SCOTUS strikes down gay marriage bans, legalizing marriage equality nationwide

Status
Not open for further replies.
Netflix has a bunch of their shows tweeting it, but this one is probably my favorite:

Yv7u9Cg.png
 
hosannainexcelsis said:
No, the argument being made in this case is that men and women fit together in a way that men and men, or women and women, don't, and it is that fitting together of the two opposite genders that defines the special relationship and intimacy of marriage. That two people of the same sex cannot compliment each other in that way. The argument is marriage is not just people who have strong feelings for each other, but it is the coming together of two people to make one person, and that that can only happen when two different genders are combined.



One can believe in both the scientific theory of evolution and believe that that process of evolution was what a Creator used to design humanity (and all other living creatures).
Click to expand...

That argument only makes sense if marriage was a prerequisite for procreation, though, which it isn't. And that's not even the function of marriage that is at issue in this argument. The only function of marriage is to consolidate state benefits into one legal entity - that being the couple. If marriage wasn't government recognized to begin with, and remained only a religious rite, then your argument would have merit. But, if you're going to offer tax breaks for it, that can't happen under the Constitution of the United States of America.

Also Intelligent Design is not "believing in evolution with a caveat" it's still not believing in evolution.
 
hosannainexcelsis said:
No, the argument being made in this case is that men and women fit together in a way that men and men, or women and women, don't, and it is that fitting together of the two opposite genders that defines the special relationship and intimacy of marriage. That two people of the same sex cannot compliment each other in that way. The argument is marriage is not just people who have strong feelings for each other, but it is the coming together of two people to make one person, and that that can only happen when two different genders are combined.
Click to expand...

Still circular; you (substitute "you" for the argument, if you do not agree with it personally but are advancing it as a reasonable example of a position) define marriage in such a way to exclude gay marriage, and then you use that definition to demonstrate that marriage excludes gay people. Yes, if the definition of marriage is that you need a man and a woman, then it follows that the definition of marriage requires a man and a woman.

It's still circular if you make the circle a little bigger and say marriage is defined as requiring two opposite types of people, where we define type as gender, thus it follows that that definition of marriage excludes same-sex couples.

No matter how many levels of indirection you but on the definition, if you have a definition that's crafted such that all straight couples are eligible and no gay couples are eligible, and you use that definition to prove that gay couples are not eligible, you are making a circular argument.

If you want to own the immutable definition question-begging, just go with "God made marriage this way", which is what the people not dressing up their feelings in sophistry do, and the rest of us can feel free to roll our eyes and move along.
 
Admiral Woofington said:
If we legalize weed quote me right the fuck now.

Violence on ALL fronts will drop down by massive numbers

Largely due to everybody being so high they're watching Kung Pow Enter the Fist and eating Taco Bell.
Click to expand...

This reads like something i'd do if it became legal, only adding the being high part because i do the other two parts often. One of the best movies ever, would also put kung fu hustle as another movie to watch since to me it seems like another movie to watch if you're high.
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
Ah, I see. I hadn't heard of Turner v Safley, but after looking it up apparently it following from Loving v. Virginia that marriage was a fundamental right. So LvV was actually the one that established its fundamental...ness.

And I totally agree on the second part, but looking at this decision in a vacuum I just didn't think it's scope covered the fundamentality of the right to marry, but of course that's what precedent is for and now I've got the whole story.
Click to expand...

The dissents make a point about rights being born from the due process clause which I don't really understand, so I am not sure how they decide to ignore the 14th amendment argument.
 
Cybit said:
Roberts has a darn good point about the Supreme Court basically functioning as a legislative body right now; which is not its intention, as well as pointing out that they may have turned something that was inevitably going to pass across all states (gay marriage) over time into abortion 2.0 by allowing it from on high.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just like the court did with interracial marriage*, which had significantly less support during Loving v. Virginia than same-sex marriage does now, and totally ignoring the stronger argument that the court endorsing something in fact helps continue to drive change and solidify support behind the legitimacy of the movement.

* Roberts disagrees with the analogy between interracial marriage and gay marriage, using the sophisticated argument that you can't compare the two because one is about race and one is about sexual orientation. He spends about 5 pages talking about how no previous changes to marriage can be compared to gay marriage because those changes were not about gays, they were about other things. It's not entirely clear to me that he understands what an analogy or comparison is.
 
Admiral Woofington said:
If we legalize weed quote me right the fuck now.

Violence on ALL fronts will drop down by massive numbers

Largely due to everybody being so high they're watching Kung Pow Enter the Fist and eating Taco Bell.
Click to expand...

I really hope ending the war on drugs is the next step.

60,000+ dead and climbing every day, we've done nothing but go backwards.

It's time.
 
hosannainexcelsis said:
No, the argument being made in this case is that men and women fit together in a way that men and men, or women and women, don't, and it is that fitting together of the two opposite genders that defines the special relationship and intimacy of marriage. That two people of the same sex cannot compliment each other in that way. The argument is marriage is not just people who have strong feelings for each other, but it is the coming together of two people to make one person, and that that can only happen when two different genders are combined.
Click to expand...

Why?


This makes zero sense. Almost less than zero sense. Is there such a thing as negative sense?
 
What's interesting to me is not the stupid social media posts, but the people who are posting normal, everyday thoughts. Like, "UGH! It's raining again!"

There's nothing wrong with not have an opinion or thought to share, I just think it's kind of funny on days like today when historic events occur.
 
hosannainexcelsis said:
No, the argument being made in this case is that men and women fit together in a way that men and men, or women and women, don't, and it is that fitting together of the two opposite genders that defines the special relationship and intimacy of marriage. That two people of the same sex cannot compliment each other in that way. The argument is marriage is not just people who have strong feelings for each other, but it is the coming together of two people to make one person, and that that can only happen when two different genders are combined.



One can believe in both the scientific theory of evolution and believe that that process of evolution was what a Creator used to design humanity (and all other living creatures).
Click to expand...

At least for male gay couples, anal insertion exists so far as making two bodies "one". Which seems a ridiculous requirement to me.
 
hosannainexcelsis said:
No, the argument being made in this case is that men and women fit together in a way that men and men, or women and women, don't, and it is that fitting together of the two opposite genders that defines the special relationship and intimacy of marriage. That two people of the same sex cannot compliment each other in that way. The argument is marriage is not just people who have strong feelings for each other, but it is the coming together of two people to make one person, and that that can only happen when two different genders are combined.
Click to expand...

Holy shit, never has so little been said with so many words.

"Fit together?" Seriously.
 
Cybit said:
Roberts has a darn good point about the Supreme Court basically functioning as a legislative body right now; which is not its intention, as well as pointing out that they may have turned something that was inevitably going to pass across all states (gay marriage) over time into abortion 2.0 by allowing it from on high. I do think that's a reasonable fear, that people who would have eventually acceded to letting gays marry (or just passed away, as gay marriage was one of those issues that was harshly split amongst age, even on the conservative side) are now going to calcify their opinions even more so.

That said, the reason the SC is functioning like a legislative body recently is because congress is so deadlocked and useless that we are using the SC to actually get shit done. I understand Roberts' slippery slope argument, and remember that he actually worked pro bono for gay rights early in his career (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts#Early_legal_career) - so there's a lot of evidence he's actually is very happy about equal rights; just not the way it came about. But, to me, the second they started tying so many laws and rights to being married, you had to let gays get married. No way around it.

Congratulations to all, though. As a Christian, a big part of the teachings are that #LoveWins :D Always. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, there is a definite "my personal beliefs are irrelevant" vibe in the Roberts dissent, which is always good to see from a judge.

I don't entirely buy the exercising legislative judgment bits, though, as much as he and his constant harping on Lochner seem to want me to. They rest on the notion that the Court is redefining "marriage" in its ruling, and I just don't see how that is meaningfully different than what the Court did regarding, e.g., miscegenation in Loving. And to that end, I don't really see the Court as acting differently than it has in the past in the sense that it is riding a bit behind the wave of social change. It's certainly much farther behind than the Warren Court was in Brown, for instance.

I mostly agree with Roberts in his argument that the Court's EP argument boils down to "oh, and this too" and is pro forma at best. I also agree that a rational reading of the opinion should extend constitutional protection to things like plural/group marriage as well, though I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing per se.
 
AzureTranquility95 said:
So this makes Obama the best president in a long while, right?

This is pretty huge.
Click to expand...

Obama didn't really have much to do with it. You can make the argument he influenced public opinion, and therefore the court, but the 5 justices who affirmed were always going to. Public opinion doesn't really matter too much to the court, as has been stated Loving v. Virginia, which established the right to interracial marriage, was super unpopular across the entire country at the time it was decided.
 
AzureTranquility95 said:
So this makes Obama the best president in a long while, right?

This is pretty huge.
Click to expand...

Well it was the judicial branch but the President's support definitely matters for the movement as a whole.

CrimzonSamurai said:
Obama didn't really have much to do with it. You can make the argument he influenced public opinion, and therefore the court, but the 5 justices who affirmed were always going to. Public opinion doesn't really matter too much to the court, as has been stated Loving v. Virginia, which established the right to interracial marriage, was super unpopular across the entire country at the time it was decided.
Click to expand...

because they are unelected!!!???
 
ElectricBlanketFire said:
What's interesting to me is not the stupid social media posts, but the people who post normal, everyday thoughts on days like today. Like, "UGH! It's raining again!"

There's nothing wrong with not have an opinion or thought to share, I just think it's kind of funny on days like today when historic events occur.
Click to expand...

I actually feel weird talking basketball and I'm pretty stoked on the Lakers right now.
 
ElectricBlanketFire said:
What's interesting to me is not the stupid social media posts, but the people who post normal, everyday thoughts on days like today. Like, "UGH! It's raining again!"

There's nothing wrong with not have an opinion or thought to share, I just think it's kind of funny on days like today when historic events occur.
Click to expand...

36d.jpg
 
hosannainexcelsis said:
No, the argument being made in this case is that men and women fit together in a way that men and men, or women and women, don't, and it is that fitting together of the two opposite genders that defines the special relationship and intimacy of marriage. That two people of the same sex cannot compliment each other in that way. The argument is marriage is not just people who have strong feelings for each other, but it is the coming together of two people to make one person, and that that can only happen when two different genders are combined.
Click to expand...

I realize you're being piled on, but putting aside the question-begging others have pointed out, why should the state and federal governments, which is what we're talking about here, care about any of this?
 
ElTorro said:
I'd really like to hear an explanation of the religious right for this. *g*
Click to expand...
I'll give it a try: Rainbows are straightforward physical phenomena subject to nature's laws, not omens from above. Except when they conveniently are--which they aren't this time, cause it would be so ironic.
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
Obama didn't really have much to do with it. You can make the argument he influenced public opinion, and therefore the court, but the 5 justices who affirmed were always going to. Public opinion doesn't really matter too much to the court, as has been stated Loving v. Virginia, which established the right to interracial marriage, was super unpopular across the entire country at the time it was decided.
Click to expand...

He did appoint two of those justices and some of the judges in the federal courts that went for marriage equality.
 
hosannainexcelsis said:
No, the argument being made in this case is that men and women fit together in a way that men and men, or women and women, don't, and it is that fitting together of the two opposite genders that defines the special relationship and intimacy of marriage. That two people of the same sex cannot compliment each other in that way. The argument is marriage is not just people who have strong feelings for each other, but it is the coming together of two people to make one person, and that that can only happen when two different genders are combined.
Click to expand...

This is a long winded way of saying only two humans who can procreate can be married.
 
hosannainexcelsis said:
No, the argument being made in this case is that men and women fit together in a way that men and men, or women and women, don't, and it is that fitting together of the two opposite genders that defines the special relationship and intimacy of marriage. That two people of the same sex cannot compliment each other in that way. The argument is marriage is not just people who have strong feelings for each other, but it is the coming together of two people to make one person, and that that can only happen when two different genders are combined.
Click to expand...

Assuming that you mean procreation, if you follow that logic, shouldn't infertile couples denied the right to marry? Or married couples who explicitly do not want to have children? And should gay couples be allowed to marry as soon as they adopt a child? Or raise a child from a former heterosexual relationship of one spouse?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dave Grohl announces daughter outside of his marriage
2 3
143
9K
Dr.Morris79 replied
20 injured after Mexican Navy training ship strikes Brooklyn Bridge
News  2
56
455
Major Insano replied
Tragic News: Destiny open marriage fails
2 3 4
171
36K
Deleted member 1159 replied
  • Poll
The pull-down ad bar thing
Community 
44
525
AgatonSax replied
Microsoft is finally shutting down Skype in May
41
2K
MakeMudosGreatAgain replied
Top Bottom