Christianity and homosexuality are choices you make, so what's up with the mudcat hatred?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 06:26 PM

I think it's an excuse to start an irrelevant tangential argument.

Hardly tangential, Jeri. It gets right to the idiotic "Christian"[sic] fundagelical heart of the matter.

Are you asking me if he should have asked the question, or what?

I'm asking you why you think Don works "way too hard to find an argument", particularly in this specific case.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 06:17 PM

Did it ever occur to me that Don is right? Don asked a question. Are you asking me if he should have asked the question, or what?

I think it's an excuse to start an irrelevant tangential argument. Again. Still. I think there are some sad, lonely people with nothing to do but fight with others on the internet. I hate that they found their way to Mudcat.

Over,
Out.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 06:09 PM

" Let local jurisdictions set rules for behavior."

No... absolutely not. 'Behavior' is very different from laws about public safety or taxes. Opinions that are based in religious tenets or cultural generalities that do not limit your freedoms should never be subject to voting or political whims.

If you don't like abortions, don't have one... if you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, fine. It makes no difference whether 'marriage' was usually between a man and a woman. That is not a 'definition', no matter what conservatives would like it to be!
To 'marry' is to unite. It simply formalizes what has for eons been done informally- the sharing of home and responsibilities. NOTHING ABOUT gay marriage interferes with YOUR rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,#
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 06:04 PM

"I don't see anywhere where the sex of the "wife" is specified. Or, for that matter, the species."

LOL. Hard to argue with that logic :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 05:24 PM

Matthew 19:5 - and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'

I don't see anywhere where the sex of the "wife" is specified. Or, for that matter, the species.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,#
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 05:22 PM

That was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 05:21 PM

Matthew 19:5

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 05:20 PM

Jeri, did it ever occur to you that Don is RIGHT?

In which Gospel, and in which chapter and verse did Jesus say this, pete?

I assume you meant this as a joke, or at the least a rhetorical question, Don?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 05:08 PM

Don, has it ever occurred to you that you have to work way too hard to find an argument?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 04:42 PM

Mark 10:7 – Some early manuscripts do not have "and be united to his wife."   

Or are we accepting only the King James Version? And if so, why that one, when earlier versions are closer to the original language in which the Gospel was written?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,#
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 04:03 PM

Mark 10:7

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 03:20 PM

pete *******:   "Jesus did not spell it out, but he did affirm the definition of marriage as a man leaving his father and mother and being united with his WIFE."

In which Gospel, and in which chapter and verse did Jesus say this, pete? Be specific.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 03:17 PM

What I find bizarre is that it's pretty much the same people who think government is "too bit" and too involved with people's lives who want government to determine who can marry whom. Not too hypocritical, but the fact that stupidity is so popular with right-wing douchebags means that a good percentage of them won't "get it" and the rest will just think either of them will get it, or none will dare say they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 03:01 PM

sorry, gremlins seem to be attacking my computer...

marriage is about society/culture controlling behavior and, as importantly, resources... any intro to sociology or cultural anthropology text will have whole chapters devoted to different ways to determine kinship and who can hook up with who. as the mind boggles... :)

human nature being what it is, there will always be those who shoulder responsibility and those who shirk it... setting up rules helped keep things stable but only up to a point. My viewpoint is that everyone should get a shot at happiness, who am I to try and deny it to anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 02:32 PM

So far as I know, Jeri- but what the heck? ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 02:14 PM

Greg, really?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 01:59 PM

Do you hate shirt lifters, fudge packers, uphill gardeners, poofs and queers because Jesus told you to pete?

Tell me. Do you really believe all that shit or is it a convenient way to be a pathetic bigot whilst pretending to have credibility with other deluded filth?

Jesus didn't say that at all so why lie?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 01:56 PM

And ya know what, Jeri? They aren't required to!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 01:30 PM

If a person is Christian and doesn't want to marry someone of the same sex, they shouldn't be required to.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 01:22 PM

Jesus did not spell it out, but he did affirm the definition of marriage as a man leaving his father and mother and being united with his WIFE .

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: jacqui.c
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 08:05 AM

Jesus may have been cool but those who have taken his message and perverted it to their own ends are definitely not. I am not aware that JC made any comment on homosexuality, but he did say "Judge not that ye may not be judged" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 03:56 AM

When christians start laying off men who lay with men and women who lay with women, I'll start laying off christians.

In the meantime, have you noticed it is the more perverted in society who always get curious about the sexual side of gay marriage? I suppose they must also wonder how their niece and future husband get it up.

Ah, the Christian Wrong. We have them over here as well, don't we pete?

😎

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 14 - 12:41 AM

So what other behaviors should be allowed? Should the supreme court allow pedophilia? Skin color and gender are conditions of birth, but where you stick your wang isn't. It may be a compulsion, but so is binging on your favorite sweet. You control those things.

Don't support lobbies that demand you condone certain behaviors. I see condemnation of Christians in this thread, but Christian behavior is just that, behavior. If you don't support Christian behavior, then how can you support one guy plugging another guy?

These things need to be thought through. Let local jurisdictions set rules for behavior. If you don't like the rules, avoid the jurisdiction. And lay off Christians. Jesus was cool.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 10:17 PM

Ah, right up there with Drunks Against Mad Mothers and the Right to Arm Bears.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 08:33 PM

"but should enough americans have sufficient biblical values left, such as held by the founding fathers, they have the option of changing the administration next time round. "

I saw the same lines Greg did, but I'll just say that in spite of the 'biblical values' held by many back then, they also prohibited 'establishment' of any specific religion, while granting everyone the right to practice one of their choice. It is against our Constitution to change that, NO MATTER WHAT ADMINISTRATION they elect. Do NOT suggest anything remotely like "voting in fundamentalist Christianity" as a ruling principle.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 08:29 PM

Aw, and there I was thinking it was all about the happiness of pursuit, preferably armed.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 06:24 PM

but should enough americans have sufficient biblical values left, such as held by the founding fathers, they have the option of changing the administration next time round

You mean should enough idiotic fundgelical bigots like yourself?

Piss off, pete. Crawl back under the primordial rock you crawled out from under - whether it as 6000 or 6 million years old - makes no difference. Time your kind was recognised for the threat to hunmanity they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 05:53 PM

Meanwhile, described as having "deer in the headlights" looks, Kansas is refusing to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples... saying that the SC hasn't actually struck down their constitutional amendment.

And they're right, it wasn't the SC that struck it down, but down it has been struck nonetheless, so, we'll see...

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 05:36 PM

as the declaration speaks of the right and responsibility of the people of the states to change or alter governments which are not in accord with "the laws of nature and natures God " they might be "impelled" to a separation from such gvt.
not sure that compelling the dissenting states to conform to central gvt directive is an example of the above, but should enough americans have sufficient biblical values left, such as held by the founding fathers, they have the option of changing the administration next time round.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 03:22 AM

If you need a gun in your pocket where most of us have a dick instead, it would seem the pursuit of happiness is itself subjective...

It does seem odd that friends we ski with, now a married couple, check the local state situation before travelling to The Rockies. Sadly, Jackson Hole is out after an embarrassing "next of kin" debate at a health centre in Jackson after Paul broke his wrist. Their legal partnership, whilst it turns out should have been recognised wasn't. Insult to injury being both nurses quoting Jesus at him. Him being a lay preacher by the way.....

I can't understand his stance for that matter. He's still a lay preacher. I used to like drinking in The Mangy Moose. Moose drool is not bad for American beer. (Best compliment I offer.)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 01:55 AM

I know. That sentence is rarely mentioned. It is a significant statement. Maybe its ultimate meaning will someday be ruled upon by the SCOTUS. In the meantime it seems few people are interested.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Oct 14 - 12:00 AM

From the Declaration of Independence, which we do not swear to abide by, right?

…among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 11:56 PM

...and then goes on about responsibilies but nobody ever quotes that part...

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 10:35 PM

Good news and more states on the horizon. The 'solid South" still holds out, but they must feel the pressure.


-------------------

"applied to gun control is all bollocks, as gay marriage shows what you can do if you really try."

Except that marriage rights have no specific mention in the Constitution... whereas another well-known document says something about "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 05:55 PM

Yay!   They are basically saying It's not an issue any more!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 04:03 PM

or maybe they are hoping for a Republican administration that will fill future vacancies with more reactionaries...

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 03:52 PM

Clarence Thomas & Scalia must have fallen & hit their heads. However, for whatever useful received, give thanks.

As Chief Dan George told us: "Sometimes, the magic works!"

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Musket
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 03:32 PM

Judging by another thread, this just shows that the "our system could never see it happen" applied to gun control is all bollocks, as gay marriage shows what you can do if you really try.

A very heartening story, and a step on the direction of equality for all in The USA.

Subject: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
From: Wesley S
Date: 06 Oct 14 - 03:20 PM

OK - another popcorn thread:

Story here

(CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for legal same-sex marriages in five more states.

The court refused to hear cases from the states -- Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin and Indiana -- seeking to keep their same-sex marriage bans in place.

Couples in some of those states began applying for marriage licenses just hours after the Supreme Court's decision.
CNN affiliate WVEC in Norfolk, Virginia, talked to a same-sex couple who rushed to fill out their marriage license documents. Officials in Virginia began issuing same-sex marriage licenses at 1 p.m. Monday. Colorado Attorney General John Suthers said all of the state's 54 county clerks must start issuing same-sex marriage licenses. A similar order could be issued by day's end for Indiana and Wisconsin.
"Supreme Court" trended on Twitter with dozens of people weighing in -- and trying to figure out exactly what the high court's move meant.

Experts say its refusal to hear the cases from those five states also means that six more states -- West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming -- could soon have to lift their bans on same-sex marriage, because they are covered by the same circuit appeals courts that initially struck down the prohibitions.

Once that happens, the number of states permitting same-sex marriage would jump from 19 to 30.
At issue is whether gay and lesbian couples in all 50 states have the same equal protection or due process right to marry that opposite-sex couples have.

In Utah, just hours after word from the high court came down, Gov. Gary Herbert said at a press conference that he felt "surprised" and "disappointed" that there was no "finality" on the issue of same-sex marriage. The state would comply with Monday's order, he said, and same-sex marriages would move forward.

"Regardless of your personal beliefs," he urged, "... please treat each other with respect and with kindness as we transition through this new law."

The court's action does not mean there won't eventually be a final ruling on the constitutional questions -- many court observers fully expect a landmark decision in the next year or two -- but it does signal the justices are not ready to jump into the politically charged debate right now.