If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No one is taking the position at this point that there is or is not a compelling interest. We are not litigating this. It has not been tested and no one is taking a position on it. It seems that there is much that you're having difficulty grasping

It seems to me that the same old selfishness has reared its head. If not, I apologize in advance, but same-sex couples wanted a non-traditional extension of marriage because there was no compelling reason to deny them, BUT ONCE THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED, now they are unwilling to support OTHER non-traditional marriage lacking a compelling interest to be denied.

If that is, in fact, what is happening, hopefully you can see why that infuriates me, and is a CONSTANT with statist motherfuckers. They want what they want, and when they get it, **** everybody else.

I hope this frustration sheds some light on my problem with some people giving no thought to their use of government to force things on others that they, themselves are unwilling to accept (or are unable to foresee).

Oh common Farnsworth! Where are you getting that crap from? It is not currently an issue. Where are the people who are pushing for plural marriage , or the right to marry a sibling? How do you know what position gay people would take if it came to the forefront? You don't and neither do I. Geeeezz

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

BUT until Obergefell, they had no precedent from the SCOTUS analyzing state marriage laws for a compelling state interest in denying a non-traditional marriage.

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

Interracial marriage was not "traditional " either before 1967

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No one is taking the position at this point that there is or is not a compelling interest. We are not litigating this. It has not been tested and no one is taking a position on it. It seems that there is much that you're having difficulty grasping

It seems to me that the same old selfishness has reared its head. If not, I apologize in advance, but same-sex couples wanted a non-traditional extension of marriage because there was no compelling reason to deny them, BUT ONCE THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED, now they are unwilling to support OTHER non-traditional marriage lacking a compelling interest to be denied.

If that is, in fact, what is happening, hopefully you can see why that infuriates me, and is a CONSTANT with statist motherfuckers. They want what they want, and when they get it, **** everybody else.

I hope this frustration sheds some light on my problem with some people giving no thought to their use of government to force things on others that they, themselves are unwilling to accept (or are unable to foresee).

Sorry to jump into this conversation, but this is what happens when people try to change the definition of marriage.

If a definition can be changed, then it is ultimately meaningless. In other words, if something is not objectively true, then it's subjective, and no particular definition can be more right than any other. That makes it completely meaningless.

You are absolutely right that homosexuals are discriminating against other nontraditional ideas of marriage. For example, I'm sure that pedophiles want the "right" to marry as well. Of course any sane person would oppose that for obvious reasons, but if the definition of marriage is changeable and subjective, then on what basis does anyone have to deny the "right" of pedophiles to marry?

Homosexuals discriminate too... they just don't realize it.

Holly ******* shit are you serious ??! Pedophiles ? You are totally off the rails with that one!! Marriage has been redefined many times over the years but never to include children . To suggest that it might is irresponsible and dangerous .You should be ashamed. And how are gays discriminating against anyone else? Please explain. That is over the top idiotic!

 

[Syriusly]

So what were those compelling arguments before Obergefell?

Playing Coy now? Ain't you cute.

Supply the answers to the questions asked first, then we can work backwards if you want. And quit your damn running, it's cowardly...

LOL- you are the one too cowardly to actually make an argument.

Are you scared because you know you have no argument to make?

Answer the questions weasel

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

Still questions- still not an argument.

Go dance with your strawman by yourself again
View attachment 198952

Two questions you obviously fear.

Can’t answer, maybe because you know what obergfell did?

That’s what we thought

Go dance with yourself, you repulse everyone else.

"neither of those people can be married to someone else"

and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?

"and neither of them can be related to a degree"

and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?

LOL

Why are you so terrified to debate me on the issue?

 

[Syriusly]

Holy shit! are you on the Asperger's spectrum? First you could not get off of the procreation horseshit and now you are fixated on plural marriage. Is it possible that you do not understand that no one is arguing against it.? You are just arguing with yourself!

He wants government out of it. I do too.

The fact that now polygamist still can’t marry is evidence that igovernment needs to get its filthy hands off.

He wants government out of it now- because same gender couples can now legally marry.

He doesn't want to share his toys.

 

[Syriusly]

You are getting way out ahead of yourself here . Sure, those who may want to further expand the definition of marriage may be emboldened to pursue their claims by Obergefell, where are they? Where are the court cases and legislative initiatives? Until a movement materializes, this is nothing more tan a slippery slope logical fallacy

According to the 14th Amendment they need only apply for a marriage license and be granted one. You cannot elevate one exception-lifestyle group over any other. You know that.

You keep repeating that like a retarded parrot- and it is as false as the first time you spewed it out.

 

[Syriusly]

Does Obergefell say that a father can marry hid adult daughter. Show us where.

I agree that Obergefell was not broad enough to be interpreted as extending marriage to include polygamy or incest. That is unquestionable.

Obergefell did set a precedent with applicable reasoning for polygamists or sister-bangers to seek such an extension. The Court would need to do some major tap dancing to carve out exceptions for extending rights to polygamists or sister-bangers.

But, it happens all the time, because the Court has lost its integrity. Consistent reason has flown the coupe and political agendas have replaced it. I am in no way as smart as the guys in black, so I know they had to have considered my line of reasoning on how to deal with marriage. They simply chose to ignore that reasoning because see above.

And in the end, it was fruitless to try and skirt polygamy and sister-banging marriage just to avoid the childish criticisms of the anti-gay-marriage horde. You can bet your ass that the Court is going to eventually be forced to expand marriage rights to polygamists or sister-bangers, as it should have done in the first place, and could have done simply by saying these few words:

Marriage is a contract.

It's shit like this that makes me want to put actual, practicing lawyers from schools OTHER THAN Yale and Harvard on the SCOTUS.

You are getting way out ahead of yourself here . Sure, those who may want to further expand the definition of marriage may be emboldened to pursue their claims by Obergefell, where are they? Where are the court cases and legislative initiatives? Until a movement materializes, this is nothing more tan a slippery slope logical fallacy

Being the first makes people famous. For that reason alone it will happen

Almost 3 years since Obergefell.

When you going to get busy on those lawsuits so you can be the first legally able to marry your sister wife?

 

[buttercup]

No one is taking the position at this point that there is or is not a compelling interest. We are not litigating this. It has not been tested and no one is taking a position on it. It seems that there is much that you're having difficulty grasping

It seems to me that the same old selfishness has reared its head. If not, I apologize in advance, but same-sex couples wanted a non-traditional extension of marriage because there was no compelling reason to deny them, BUT ONCE THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED, now they are unwilling to support OTHER non-traditional marriage lacking a compelling interest to be denied.

If that is, in fact, what is happening, hopefully you can see why that infuriates me, and is a CONSTANT with statist motherfuckers. They want what they want, and when they get it, **** everybody else.

I hope this frustration sheds some light on my problem with some people giving no thought to their use of government to force things on others that they, themselves are unwilling to accept (or are unable to foresee).

Sorry to jump into this conversation, but this is what happens when people try to change the definition of marriage.

If a definition can be changed, then it is ultimately meaningless. In other words, if something is not objectively true, then it's subjective, and no particular definition can be more right than any other. That makes it completely meaningless.

You are absolutely right that homosexuals are discriminating against other nontraditional ideas of marriage. For example, I'm sure that pedophiles want the "right" to marry as well. Of course any sane person would oppose that for obvious reasons, but if the definition of marriage is changeable and subjective, then on what basis does anyone have to deny the "right" of pedophiles to marry?

Homosexuals discriminate too... they just don't realize it.

Holly ******* shit are you serious ??! Pedophiles ? You are totally off the rails with that one!! Marriage has been redefined many times over the years but never to include children . To suggest that it might is irresponsible and dangerous .You should be ashamed. And how are gays discriminating against anyone else? Please explain. That is over the top idiotic!

Sigh… you're not getting the point. Let me try again. There are different types of truths. Some things are objectively true, and other truths are subjective (in other words, based on opinion, and changeable.)

A timeless or objective truth does not change. Even if you change a law, that doesn't mean the actual truth has changed… Because as we established earlier, man-made laws do not constitute actual truth.

When it comes to marriage, you guys claim that the definition can be changed. Again, if it truly can be changed, then it is not an objective truth, it is merely a matter of opinion… and no particular opinion can be more true or right than any other.

What does this have to do with pedophilia? First of all, you misunderstood and you seemed to think that I was saying same-sex marriage will lead to pedophile marriage. That wasn't my point. My point was that if marriage doesn't have an objectively true definition… if it instead is changeable, subjective… then on what basis are you denying pedophiles the “right” to marry? Your definition of marriage can't be more right than anyone else's, if it is subjective, changeable.

Do you get it now?

 

[Silhouette]

Almost 3 years since Obergefell.

When you going to get busy on those lawsuits so you can be the first legally able to marry your sister wife?

Polygamy and any other lifestyle combo that is subjectively approved is already eligible to marry. They need not file a lawsuit after Obergefell. The 14th doesn't allow for one lifestyle to be subjectively superior to any other that wishes to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

Almost 3 years since Obergefell.

When you going to get busy on those lawsuits so you can be the first legally able to marry your sister wife?

Polygamy and any other lifestyle combo that is subjectively approved is already eligible to marry. They need not file a lawsuit after Obergefell. The 14th doesn't allow for one lifestyle to be subjectively superior to any other that wishes to marry.

You have been saying that for almost 3 years now.

And it is still just as false as the first time you told that lie.

 

[Syriusly]

No one is taking the position at this point that there is or is not a compelling interest. We are not litigating this. It has not been tested and no one is taking a position on it. It seems that there is much that you're having difficulty grasping

It seems to me that the same old selfishness has reared its head. If not, I apologize in advance, but same-sex couples wanted a non-traditional extension of marriage because there was no compelling reason to deny them, BUT ONCE THEY GOT WHAT THEY WANTED, now they are unwilling to support OTHER non-traditional marriage lacking a compelling interest to be denied.

If that is, in fact, what is happening, hopefully you can see why that infuriates me, and is a CONSTANT with statist motherfuckers. They want what they want, and when they get it, **** everybody else.

I hope this frustration sheds some light on my problem with some people giving no thought to their use of government to force things on others that they, themselves are unwilling to accept (or are unable to foresee).

Sorry to jump into this conversation, but this is what happens when people try to change the definition of marriage.

If a definition can be changed, then it is ultimately meaningless. In other words, if something is not objectively true, then it's subjective, and no particular definition can be more right than any other. That makes it completely meaningless.

You are absolutely right that homosexuals are discriminating against other nontraditional ideas of marriage. For example, I'm sure that pedophiles want the "right" to marry as well. Of course any sane person would oppose that for obvious reasons, but if the definition of marriage is changeable and subjective, then on what basis does anyone have to deny the "right" of pedophiles to marry?

Homosexuals discriminate too... they just don't realize it.

Holly ******* shit are you serious ??! Pedophiles ? You are totally off the rails with that one!! Marriage has been redefined many times over the years but never to include children . To suggest that it might is irresponsible and dangerous .You should be ashamed. And how are gays discriminating against anyone else? Please explain. That is over the top idiotic!

Sigh… you're not getting the point. Let me try again. There are different types of truths. Some things are objectively true, and other truths are subjective (in other words, based on opinion, and changeable.)

A timeless or objective truth does not change. Even if you change a law, that doesn't mean the actual truth has changed… Because as we established earlier, man-made laws do not constitute actual truth.

When it comes to marriage, you guys claim that the definition can be changed. Again, if it truly can be changed, then it is not an objective truth, it is merely a matter of opinion… and no particular opinion can be more true or right than any other.

What does this have to do with pedophilia? First of all, you misunderstood and you seemed to think that I was saying same-sex marriage will lead to pedophile marriage. That wasn't my point. My point was that if marriage doesn't have an objectively true definition… if it instead is changeable, subjective… then on what basis are you denying pedophiles the “right” to marry? Your definition of marriage can't be more right than anyone else's, if it is subjective, changeable.

Do you get it now?

Buttercup- as I pointed out before- marriage has changed over time.

No- marriage is not an 'objective' truth- marriage is a concept invented by humans and has had many meanings over time.

And again- which I already addressed- it is not- and never has been illegal for pedophiles to marry.

If you mean denying child molesters the right to marry 5 year olds- then you would need to argue that a 5 year old can consent to marry.

 

[buttercup]

Buttercup- as I pointed out before- marriage has changed over time.

No- marriage is not an 'objective' truth- marriage is a concept invented by humans and has had many meanings over time.

And again- which I already addressed- it is not- and never has been illegal for pedophiles to marry.

If you mean denying child molesters the right to marry 5 year olds- then you would need to argue that a 5 year old can consent to marry.

OK, so you are going on the record that it is subjective, man-made, changeable. Thank you, but you're still not getting the point or answering the pertinent question. If there is no true definition of marriage, if it is subjective, then your view of marriage cannot be truer or more right than anyone else's. In light of that, how can you tell a 55-year-old man that he can't marry a five-year-old? According to your own logic, his opinion is just as valid as yours. You have absolutely no leg to stand on, if you think that marriage is subjective.

 

[Syriusly]

Buttercup- as I pointed out before- marriage has changed over time.

No- marriage is not an 'objective' truth- marriage is a concept invented by humans and has had many meanings over time.

And again- which I already addressed- it is not- and never has been illegal for pedophiles to marry.

If you mean denying child molesters the right to marry 5 year olds- then you would need to argue that a 5 year old can consent to marry.

OK, so you are going on the record that it is subjective, man-made, changeable. Thank you, but you're still not getting the point or answering the pertinent question. If there is no true definition of marriage, if it is subjective, then your view of marriage cannot be truer or more right than anyone else's. In light of that, how can you tell a 55-year-old man that he can't marry a five-year-old? According to your own logic, his opinion is just as valid as yours. You have absolutely no leg to stand on, if you think that marriage is subjective.

I am saying that marriage is absolutely subjective and has changed multiple times and meant multiple things in the United States and that is demonstrable.

And by the way that means that in history- marriage has included child marriage.

And that brings us to 'consent'- in biblical times- women- and girls had no right to 'consent'- their fathers- or husbands did.

The issue with a 55 year old man marrying a 5 year old is not the 55 year old- it is that in our society- we no longer go by Biblical rules- and let a father sell off a 5 year old to be married. We believe that children cannot consent to sex- or marriage.

What about you- do you believe that the consent of children consent is objective- or subjective?

Do you think that you have no leg to stand on to say that children cannot consent to sex or marriage?

 

[buttercup]

I am saying that marriage is absolutely subjective and has changed multiple times and meant multiple things in the United States and that is demonstrable.

And by the way that means that in history- marriage has included child marriage.

And that brings us to 'consent'- in biblical times- women- and girls had no right to 'consent'- their fathers- or husbands did.

The issue with a 55 year old man marrying a 5 year old is not the 55 year old- it is that in our society- we no longer go by Biblical rules- and let a father sell off a 5 year old to be married. We believe that children cannot consent to sex- or marriage.

What about you- do you believe that the consent of children consent is objective- or subjective?

Do you think that you have no leg to stand on to say that children cannot consent to sex or marriage?

Yes, of course there have been differing ideas on marriage, almost since the dawn of time. Disagreement in and of itself doesn't make something subjective.

But getting to the important part here… I'm not asking you why you believe that it's wrong. I'm asking you how you can tell someone else that they are wrong, when by your own admission it is subjective. In other words, a matter of opinion. If it's a matter of opinion, then no particular opinion can be more right than any other.

I thought I made my position very clear, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. You're getting off track by focusing so much on when people can consent… You're not acknowledging the contradiction in your position. If you believe marriage is subjective, a matter of opinion… Then you have no basis for telling a child molester, a polygamist, or anyone else that they are wrong.

 

[Syriusly]

I am saying that marriage is absolutely subjective and has changed multiple times and meant multiple things in the United States and that is demonstrable.

And by the way that means that in history- marriage has included child marriage.

And that brings us to 'consent'- in biblical times- women- and girls had no right to 'consent'- their fathers- or husbands did.

The issue with a 55 year old man marrying a 5 year old is not the 55 year old- it is that in our society- we no longer go by Biblical rules- and let a father sell off a 5 year old to be married. We believe that children cannot consent to sex- or marriage.

What about you- do you believe that the consent of children consent is objective- or subjective?

Do you think that you have no leg to stand on to say that children cannot consent to sex or marriage?

Yes, of course there have been differing ideas on marriage, almost since the dawn of time. Disagreement in and of itself doesn't make something subjective.

But getting to the important part here… I'm not asking you why you believe that it's wrong. I'm asking you how you can tell someone else that they are wrong, when by your own admission it is subjective. In other words, a matter of opinion. If it's a matter of opinion, then no particular opinion can be more right than any other.

I thought I made my position very clear, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. You're getting off track by focusing so much on when people can consent… You're not acknowledging the contradiction in your position. If you believe marriage is subjective, a matter of opinion… Then you have no basis for telling a child molester, a polygamist, or anyone else that they are wrong.

Oh i get you think that marriage is between one man and one woman- but that is your subjective opinion. Because clearly history shows that is not always the case.

Yes I think that marriage has changed multiple times in history and that we define what marriage is.

Just because I believe that doesn't mean I cannot tell a murderer, a rapist or a bank robber, or a burglar, or a embezzler that they are wrong.

 

[Seawytch]

Were people who used the Bible to justify segregation and anti miscegenation bigots?

If they were hateful and racist, then yes, of course they were bigots. But their view is completely unbiblical, and demonstrably so. They were simply espousing their own personal opinion, and trying to use the Bible to do so, but that doesn't make it biblical.

The racist bigots have bible verses too and they feel just as strongly about them as the anti gay bigots do.

Racism is completely antithetical to Christianity. It doesn't matter if they try to use the Bible to justify their racism… It is very easy to disprove, and anyone who knows God knows that God does not care about skin color or a person's physical appearance…God cares about our heart.

Homosexuality, on the other hand is clearly unbiblical. So to try to equate racists with Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin shows a profound lack of understanding, or ignorance.

Racist don't think so. They have bible verses too.

And he [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons,

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.

Christians who aren't anti gay don't think the bible supports anti gay bigotry.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage is more than just a contract. I don't know what particular documents you have in mind, but mere disagreement on something does not mean that there isn't an actual truth.

The Bible. Polygamy was common.

Incest wasn't so bad either i guess. Look at the whole story about Lott. First we have him as father of the year, offering up his virgin daughter to an angry crowd allegedly bent on rape or mahem (to protect an angel that's supposed to be like a nine foot tall being of light). Then after god destroys his city, he sleeps with both his daughters...but somehow gays come out of this story as the bad guys. WTF, over?

 

[buttercup]

Racist don't think so. They have bible verses too.

And he [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons,

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.

Christians who aren't anti gay don't think the bible supports anti gay bigotry.

Since you're not a Christian, I don't expect you to know this… But when God commanded the Israelites to not intermarry, it had nothing to do with skin color. It was always about not marrying someone of a different religion, namely the people in neighboring nations who were worshiping false gods and committing heinous crimes.

In fact, in the very passage that you quoted, just a few verses before (which you left out) it says the reason why… Here, I will post it for you:

Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son. For they will turn your sons away from following Me, to serve other gods;​

It doesn't matter what some racists say, because anyone who has studied the Bible, and anyone who knows God can easily disprove their claims. Again, the Bible clearly states that God does not look at outer appearance, but at our heart. And as it says in Galatians 3:28, there is no different races, genders, or classes of people in God's eyes… We are all equal in Christ.

You seem to not want to accept or concede that, because maybe you don't like the idea that homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible.

 

[buttercup]

Marriage is more than just a contract. I don't know what particular documents you have in mind, but mere disagreement on something does not mean that there isn't an actual truth.

The Bible. Polygamy was common.

Incest wasn't so bad either i guess. Look at the whole story about Lott. First we have him as father of the year, offering up his virgin daughter to an angry crowd allegedly bent on rape or mahem (to protect an angel that's supposed to be like a nine foot tall being of light). Then after god destroys his city, he sleeps with both his daughters...but somehow gays come out of this story as the bad guys. WTF, over?

You seem to think that just because the Bible documents something, that means that their actions were approved by God. The Bible contains a number of different types of writing, including historical, poetic, wisdom, prophecy, etc. When it's a story of something that happened in the past, that doesn't mean that God approved of everyone's actions. That is absurd, as the Bible clearly states that people constantly mess up and do things outside of God's will. The Bible isn't a book of perfect people always acting in perfect ways. If that's what you think it's supposed to be, then you're misunderstanding. But anyway, this is getting off topic, and I have to go for a while anyway.

 

[talksalot]

It's not discrimination against homosexuals. It's choosing to not participate in gay marriage which most Christians acknowledge goes against the teachings of Christ.

Muslim bakers don't do gay wedding cakes either, but somehow they are immune from lawsuits. Why is that?