Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
But it's also their source for intolerance and disdain. Why does religion get a pass on this? Why isn't "well, I think homosexuality is wrong because my Dad is a lifelong Storm Front member and it was hammered into me from a young age" given the kid glove treatment?

True, religion has been used to justify wrong actions. And opposing SSM may be such an instance.

However, religion - especially Judeo/Christian forms of it- has also motivated many people into a tremendous acts of love, self-sacrifice, compassion, and caring. I tend to think that since these people have seen God act so positively in their life, and in the lives of others - there is a tendency to trust His word (of course, the interpretation of it may be wrong, and there have been so good debates about that).
 
As I'm reading through the responses to INDY I'm reminded on why I rarely come in here anymore. There really is very little tolerance for opposing opinions. And, instead of challenging the opinion of the person - many just attack the person. There really is no room for civil discourse here on "hot" issues.

If your intention is to create a forum where only "liberal" voices can post and congratulate each other on liberal victories in the world, you are succeeding. But it would probably be easier if all of you became Facebook friends and just collect "likes."

Anyway, I'm sure you don't care if AEON comes around that often. I admire that INDY remains here and continues to take a beating, but this place has too much bullying, hatred, and negative energy for me.

I will probably continue to poke my head in here from to time and test the waters, I enjoy learning and sharing. But until the environment becomes more tolerant - there are usually better ways to spend my time.

I don't understand the victim mentality, there's plenty of room for civil discourse, but it has to go both ways, and with INDY it does not.

Without going into his personal attacking past, let's just look at the post in question:


But I’m disgusted that, once again, a court has overstepped its constitutional role of interpreting law (like the 14th Amendment, the Separation of Powers is in the Constitution) to legislating law and in addition,
INDY will forever be quiet when the courts "overstep" in favor of his opinions. He always has, and I can't see him getting principled on this in the future. It's hard to take anyone seriously when they use the word "principle" as much as he does but ignore every single time when he is directly asked about similar rulings that go his way.

now even the Supreme Court feels the need to impugn the motives and moral character of any American citizen seeking only to preserve the traditional definition of marriage... So five judges redefine marriage for the country... just as drawn up at the Constitutional Convention I'm sure. Could be worse, in California just one clown in a robe had the honors.
Isn't this the least bit funny to you? He's furious about the court "impugning the motives and moral character", yet Scalia "got it right" when he did the same exact thing. Come on, that's funny. The definition of marriage HAS changed throughout time and society, the notion that it has not is a lie.

This isn't about wanting to create a liberal echo chamber it's about getting tired of consistent hypocrisy and consistent lies. There's no need for victim mentality about this... no one is a victim here.
 
True, religion has been used to justify wrong actions. And opposing SSM may be such an instance.

However, religion - especially Judeo/Christian forms of it- has also motivated many people into a tremendous acts of love, self-sacrifice, compassion, and caring. I tend to think that since these people have seen God act so positively in their life, and in the lives of others - there is a tendency to trust His word (of course, the interpretation of it may be wrong, and there have been so good debates about that).


i agree. Bono is a good example of this. he's explicit that his motivation to help the poorest comes from his religion.
 
I'd say the Muslim form of religion has the most tremendous act of self sacrifice of them all. :wink: Funny that they're not metnioned.
 
I thought this was a well written response that captures what many intelligent, loving men and women believe.

Sure, I would agree. I'd draw attention to this particular point:

We also recognize that no religion has the right to dictate its beliefs to the entire body politic and we do not expect that secular law will always align with our viewpoint. Ultimately, decisions on social policy remain with the democratic process, and today the process has spoken and we accord the process and its result the utmost respect.

And ask you whether that is reflective of INDY's stated view:

But I’m disgusted that, once again, a court has overstepped its constitutional role of interpreting law (like the 14th Amendment, the Separation of Powers is in the Constitution) to legislating law and in addition, now even the Supreme Court feels the need to impugn the motives and moral character of any American citizen seeking only to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.
 
i can perhaps see a small amount of merit in NBC's objection to how the opinion was actually arrived at, and the future of ballot initiatives in states, but that seems like incredibly small potatoes compared to the victory that was won.

Don't want to deviate too much from the victory.

The only reason I bring this up was today's LA Time OpEd piece by Irwin Chemerinsky. I took two Constitutional Law classes with Chemerinsky and while we are opposing views politically, he was (and is) exceptionally fair and methodical in teaching Constitutional Law.

When we talk about Supreme Court decision making, the process used to achieve a decision is far more important than the decision itself. The process is essentially the precedent to be used in future cases - the decision is usually tied up in specific facts.
 
i can see the larger questions related to when the government chooses not to defend a specific law, but i can't imagine that this is the first time, and doesn't the larger question lie with the legitimacy/efficacy of ballot initiatives?

the article is interesting reading.
 
Thanks for posting. I only took one American Constitutional Law class as I went to law school in Canada so I've been eagerly reading legal analysis of it. My old prof is at Yale but I haven't seen his commentary yet, though he's had plenty to say on Windsor.

I agree with that piece and with nbc and the dissenters who essentially said that this ruling gives elected officials a de facto veto, as they can simply choose not to defend the measure in the courts.

My feeling is that the majority simply didn't want to wade in too deep. This closely mirrors the general cowardice that has been showed by the executive and legislative branches on this point, so it is not particularly surprising.
 
Anyway, I'm sure you don't care if AEON comes around that often. I admire that INDY remains here and continues to take a beating, but this place has too much bullying, hatred, and negative energy for me.

I will probably continue to poke my head in here from to time and test the waters, I enjoy learning and sharing. But until the environment becomes more tolerant - there are usually better ways to spend my time.

I think this place can be intolerant, for sure. In particular Christians are the punching bag around here and the 'acceptable target'. And in particular it is in threads about homosexuality. You just have to understand that many of us see it for precisely what it is. Bigotry. That's what it is. Period. That said, even if I am non-religious, I will (at least try to) outwardly defend your right to stick up for your own religious values on almost any other topic aside from bigotry against homosexuals and anti-science positions.

So anyhow...I think you should stick around. We need more dissension and (hopefully) constructive conversation going on. We need less partisan rhetoric which is about all Indy has devolved into these days. We just got NBC back, which is awesome. We could use more of that reasonable approach, I think.

That said, if you continue to refer to yourself in the third person, we'll have to ask you to leave. :wink:
 
True, religion has been used to justify wrong actions. And opposing SSM may be such an instance.

However, religion - especially Judeo/Christian forms of it- has also motivated many people into a tremendous acts of love, self-sacrifice, compassion, and caring. I tend to think that since these people have seen God act so positively in their life, and in the lives of others - there is a tendency to trust His word (of course, the interpretation of it may be wrong, and there have been so good debates about that).

But are these people only doing good because of their religion? (I would hope not and I don't think they are) It would seem they're only doing bad because of their religion. There are many non believers who also exhibit tremendous acts of love, self sacrifice, compassion, etc. Sure, there are non believers doing bad too, but they aren't irrationally motivated by their atheism/agnosticism/whathaveyou.

A little off topic: I'm crap with names and mostly associate people with their avatars. You used to have the Obi Wan avatar, right? If so, I remember thinking you were cool beans. Either way, welcome back.
 
I think this place can be intolerant, for sure. In particular Christians are the punching bag around here and the 'acceptable target'. =

It's important to distinguish between an ideology being a punching bag and people being punching bags. I have a distaste for religion in general. I like Christian people in general.

Also, Indy doesn't do himself any favours by posting as the embodiment of what most of the world thinks is wrong with part of the USA. He's a distillation of everything people hear about the US and roll their eyes at. I sometimes can't believe he's a real person
 
i think there's a lot of cutting and pasting from The Corner, Dennis Prager, and other TownHall columnists, with a lot of Victor Davis Hanson and Mark Steyn and their grandiose, non-specific "prose" about decay and decline.

the petty nastiness towards Obama makes it impossible to take seriously.
 
This certainly isn't limited just to "traditional" marriage and homosexuality, but I'm always surprised how much religious-based political rhetoric and argument can been created based off of so VERY little scriptural basis. Certainly there are passages that can be used to justify many of the stances on these subjects, the most notorious being located inside chapters teaching things literally NO Judeo-Christian sects have practiced or believed in centuries. The Old Testament has numerous examples of very nontraditional relationships / marriages, typically practiced by the then "prophets" of the time.

The argument could easily be made that religion has far more of a "tradition" of bending to the ever changing norms of society than actually guiding those norms.
 
The argument could easily be made that religion has far more of a "tradition" of bending to the ever changing norms of society than actually guiding those norms.

Who's Norm? One of the Prophets? The Gospel of Norm?
 
Who's Norm? One of the Prophets? The Gospel of Norm?

norm-macdonald.jpg


Follow his traditions, JT.
 
Bono has made the point about the sexual obsession of many modern, politicized Christians and the relative lack of scriptural references vs. the Bible and Jesus' obsession with the less fortunate.
 
Have you guys seen what's been on the Family Research Council website since the SCOTUS decisions?

frc-on-our-knees-gay-marriage.jpg


:lmao:
 
Oral day?

Even the little man on the poster looks like he's giving it a two hander
 
I'm personally thrilled that there are some conservatives hanging around again. This place becomes mad boring when there aren't. It's like an echo chamber.
 
CA back in gay marrige business today.



Court allows gay marriages to resume in California
Los Angeles Times | June 28, 2013 | 3:26 PM

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today cleared the way for gay marriages to resume in California.

The court lifted its stay on an injunction which ordered state officials to stop enforcing Proposition 8. With the court's action, counties can now begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses.
 
.
new-yorker-cover-bert-ernie-gay-marriage-580_custom-81c8cb2f30d2e95d402cd7d8c45fb35de627f5d4-s40.jpg


The illustrator called next week's cover "Moment of Joy."

"It's amazing to witness how attitudes on gay rights have evolved in my lifetime," . "This is great for our kids, a moment we can all celebrate."

As you can imagine, the cover already has people talking. : " 'New Yorker' Outs Bert and Ernie."

Jordan Weissmann, of The Atlantic, : "Fact error by the : Bert and Ernie could not have watched the court ruling on TV."

Of course, , Sesame Workshop says the two male Muppets who share a house and a bedroom are just friends.

"Even though they are identified as male characters and possess many human traits and characteristics (as most Sesame Street Muppets™ do), they remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation," the workshop said.
 
That's fine.

If you think that all opinions demand tolerance, then I assume you also tolerate the opinions of racists, anti-semites, Islamic jihadists and so on. I don't.

First of all:

1) Racists
2) Anti-semites
3) Islamic jihadists
4) Focus on the Family

What ever happened to liberal nuance?

Second, your attitude doesn't bode well at all for a great many things.

1) It doesn't bode well for the First Amendment protection of Free Speech. Can we assume the days of a Fortune 500 company president questioning gay marriage i.e. Chick-fil-a, are now over? That no school board will be allowed to remove materials referencing SSM without sanction from state or federal education authorities? Will churches that teach that homosexuality is wrong lose their tax-exempt status? How soon can we expect new hate-speech laws?
2) It doesn't bode well for the First Amendment protect of the free exercise of religion. Will a small bakery that refuses to cater a same-sex wedding or a bed & breakfast refusing accommodations on religious grounds be allowed to do so without lawsuits, demonstrations or worse?
3) It doesn't bode well for the first Amendment freedom of assembly. Can we assume that soon membership in any private organization that does not recognize SSM will be akin to membership in the Ku Klux Klan? That charities failing to "evolve" on the issues risk losing their charitable status?
 
1) It doesn't bode well for the First Amendment protection of Free Speech. Can we assume the days of a Fortune 500 company president questioning gay marriage i.e. Chick-fil-a, are now over? That no school board will be allowed to remove materials referencing SSM without sanction from state or federal education authorities? Will churches that teach that homosexuality is wrong lose their tax-exempt status? How soon can we expect new hate-speech laws?
2) It doesn't bode well for the First Amendment protect of the free exercise of religion. Will a small bakery that refuses to cater a same-sex wedding or a bed & breakfast refusing accommodations on religious grounds be allowed to do so without lawsuits, demonstrations or worse?
3) It doesn't bode well for the first Amendment freedom of assembly. Can we assume that soon membership in any private organization that does not recognize SSM will be akin to membership in the Ku Klux Klan? That charities failing to "evolve" on the issues risk losing their charitable status?
What is the virtue of doing a lot of these things (omitting the portions that are strawman arguments) for other issues of hate but not for gays?
 
Who cares?

You should care. Given we have a process, a system, in place for self-government you should care, regardless of the ruling, about the court's usurpation of power. Quoting Scalia again in his brilliant dissent:

"This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today's opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court's errors on both points spring forth from the same diseases root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America."

Serious stuff.

This will remain an issue for fewer and fewer people who are inflexible and stuck in their ways and for the rest of us, life goes on just like it did before. I'm getting married in 7 weeks and I'm glad that the "new" definition of marriage is extended to all of our gay friends who will be celebrating with us, including one American couple who moved to Canada precisely because so many people in their country were hung up on dictionaries 8 years ago.

Hung up on dictionaries? Ok, let's use that law degree of yours. Do me a huge favor and write a short marriage law devoid of definitions or exclusionary standards and requirements. I'll wait.

If not, then what we have been doing in this country is debating the definition of marriage and who to include or exclude. Seems like a perfectly reasonable debate for a society to have.

But why try and win a debate when it's so much easier to just ban any debate.
 
You should care. Given we have a process, a system, in place for self-government you should care, regardless of the ruling, about the court's usurpation of power. Quoting Scalia again in his brilliant dissent:

Serious stuff.

Hung up on dictionaries? Ok, let's use that law degree of yours. Do me a huge favor and write a short marriage law devoid of definitions or exclusionary standards and requirements. I'll wait.

If not, then what we have been doing in this country is debating the definition of marriage and who to include or exclude. Seems like a perfectly reasonable debate for a society to have.

But why try and win a debate when it's so much easier to just ban any debate.

You and Scalia are on the wrong side of history on this one. :shrug: Carry a torch for this all you want, but the rest of the world is moving on.

As for your marriage law, are you seriously drawing a blank on how to change the language to "two consenting adults"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom