Utah's Gay Marriage Ban struck down

[Silhouette]

There is little doubt that SCOTUS will uphold same sex marriage. The believe they are fashioning a more accepting and inclusive culture. They are just wrong. An accepting and inclusive culture can't be made either judicially or legislatively. Have the civil rights laws helped black people? No. There might be more racism today than before all those laws. We might pretend harder. It's been two generations since the civil rights era. Not all that much has changed.

Race and sexual behaviors are not the same thing. Talking about them as if they are doesn't change facts.

If there is little doubt that SCOTUS will uphold gay marriage, then there is little doubt they'll uphold polygamy and any other conceivable "consenting in loves" out there. Otherwise they'd be descriminating and we'd all be back to square one. If I was a Justice, i'd call 'LGBT' what it is: a limited group of sexual behaviors and I would declare that marriage is a privelege outside race. Thus being, the privelege of certain oddballs like sex behaviors, 13 year olds and first cousins would be up to the broad consensus of each state.

Then I'd wipe my hands of the solved problem and walk away. Then it would be up to sexual behaviors to lobby their respective states and prove to them that they should be married. Tough job in California though where as a matter of law, LGBTs made and defend to this day Harvey Milk, documented sexual predator of vulnerable teen homeless boys on drugs, the gay icon, whose lifestyle "represents the LGBT movement across the nation and the world". Of course, California is ground zero for what's to come in the LGBT movement across all the other states. They might take a look at the Harvey Milk issue and say, "yeah, no thanks".

So, there are your hurdles.

 

[Silhouette]

So the new spin to try to win sympathy from the Supreme Court is that "gay men who get married mean that HIV/AIDS will go down".

Yet in the same years gay marriage has been forced on the various states via legislative and judicial coups, and thereby normalized to youth, the numbers of boys ages 13-29 coming down with HIV has skyrocketed. http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...-rose-parade-to-feature-gay-male-wedding.html

I hope the Supreme Court knows how to weigh this new spin/lie against the statistics on HIV/AIDS at the CDC.

The Float's name is "Love is the Best Protection". It should be renamed "Monkey See, Monkey Do is the New Infection"...

 

[SwimExpert]

I think it's a pretty ridiculous idea that gay marriage has any influence whatsoever on HIV transmission.

 

[Seawytch]

I think it's a pretty ridiculous idea that gay marriage has any influence whatsoever on HIV transmission.

So you don't believe that marriage promotes monogamy?

 

[Silhouette]

I think it's a pretty ridiculous idea that gay marriage has any influence whatsoever on HIV transmission.

So you don't believe that marriage promotes monogamy?

I believe that marriage promotes societal norms. And as such, more and more young boys who are naturally sexually experimental at a vulnerable age of passage are fixating themselves on gay sex because via marriage, gay sex is now the new thing their peers are apsiring to.

Proof's in the pudding:

The number of new infections among the youngest MSM (aged 13-24) increased 22 percent, from 7,200 infections in 2008 to 8,800 in 2010. http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/2012/HIV-Infections-2007-2010.pdf

Instead of naming the Rose Parade gay-marriage float "Love is the Best Protection", it would be statistically more accurate to name it "Monkey See, Monkey Do is the New Infection".

You do care about what our impressionable youth are doing, don't you Seawytch? You do care that before when those HIV numbers were low and just chugging along at a steady rate, the same years gay marriage gets forced on various states, for now, a sudden sharp spike in child-death/HIV happens?

Or is that all just one big coincidence? "Gay is innate"..right? The identical twin girls I knew raised by a butch/femm lesbian pair grew up one becoming lesbian and one straight is "born that way"...yes? This new spike in boys getting HIV as the gay fad forces itself in the center of society through "marriage" is all just a big coincidence...right? Yet, if you're "born that way", the numbers shouldn't be doing a sudden spike in boys with HIV, should they? They should remain constant and not suddenly and sharply climb.

That sudden and sharp climb is a sign that there's more than being "born that way" going on in the young male population. And that float in the Rose Parade named "Love is the Best Protection" is going to insure that more boys come down with HIV. Child death? Nothing is alarming enough to stop the gay steamroller, not even the bodies of young men and boys...

 

[SwimExpert]

I think it's a pretty ridiculous idea that gay marriage has any influence whatsoever on HIV transmission.

So you don't believe that marriage promotes monogamy?

No, I don't. Fidelity is a decision. Being married does not stop a person from being unfaithful. If a person is going to cheat, they're going to cheat. If they are the cheating type, then they aren't going to care much that they are married if the desire to cheat comes up. On the other hand, if they have the virtue to respect and appreciate their partner, they will do so without the need to be married.

Not to mention that there are many married couples who have mutually agreed open marriages, or engage in swinging together with other couples. Incidentally, mutually agreed open relationships are more common among gay male couples. There is no reason to expect that a couple who have been together for years in a mutually open relationship are going to change that openness just because they get married.

 

[SwimExpert]

I believe that marriage promotes societal norms. And as such, more and more young boys who are naturally sexually experimental at a vulnerable age of passage are fixating themselves on gay sex because via marriage, gay sex is now the new thing their peers are apsiring to.

That's about 10 times more ridiculous than the last thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The only matter before the 10th, which answers to Sotmayor, and SCOTUS is the 14th and determing states' legislation doesn't violate the 14th.

This is a done deal now, based on precedent on Prop 8. Amendment 3 of the Utah Constitution cannot violate the 14th.

Guess what, Sil?

 

[BDBoop]

I think it's a pretty ridiculous idea that gay marriage has any influence whatsoever on HIV transmission.

So you don't believe that marriage promotes monogamy?

No, I don't. Fidelity is a decision. Being married does not stop a person from being unfaithful. If a person is going to cheat, they're going to cheat. If they are the cheating type, then they aren't going to care much that they are married if the desire to cheat comes up. On the other hand, if they have the virtue to respect and appreciate their partner, they will do so without the need to be married.

Not to mention that there are many married couples who have mutually agreed open marriages, or engage in swinging together with other couples. Incidentally, mutually agreed open relationships are more common among gay male couples. There is no reason to expect that a couple who have been together for years in a mutually open relationship are going to change that openness just because they get married.

So you think gays are just the cheating type?

 

[Silhouette]

The only matter before the 10th, which answers to Sotmayor, and SCOTUS is the 14th and determing states' legislation doesn't violate the 14th.

This is a done deal now, based on precedent on Prop 8. Amendment 3 of the Utah Constitution cannot violate the 14th.

Guess what, Sil?

There is no precedent on Prop 8. They punted, remember? Guess what Jake? That means DOMA/Windsor will be examined to see if judicial fiat, the 14th or other rogue officials can override a state's consensus on gay marriage in the Utah appeal to SCOTUS.

If Utah wins, so does Prop 8 definitively, though it is still the law in California today, regardless of those who are in contempt of it currently. Check the CA constitution for details on what is a legal marriage. The wording has not been changed since Prop 8. There's a reason it hasn't been.

 

[Seawytch]

I think it's a pretty ridiculous idea that gay marriage has any influence whatsoever on HIV transmission.

So you don't believe that marriage promotes monogamy?

No, I don't. Fidelity is a decision. Being married does not stop a person from being unfaithful. If a person is going to cheat, they're going to cheat. If they are the cheating type, then they aren't going to care much that they are married if the desire to cheat comes up. On the other hand, if they have the virtue to respect and appreciate their partner, they will do so without the need to be married.

Not to mention that there are many married couples who have mutually agreed open marriages, or engage in swinging together with other couples. Incidentally, mutually agreed open relationships are more common among gay male couples. There is no reason to expect that a couple who have been together for years in a mutually open relationship are going to change that openness just because they get married.

Of course marriage promotes monogamy...it might not always be successful, but the promotion of monogamy is still inherit in the "tradition" of marriage itself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The only matter before the 10th, which answers to Sotmayor, and SCOTUS is the 14th and determing states' legislation doesn't violate the 14th.

This is a done deal now, based on precedent on Prop 8. Amendment 3 of the Utah Constitution cannot violate the 14th.

Guess what, Sil?

There is no precedent on Prop 8. They punted, remember? Guess what Jake? That means DOMA/Windsor will be examined to see if judicial fiat, the 14th or other rogue officials can override a state's consensus on gay marriage in the Utah appeal to SCOTUS.

If Utah wins, so does Prop 8 definitively, though it is still the law in California today, regardless of those who are in contempt of it currently. Check the CA constitution for details on what is a legal marriage. The wording has not been changed since Prop 8. There's a reason it hasn't been.

The only examination of Prop 8 will be for continuity and consistency. It will not undermine Shelby's ruling or the validity of same sex marriage at all; it won't even be considered.

Sil, you have been continually wrong on this from day one and will continue to be so.

 

[Katzndogz]

So you don't believe that marriage promotes monogamy?

No, I don't. Fidelity is a decision. Being married does not stop a person from being unfaithful. If a person is going to cheat, they're going to cheat. If they are the cheating type, then they aren't going to care much that they are married if the desire to cheat comes up. On the other hand, if they have the virtue to respect and appreciate their partner, they will do so without the need to be married.

Not to mention that there are many married couples who have mutually agreed open marriages, or engage in swinging together with other couples. Incidentally, mutually agreed open relationships are more common among gay male couples. There is no reason to expect that a couple who have been together for years in a mutually open relationship are going to change that openness just because they get married.

So you think gays are just the cheating type?

They just have a different concept of fidelity. They deem themselves faithful if they come back to the person they purport to "love".
A reassessment of monogamy - Opinion - The Boston Globe

They aren't unfaithful, they are challenging the idea of monogamy

One common view is that non-monogamous gays are simply being men, “untamed” by women. Others point to a gay male culture that developed in defiance of traditional sexual restrictions; young gay men today may be more monogamous, though there are also reports of more young lesbians embracing a “liberationist” culture that includes multiple partners. Some who are monogamous, such as Cathy Marino-Thomas, a lesbian activist quoted in Gawker, still praise gay culture’s sexual openness and suggest that more heterosexual “honesty” on the subject would reduce “the stigma around sexual freedom.”

Open marriage should be opposed by everyone who cares about marriage.

Quote Icon
But would lifting this stigma do more harm than good? Some respond with, “Don’t like open marriage? Don’t have one” — a variant on similar statements about gay marriage.

Yet the analogy fails. Your heterosexual marriage cannot suddenly turn gay; your monogamous marriage can turn non-monogamous. Yes, open marriages require mutual consent — but with cultural strictures removed, spouses who want exclusivity will have far less leverage to demand it. (Accounts of open relationships show that the façade of consent often hides tensions and pressures to accede to a partner’s wishes.) Moreover, if monogamy is merely one valid option, even unilateral straying is likely to be seen as less immoral. Eventually, monogamists may be chided — as one woman was in the comments on Rosin’s article—for being so fixated on sexual fidelity.

The case for marriage equality has been so compelling in part because opponents could never coherently explain how same-sex unions would damage or cheapen marriage. Acceptance of non-monogamy would do both — in a way that old-fashioned “dishonest” adultery cannot, since it doesn’t challenge the ideal of sexual exclusivity as an essential marriage feature. The argument that a couple’s marriage is no one else’s business is nonsense; as plenty of gay activists say, marriage is not just about legal rights but about social affirmation.

 

[SwimExpert]

So you don't believe that marriage promotes monogamy?

No, I don't. Fidelity is a decision. Being married does not stop a person from being unfaithful. If a person is going to cheat, they're going to cheat. If they are the cheating type, then they aren't going to care much that they are married if the desire to cheat comes up. On the other hand, if they have the virtue to respect and appreciate their partner, they will do so without the need to be married.

Not to mention that there are many married couples who have mutually agreed open marriages, or engage in swinging together with other couples. Incidentally, mutually agreed open relationships are more common among gay male couples. There is no reason to expect that a couple who have been together for years in a mutually open relationship are going to change that openness just because they get married.

Of course marriage promotes monogamy...it might not always be successful, but the promotion of monogamy is still inherit in the "tradition" of marriage itself.

So you really think that monogamy cannot exist, or at least would be less frequent, if not for marriage?

 

[SwimExpert]

So you don't believe that marriage promotes monogamy?

No, I don't. Fidelity is a decision. Being married does not stop a person from being unfaithful. If a person is going to cheat, they're going to cheat. If they are the cheating type, then they aren't going to care much that they are married if the desire to cheat comes up. On the other hand, if they have the virtue to respect and appreciate their partner, they will do so without the need to be married.

Not to mention that there are many married couples who have mutually agreed open marriages, or engage in swinging together with other couples. Incidentally, mutually agreed open relationships are more common among gay male couples. There is no reason to expect that a couple who have been together for years in a mutually open relationship are going to change that openness just because they get married.

So you think gays are just the cheating type?

That's not at all what I said. I think gay people are not more likely to cheat than straight people.

What I did say is that gay male couples are alot more likely to be in mutually consenting open relationships. In my opinion, when two people agree to be in an open relationship, there is no "cheating" involved. It's only cheating when you claim to be monogamous to someone, but do not do so.

 

[novasteve]

No, I don't. Fidelity is a decision. Being married does not stop a person from being unfaithful. If a person is going to cheat, they're going to cheat. If they are the cheating type, then they aren't going to care much that they are married if the desire to cheat comes up. On the other hand, if they have the virtue to respect and appreciate their partner, they will do so without the need to be married.

Not to mention that there are many married couples who have mutually agreed open marriages, or engage in swinging together with other couples. Incidentally, mutually agreed open relationships are more common among gay male couples. There is no reason to expect that a couple who have been together for years in a mutually open relationship are going to change that openness just because they get married.

So you think gays are just the cheating type?

That's not at all what I said. I think gay people are not more likely to cheat than straight people.

What I did say is that gay male couples are alot more likely to be in mutually consenting open relationships. In my opinion, when two people agree to be in an open relationship, there is no "cheating" involved. It's only cheating when you claim to be monogamous to someone, but do not do so.

One of several factors to why they are so much more prone to stds

 

[SwimExpert]

The real problems with STDs has to do with safe sex practices. Sure, being with one monogamous partner can be part of that. But there's alot more to it. And one of the reasons we're seeing increased numbers of STD cases is because we're not teaching our kids about safe sex as much anymore. Too many states are watering down their sex education, some are relying entirely on the absurd notion of abstinence only/save yourself for marriage education. Then there's the problem of prostitution, which is a big part of STD transmission. All in all, the more afraid and ashamed our society becomes of sex, the more STDs we end up having.

If we really want to combat things we need better education and greater access to testing and treatment, etc.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The real problem with monogamy is that more than half of married partners don't want to be monogamous.

 

[Seawytch]

No, I don't. Fidelity is a decision. Being married does not stop a person from being unfaithful. If a person is going to cheat, they're going to cheat. If they are the cheating type, then they aren't going to care much that they are married if the desire to cheat comes up. On the other hand, if they have the virtue to respect and appreciate their partner, they will do so without the need to be married.

Not to mention that there are many married couples who have mutually agreed open marriages, or engage in swinging together with other couples. Incidentally, mutually agreed open relationships are more common among gay male couples. There is no reason to expect that a couple who have been together for years in a mutually open relationship are going to change that openness just because they get married.

Of course marriage promotes monogamy...it might not always be successful, but the promotion of monogamy is still inherit in the "tradition" of marriage itself.

So you really think that monogamy cannot exist, or at least would be less frequent, if not for marriage?

Not what I said. Gay couples have been proving that for centuries. I said marriage promotes monogamy, period.

 

[SwimExpert]

Of course marriage promotes monogamy...it might not always be successful, but the promotion of monogamy is still inherit in the "tradition" of marriage itself.

So you really think that monogamy cannot exist, or at least would be less frequent, if not for marriage?

Not what I said. Gay couples have been proving that for centuries. I said marriage promotes monogamy, period.

And how does marriage promote monogamy?