The South's Last, Desperate Stand

[WorldWatcher]

When people can choose the color of their skin, you might have a point. Oh wait, in the age of liberalism, they probably can.

Mark

Blacks were not denied Civil Marriage - nothing denied based on the color of their skin.

Whites were not denied Civil Marriage - nothing denied based on the color of their skin.


The behavior of choosing someone with a different skin color was considered a sexual deviancy though.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nope.

sexual deviancy

Sexual excitement to the point of erection and/or orgasm, when the object of that excitement is considered abnormal in the context of the learned societal norms (paraphilia).

Mark

Interracial coupling was considered a sexual deviancy at the time in the context of the learned societal norms in effect 50 years ago.


>>>>

 

[80zephyr]

When people can choose the color of their skin, you might have a point. Oh wait, in the age of liberalism, they probably can.

Mark

Blacks were not denied Civil Marriage - nothing denied based on the color of their skin.

Whites were not denied Civil Marriage - nothing denied based on the color of their skin.


The behavior of choosing someone with a different skin color was considered a sexual deviancy though.


>>>>

No, it wasn't. People were afraid the races would mix, and that is why it was illegal.

Mark

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, it wasn't. People were afraid the races would mix, and that is why it was illegal.

Mark

Exactly. People didn't want the races to mix. Therefore interracial sex was a sexual deviancy, in the context of the societal norms at the time.


>>>>

 

[80zephyr]

No, it wasn't. People were afraid the races would mix, and that is why it was illegal.

Mark

Exactly. People didn't want the races to mix. Therefore interracial sex was a sexual deviancy, in the context of the societal norms at the time.


>>>>

Lol. I have already given you the definition. A man being attracted to a woman, no matter their color, is not a deviancy.

Mark

 

[WorldWatcher]

Lol. I have already given you the definition. A man being attracted to a woman, no matter their color, is not a deviancy.

Mark

LOL.

You ignore the definition that you provided: "Sexual excitement to the point of erection and/or orgasm, when the object of that excitement is considered abnormal in the context of the learned societal norms (paraphilia)."

You ignore the "in the context of the learned societal norms". In the context of the 1960's (and before) the societal norm was that interracial sex was sexual deviancy. A black man boinking a white woman or a white man boinking a black woman was sexual deviant behavior.


>>>>

 

[Dana7360]

"Is it your position that all ancient American rights are to be trampled in the name of "gay marriage"? Remember, LGBT isn't a race of people. In fact, they infight among themselves regularly as to what the boundaries of their waffling deviant sexualized behaviors even mean to them... And we are supposed to accept them as a static class? Hardly.."

No, the Constitution recognizes the right of all persons to freedom of choice, to make personal decisions about one's private life absent unwarranted interference by the state (Lawrence v. Texas), as guaranteed by the Fifth and 14th Amendments – gay Americans are protected by that right; race is not the sole criterion used to determine a suspect or protected class of persons.

In addition, state measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law for no other reason than being gay violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment (Obergefell v. Hodges), consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence in existence for well over 100 years prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation (Civil Rights Cases (1883)).

That some might have a fear and hatred of gay Americans is not 'justification' to disadvantage them through force of law.

Then why only two people?

Mark

As opposed to what? Someone marrying themselves?

Don't be obtuse. If "freedom" is the aim, then marriage cannot be restricted to the number of people. The statement was that people have a right to freedom.

Mark

The case wasn't about more than 2 people marrying.

So there was no reason for the court to rule on what you asked about.

The court ruled on the subject that was presented to them.

Which was homosexual couples being denied the same rights as heterosexual couples.

If you want to discuss more than 2 people getting married have someone take the issue to court.

Yes, I know what the court ruled on. My point was that if marriage is a malleable institution, there is nothing(in law) to stop us from further reshaping its definition.

Mark

Right now there is.

The law.

Polygamy is illegal in America.

Bringing it up in a discussion about homosexual marriage is ridiculous.

Being homosexual isn't illegal and no homosexual went to court to be able to marry more than one person.

So there really is no reason to bring it up.

It's just another attempt to excuse violating the constitution and violating millions of American's equal rights.

Stick to the subject. Stop trying to change it.

 

[Skylar]

When people can choose the color of their skin, you might have a point. Oh wait, in the age of liberalism, they probably can.

Mark

Blacks were not denied Civil Marriage - nothing denied based on the color of their skin.

Whites were not denied Civil Marriage - nothing denied based on the color of their skin.


The behavior of choosing someone with a different skin color was considered a sexual deviancy though.


>>>>

No, it wasn't. People were afraid the races would mix, and that is why it was illegal.

Mark

Actually, it was both.

Other psychologists turned to Fruedian explanations for interracial marriage, accepting , as many post war analysts did, a modern view that sex "expressed one's deepest sense of self". An interest in interracial sex was read as evidence of sexual deviancy or dysfunction. The psychiatrist George Little, writing in the 1942 issue of Psychoanalytic Review theorized that since blacks served as a "sexual symbol in the white man's life," whites who had difficulty functioning sexually might seek a black mate. An '"impotent man seeking a super-heated embrace in the hope of being able to accomplish the sexual act" might well marry a Negro, Little argued, as might a white woman of the "Messalina type" (Messalina was a Roman empress notorious for her sexual profligacy who was executed by her husband, the emperor Claudius). The psychiatrist Robert Seidenberg, meanwhile, believed that interracial sex provided a unique opportunity for whites to satisfy their incestuous urges through sex with someone unrecognizable as a father or mother figure.

Race Mixing: Black-White Marriage in Postwar America

Race Mixing

 

[Skylar]

Not in our system of law. We have no basis of precedent or law to answer the unique legal questions that polygamy asks.

Where all the marriage laws that apply for straights apply for gays. Gays fought for access to the same benefits of marriage, same recognition, same licenses of marriage that straights enjoyed. And they won.

There's no place for *anyone* in the law for polygamy.

Since polygamy is allowed for no one, there is no 'equal protection' violation when no one is allowed to enter into it under the law. Where marriage is most definitely available for folks.

You are limiting the number like others wanted to limit gender. You have drawn your moral "line in the sand" at protecting only two people who want to marry, while disregarding the rights of others.

As there is no recognized 'right to polygamy', how then are rights being violated?

There is a right to marriage. And both same sex and opposite sex couples can join in.

If you want polygamy, make your case.

I already told you I don't have to. The gays made it for me. I simply want equal protection under the law.

Save of course, that they didn't. As they never argued for polygamy. Or even mentioned it. Neither did the Obergefell or Windsor rulings. You hallucinated all of that.

And as there is no recognized right to 'polygamy', how then can rights be violated by not recognizing it? REmmeber, no one can enter into polygamy. Whereas when gays argued their case before the Obergefell court, straights could get married.

Bullshit. Gays could marry. They had the EXACT rights of every other American.

Mark

The Supreme Court clearly disagreed....citing numerous violations of their right, including their right to marry. And recognized same sex couples had the same right to enter into marriage as opposite sex couples did.

There is no recognized right to 'polygamy'. Making your 'violation of rights' argument a self contradictory mess.

 

[Skylar]

Bullshit. Gays could marry. They had the EXACT rights of every other American.

Mark

How did that arguement work out in almost every courtroom across the nation? How did it work out in 1967? Not so good it seems.

I think its record was 2 for 56.

 

[Dana7360]

Someone please explain how gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage. Why should a heterosexual married christian marriage be worried about it?

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004. It has spread to the rest of the nation since then.

In the bush boy years the conservatives said it harmed heterosexual marriage. However didn't say how.

I'm still waiting for a heterosexual couple to come forward to tell our nation that gay marriage has harmed their marriage, tell how it harmed their marriage with honest and credible proof of their claims.

I'm sure I'll be waiting for a very long time.

 

[Conservative65]

Typical faggots like you getting what you want then refusing to acknowledge that others deserve what you claim you fought for.

Keep sucking dicks. It's all you're good at. Maybe you'll get AIDS.

Opposition to gay marriage is centered most strongly among the old. Its the only demo where support isn't already the majority. And that opposition has a shelf life. As your ilk take inevitable dirt naps, support for same sex marriage continues to climb.

I give it 10 years before we look back on your ilk with the same dumbfounded revulsion reserved today for segregationists and opposition to the 19th amendment.

Enjoy irrelevance.

I wouldn't be too smug. Values are changing among the young people as well. In fact, a small majority of young people are now against abortion. Ideas don't usually "die out".

Which is why prohibition of alcohol, women not being allowed to vote, and Jim Crow laws are making such a resurgence, right?

Yes, ideas do die out. Especially ones that have no particular utility. And opposition to same sex marriage is largely being buried with senior citizens. The only age demographic where opposition is in the majority.

Ideas die, and then come back. Neither of us know how it will play out.

Mark

So we should expect Slavery to make a huge comeback then? Opposition to women voting? A resurgence in recognition of the luminiferous ether and the efficacy of Alchemy?

Nope. Ideas die. Just like your ilk are. And with them, opposition to same sex marriage.

You *want* a resurgence of opposition to same sex marriage. So you imagine that it must return. Somehow. Someday. For some reason. Which is just the delusional cousin of Confirmation Bias.

Wish in one hand, spit in the other. Tell me which gets full first.

Slavery has made a comeback and it's again with blacks. Funny thing is they put themselves in slavery by voting Democrat.

 

[Conservative65]

Someone please explain how gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage. Why should a heterosexual married christian marriage be worried about it?

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004. It has spread to the rest of the nation since then.

In the bush boy years the conservatives said it harmed heterosexual marriage. However didn't say how.

I'm still waiting for a heterosexual couple to come forward to tell our nation that gay marriage has harmed their marriage, tell how it harmed their marriage with honest and credible proof of their claims.

I'm sure I'll be waiting for a very long time.

Two abnormal freaks marrying makes a joke of the institution of marriage. It's put two people on the same level where they never should be.

 

[Dr Grump]

Two abnormal freaks marrying makes a joke of the institution of marriage. It's put two people on the same level where they never should be.

idiot

 

[Conservative65]

You stated: They wanted access to the same union.

Thats a lie. They wanted access to an expanded definition of the union, which meant two members of the same gender.

They wanted access to the same licenses, recognition, benefits and legal status that heterosexual couples can enjoy. And they got it.

All the same rules that apply to straights apply to gays.

Since we now have proof that the definition of marriage can be expanded, why can't it be expanded further?

If you say that two is the limit, then you are now a bigot by forcing your beliefs on others.

Mark

Nope. As polygamy isn't recognized for *anyone*. Straight, gay, young, old, tall or short. And there are legal questions that polygamy poses that our law simply has no answers for. As it doesn't recognize polygamy, nor ever has.

But hey, if you want polygamy, make your argument for it.

Lol. You do realize that until recently, gay marriage wasn't recognized by anyone? And you are wrong about that. Polygamy has more of a history in humanity than gay marriage does.

Not in our system of law. We have no basis of precedent or law to answer the unique legal questions that polygamy asks.

Where all the marriage laws that apply for straights apply for gays. Gays fought for access to the same benefits of marriage, same recognition, same licenses of marriage that straights enjoyed. And they won.

There's no place for *anyone* in the law for polygamy.

As to making an argument for gay marriage, I don't have to. I simply want equal treatment under the laws, just like the gays got.

Since polygamy is allowed for no one, there is no 'equal protection' violation when no one is allowed to enter into it under the law. Where marriage is most definitely available for folks.

You are limiting the number like others wanted to limit gender. You have drawn your moral "line in the sand" at protecting only two people who want to marry, while disregarding the rights of others.

As there is no recognized 'right to polygamy', how then are rights being violated?

There is a right to marriage. And both same sex and opposite sex couples can join in.

If you want polygamy, make your case.

The Supreme Court made the case when the upheld equal protection. Prior to the case, there was no recognized right to same sex marriage, therefore, their rights weren't being violated to tell them no. When the Supreme Court upheld equal protection of marriage, not just faggots marrying, they upheld the right of anyone who wanted to marry to be able to marry. They didn't open the gate for homo equality but marriage equality.

If you think the case upheld only faggots, you're wrong.

 

[Conservative65]

Two abnormal freaks marrying makes a joke of the institution of marriage. It's put two people on the same level where they never should be.

idiot

You must be one of those freaks who thinks your marriage will ever be on the same level as mine.

 

[Conservative65]

It mentioned equal protection. That means for ALL types of marriage between consenting adults unless you're willing to say equality for all only applies to some.

Equal protection under the law. Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't.

There's a reason why polygamy has *never* followed the recognition of same sex marriage: they have nothing to do with each other.

So you're saying equal, the argument put forth by the faggots when they said they should have the right to do what heterosexuals can do, doesn't really mean the same for everyone? Could have fooled me.

I'm saying what I said:

Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't. You're done.

That was the argument by the peter puffers. They demanded they be treated the SAME as others who wanted to marry. Guess that's not good enough when others want the SAME treatment.

They wanted access to the same union. And they have it. Polygamy isn't the same union. Its not part of the law.

And as the 14th amendment makes ludicrously clear, its equal protection under the law that it articulates.

Typical faggots like you getting what you want then refusing to acknowledge that others deserve what you claim you fought for.

Keep sucking dicks. It's all you're good at. Maybe you'll get AIDS.

Opposition to gay marriage is centered most strongly among the old. Its the only demo where support isn't already the majority. And that opposition has a shelf life. As your ilk take inevitable dirt naps, support for same sex marriage continues to climb.

I give it 10 years before we look back on your ilk with the same dumbfounded revulsion reserved today for segregationists and opposition to the 19th amendment.

Enjoy irrelevance.

Support for gay marriage centers arounds freaks and idiots.

Perhaps you'll get AIDS and take that dirt nap after a long, grueling, agonizing path to the dirt.

 

[Conservative65]

It mentioned equal protection. That means for ALL types of marriage between consenting adults unless you're willing to say equality for all only applies to some.

Equal protection under the law. Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't.

There's a reason why polygamy has *never* followed the recognition of same sex marriage: they have nothing to do with each other.

So you're saying equal, the argument put forth by the faggots when they said they should have the right to do what heterosexuals can do, doesn't really mean the same for everyone? Could have fooled me.

I'm saying what I said:

Show us anywhere where polygamy is part of the law or legally allowed....for anyone.

You can't. You're done.

That was the argument by the peter puffers. They demanded they be treated the SAME as others who wanted to marry. Guess that's not good enough when others want the SAME treatment.

They wanted access to the same union. And they have it. Polygamy isn't the same union. Its not part of the law.

And as the 14th amendment makes ludicrously clear, its equal protection under the law that it articulates.

You stated: They wanted access to the same union.

Thats a lie. They wanted access to an expanded definition of the union, which meant two members of the same gender.

They wanted access to the same licenses, recognition, benefits and legal status that heterosexual couples can enjoy. And they got it.

All the same rules that apply to straights apply to gays.

No they don't unless you're saying those who want other types of marriage aren't straight.

Since we now have proof that the definition of marriage can be expanded, why can't it be expanded further?

If you say that two is the limit, then you are now a bigot by forcing your beliefs on others.

Mark

Nope. As polygamy isn't recognized for *anyone*. Straight, gay, young, old, tall or short. And there are legal questions that polygamy poses that our law simply has no answers for. As it doesn't recognize polygamy, nor ever has.

But hey, if you want polygamy, make your argument for it.

 

[jillian]

Someone please explain how gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage. Why should a heterosexual married christian marriage be worried about it?

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004. It has spread to the rest of the nation since then.

In the bush boy years the conservatives said it harmed heterosexual marriage. However didn't say how.

I'm still waiting for a heterosexual couple to come forward to tell our nation that gay marriage has harmed their marriage, tell how it harmed their marriage with honest and credible proof of their claims.

I'm sure I'll be waiting for a very long time.

Two abnormal freaks marrying makes a joke of the institution of marriage. It's put two people on the same level where they never should be.

right... because the very "christian" kim davis being married four times and getting knocked up by husband number three while she was married to husband number two respected the sanctity of marriage.

quiet, imbecile.

thankfully it is not the job of the law to support your bigotry

 

[Dr Grump]

You must be one of those freaks who thinks your marriage will ever be on the same level as mine.

You're one of those idiots who thinks their opinion even matters....