It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Syriusly]

I have repeatedly asked as others, what is now the "compelling interest" to deny same-sibling marriage?

The same compelling interests which were used to deny a gay man from marrying his lesbian sister prior to Obergefell.

Except that those reasons have now been found unconstitutional by the Obergefell ruling.

Nope- none of those reasons- you just ignore any reasons you don't want discussed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Wow- wanting to be treated equally with Christians to you means wanting to be treated differently from everyone else.

No. They want to achieve more than "equality." They have it. Good for them, but now "equality" doesn't seem to be enough. You are purposefully taking my statements out of context.

'Equality' doesn't seem enough- to you.

IF the law says that a business must serve a person regardless of their sexual orientation or religion- why is it okay for a business to refuse to serve a homosexual for being gay- but not okay for a business to serve a Christian for being Christian?

And- by the way- Christians are protected by law in all 50 states from discrimination from service- homosexuals are not protected by Federal law- only by state or local laws.

Still not legal equality- but much, much closer- and of course people object to that.

I'm not talking about the law, am I? See you make my case, using the government as a weapon as a means to take my argument down.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If gays are looking for more than 'equality', show me.

As you wish. It's not just so much them, but how they've influenced the behavior of other people, regardless of their sexual affiliation (and for the record, not all of gays engage in this behavior, but they don't necessarily condemn it either):

Mozilla Employees Call for CEO to be Fired for Donating to Prop 8 Campaign | National Review Online
State Senator Claims His Wife Was Denied Job Because She's Against Gay Marriage
http://radio.foxnews.com/2011/08/18/teacher-opposed-to-gay-marriage-could-be-fired/
.

So you are upset that Mozilla employees call for their CEO to be fired- and blame that on homosexuals?

Do you blame all Christians when Christian organizations call for Ellen Degeneres to be fired because she is a homosexual?

To be logically consistent, he'd have to acknowledge that 'Christians' are demanding that CAIR lose its non-profit status because of things they've said about Ben Carson. And that 'Christians' are seeking status beyond equality.

Right, Templar?

WRONG. It's the law, which CAIR openly violated, is it not?

The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you are upset that Mozilla employees call for their CEO to be fired- and blame that on homosexuals?

I am. Who else has that kind of influence, if not from the gay rights lobby?

Oh Christians of course.

[Guffaws]

Try rereading the question.

Christians have exactly that kind of influence, and do not hestitate to openly call for the firing of people merely for being homosexual- like Ellen Degeneres.

So, it's okay for you and not for us. Please.

 

[Faun]

I have repeatedly asked as others, what is now the "compelling interest" to deny same-sibling marriage?

The same compelling interests which were used to deny a gay man from marrying his lesbian sister prior to Obergefell.

Except that those reasons have now been found unconstitutional by the Obergefell ruling.

No, they haven't. You repeating that doesn't make it so. All Obergefell did was rule against bans against those for whom no reason other than their gender, was used to deny them their right to marry.

It in no way validated other types of marriage which were also previously banned but for other reasons.

 

[Syriusly]

Clearly to me, we (society) are trying to accept homosexuality in our culture without passing judgement but it's simply impossible because it won't be allowed.

Judgement of homosexuality is in fact a taboo these days, while outright condemnation of those religious who oppose it is commonplace and acceptable. People who don't want to be judged are being the judges. Judging the beliefs of others.

They continue to push harder for more and more special conditions to be established in order to accommodate their gayness. If there is the least bit of opposition, that is immediately turned into "homophobia" and the objector is vilified as a hater and bigot.

I have nothing wrong with someone being gay, with the exception that I think what they are and what they practice is a sin according to my faith. However, nobody should be treated differently in America, yet one of the demands the homosexual crowd makes is that they want to be accommodated... or treated differently... from everyone else. An irony to be sure.

Okay- since you seem to think I don't understand your theme in this thread- I am back to your first contribution.

"judgement of homosexuality is taboo these days'- yet hundreds of preachers and Christian groups do so all the time. Do they get condemned for it? Sure- but no one is stopping them.

Why should those who condemn homosexuals be free from condemnation? Why should homosexuals- or anyone who disagrees with discrimination against homosexuals- not condemn those who condemn homosexuals?

Hell- I don't hesitate to condemn racists for attacking African Americans- and i don't hesitate to condemn anti-semitic bastards for attacking Jews- why should I not condemn those who tell homosexuals that they are the equivelent of N*ggers and K*kes?

As far as wanting to be treated 'differently'- you have yet to establish that at all.

So far all you have shown are people who are acting as other Americans act. And that is equality.

 

[Syriusly]

So you are upset that Mozilla employees call for their CEO to be fired- and blame that on homosexuals?

I am. Who else has that kind of influence, if not from the gay rights lobby?

Oh Christians of course.

[Guffaws]

Try rereading the question.

Christians have exactly that kind of influence, and do not hestitate to openly call for the firing of people merely for being homosexual- like Ellen Degeneres.

So, it's okay for you and not for us. Please.

LOL- I am saying that Americans have free speech- you Christians can make any hate speech against homosexuals you want- that doesnt' mean you will be free from criticism- but you are free to go on the pulpit and tell homosexuals that they are evil and will burn in hell- and you can gather together and try to get homosexuals fired.

I happen to think that 'boycotts' generally are pretty stupid- and firings are similar to that- but yes- Americans- Christians and Christian homosexuals- and homosexuals- all get to be stupid- but not free to be free from criticism.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why should those who condemn homosexuals be free from condemnation?

And why should homosexuals who condemn the opposition to homosexuality be held free from condemnation? That's it, right there. My entire case, in its most succinct form. Wanting to protect oneself from condemnation is an aim higher than wanting to be equal with one's peers.

 

[Boss]

I have answered that at least 4 times now. Not that it is up to any of us, but I've given my opinion on what the courts might cite as a compelling state interest, others have done the same.

But all you managed to come up with are the same kind of moral reasons that were just rejected in Ogeberfell. The court literally ruled that "concerns" about what it "might lead to" are irrelevant in light of civil rights of the individual. They do not constitute a compelling enough state interest.

Now, you are answering with what the law has said and what I agree the law should say. But that argument has been fundamentally changed by the Ogeberfell ruling now. The law can be challenged and it certainly will be. Those seeking to change the law will certainly cite Ogeberfell.

 

[Skylar]

If gays are looking for more than 'equality', show me.

As you wish. It's not just so much them, but how they've influenced the behavior of other people, regardless of their sexual affiliation (and for the record, not all of gays engage in this behavior, but they don't necessarily condemn it either):

Mozilla Employees Call for CEO to be Fired for Donating to Prop 8 Campaign | National Review Online
State Senator Claims His Wife Was Denied Job Because She's Against Gay Marriage
http://radio.foxnews.com/2011/08/18/teacher-opposed-to-gay-marriage-could-be-fired/
.

So you are upset that Mozilla employees call for their CEO to be fired- and blame that on homosexuals?

Do you blame all Christians when Christian organizations call for Ellen Degeneres to be fired because she is a homosexual?

To be logically consistent, he'd have to acknowledge that 'Christians' are demanding that CAIR lose its non-profit status because of things they've said about Ben Carson. And that 'Christians' are seeking status beyond equality.

Right, Templar?

WRONG. It's the law, which CAIR openly violated, is it not?

The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations

So you deny that Christians are trying to get CAIR's tax exempt status revoked....because of something they said? Because I can show you it happening.

How about Christians working to prevent Muslims from building mosques? 'Christians' trying to get Muslims deported from the US? 'Christians' calling for all copies of the Koran to be burned.

By your own logic, 'Christians' want to be more than equal. If not, why not?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The ruling of Obergefell does not cover the differences between same sex marriage and other types of relationships. You continue to talk about them as though they are exactly the same, as though no differences exist in the reasons for preventing them.

Neither did Loving or the 14th with regard to gay marriage. They don't mention anything about homosexuals marrying or redefining traditional marriage to include homosexuals. However, the 14th is very clear and has been clarified by SCOTUS repeatedly... you cannot discriminate against one group to the exclusion of another. The "reasons" we had before Obergefell are no more... they were struck down by the court. You claim that is just for gay marriage, I say it's not and it can't be, we have to allow it for all other similar groups without regard for our personal "ick" factor.

"It" can't be. The Supreme Legislature has voted and the 5 members of that illicit legislature overturned the Duly, Democratically Debated, Voted and Passed the bills voted on by the vast majority of the elected legislators, who were elected by the vast majority of the people, and which were signed into Law by the Chief Executives of the VAST MAJORITY of the States... and that vote decided that there is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to be MARRIED, by ANYTHING that consents to be married.

Now they claimed that the 14th Amendment demands such... and it demands such despite the substantial public interests in maintaining the natural standard, wherein Nature provides two distinct, but complementing genders; each respectively and specifically designed to JOIN WITH the other... the designed consequence of which being conception, which requires the nurturing of the female and the training by the male.

SO ... it is irrational beyond all other consideration for the sexual deviants that crave sexual gratification through interaction with those of their own gender, to deal out the sexual deviants that crave sexual gratification from those of their own family, or those who crave gratification from sexual interaction with other species, or corpses, etc, etc; which is to say to deny these freaks, their government provided, phony baloney, plastic banana 'right to marry'.

 

[Syriusly]

You bent over backwards how? Did you bake any gay cakes? What about cupcakes?

No, smart ass. First of all, we struck down the laws against sodomy because "what happens in the bedroom of consenting adults is not our business" and we disregarded those with moral objections.. in fact, we not only dismissed their opinion, we turned it into "homophobia" and made it abhorrent.

We allowed cities to hold "gay pride" parades all over the country. If anyone objected, it was viewed as bigotry and homophobia... hooted down and silenced. Everyone "bent over backwards" and cheered the trannies and queers celebrating their "coming out of the closet" deal... If you didn't want to be labeled a bigot and homophobe, that's what you had to support.

Then we passed "hate crime" laws after the death of Matthew Shepard, a gay man who was beaten to death, supposedly because he was a homosexual. So again, we all "bent over backwards" and decided that we would apply a harsher penalty than normal for someone who assaulted a gay person. So now, if someone mugs my mother on the way home from the market, they get to go do community service while the mugger of the homo gets 6 months in jail, mandatory sentence.

Then we "bent over backwards" by endorsing and supporting various actors and actresses portraying homosexual characters in movies and eventually television. Again, anyone who objected was hooted down as a bigot and homophobe.

So this is what I meant when I said society bent over backwards. And now you have managed to have SCOTUS redefine marriage to accommodate something that most of America doesn't recognize as marriage. What's more... that's not going to do the trick! You can already see that gay marriage people think this is some great victory they have won and it's not. The social stigma associated with homosexuality is still alive and well. You didn't change Biblical scriptures or religious beliefs, and you won't change them. Homosexuals are no closer to "legitimacy" than they ever have been, you just think they are now because of this perceived "victory" in a SCOTUS ruling. Some of you think this is a "sign that society is moving ahead" but it's not that either... it's a sign that our system has a problem. Society wasn't given a choice here... if it had been up to society marriage would be defined as a union of man and woman. DOMA was legislated by society... politicians representing their voters.

Boss is such a whiney homophobe who wants to play the victim.
50 years from now, he will seem as 'quaint' as the racists blocking the doors to black students.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I happen to think that 'boycotts' generally are pretty stupid- and firings are similar to that- but yes- Americans- Christians and Christian homosexuals- and homosexuals- all get to be stupid- but not free to be free from criticism.

Why didn't you just say this to begin with? I agree, with this very much so.

 

[Syriusly]

Only our system will lead from same sex marriage to various other forms of marriage? OK, what about the fact that SSM was first legalized in the US in 2004?

Because the STATE did it and not the Federal government. We are a nation of states who have the authority and power to establish their own 'moral' boundaries through the ballot initiative process. My view is, the state does have the right to allow "same-sex marriage" but they don't have the right to call it "marriage" because it's not. Now, I suppose in the sense that it's defined as such it's kind of like "imitation crab" not being the same as "crab" but they still get to use the word. But nevertheless, we are still talking about the people and states making this decision through the process of debate and compromise and not by judicial tyranny or liberal fascist activism.

Boss is still upset about all of those State's bans on mixed race marriages being overturned as being Unconstitutional.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I have repeatedly asked as others, what is now the "compelling interest" to deny same-sibling marriage?

The same compelling interests which were used to deny a gay man from marrying his lesbian sister prior to Obergefell.

Except that those reasons have now been found unconstitutional by the Obergefell ruling.

No, they haven't. You repeating that doesn't make it so. All Obergefell did was rule against bans against those for whom no reason other than their gender, was used to deny them their right to marry.

No such ruling exists. That you assign that drivel to Obergefell, does make it so.

 

[Skylar]

I have answered that at least 4 times now. Not that it is up to any of us, but I've given my opinion on what the courts might cite as a compelling state interest, others have done the same.

But all you managed to come up with are the same kind of moral reasons that were just rejected in Ogeberfell.

The actual Obergefell decision? Or the imaginary bullshit you've made up and *call* the Obergefell decision. Remember, whenever you claim to be citing another source, you're almost always just quoting yourself.

Feel free to show us anywhere in the Obergefell decision they authorized sibling marriage, polygamy....or even mentioned them.

Just don't hold your breath while you're looking. You'll definitely pass out.

 

[Syriusly]

You bent over backwards how? Did you bake any gay cakes? What about cupcakes?

And now you have managed to have SCOTUS redefine marriage to accommodate something that most of America doesn't recognize as marriage.

Just pointing out that Boss is lying.

Again.

 

[Montrovant]

The ruling of Obergefell does not cover the differences between same sex marriage and other types of relationships. You continue to talk about them as though they are exactly the same, as though no differences exist in the reasons for preventing them.

Neither did Loving or the 14th with regard to gay marriage. They don't mention anything about homosexuals marrying or redefining traditional marriage to include homosexuals. However, the 14th is very clear and has been clarified by SCOTUS repeatedly... you cannot discriminate against one group to the exclusion of another. The "reasons" we had before Obergefell are no more... they were struck down by the court. You claim that is just for gay marriage, I say it's not and it can't be, we have to allow it for all other similar groups without regard for our personal "ick" factor.

So then when polygamy, immediate family marriage, marriage with animals, and whatever other couples you think are inevitably going to be recognized legally become legitimized, we can blame Loving for setting the precedent, yes?

One group can be discriminated against given a compelling state interest. Obergefell doesn't change that. Nor does it remove the compelling state interest from other groupings which might want to gain access to marriage laws. The closest to that would be in the inability for same sex relations to have children, but even there, infertile immediate family members have been prevented from marrying, so it seems there is more to that than just procreation.

Obergefell did not change consent laws in any way. It did not change marriage laws other than to grant access to same gender couples following the same rules as opposite gender couples. It did not grant animals the ability to enter into contracts or marriages.

While it is possible that this ruling may be used as a precedent at some point in the future, it would almost surely also include the previous precedent set by Loving, should that decision not have been made? Did Loving make all forms of possible marriage inevitable? Do you expect the courts to basically rule that since same sex couples can marry, there are no compelling interests in preventing adults from marrying children? That the reasons for preventing that before Obergefell have magically disappeared?

No one but you and others who oppose same sex marriage have said anything about preventing forms of marriage because of an 'ick' factor. If you wish to ignore the numerous times people have brought up reasons the state may have an interest in continuing to ban other various possible forms of marriage, that is your own issue.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So then when polygamy, immediate family marriage, marriage with animals, and whatever other couples you think are inevitably going to be recognized legally become legitimized, we can blame Loving for setting the precedent... .

"We", will set the responsibility for that degeneracy, where it belongs, which is with the perverse reasoning OKA: Left-think, AKA: Relativism.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The actual Obergefell decision? Or the imaginary bullshit you've made up and *call* the Obergefell decision.

OH! So there's nothing then, that precludes law that forbids behavior that runs counter to the interests of the culture at large?

Wonderful... then what's all the fuss about?