california boy Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: California Boy, You seem to have deleted your response to my reply that if gay marriage actually is one of the rights that has been guaranteed under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses, respectively, of the United States Constitution all along, one wonders why the Court didn't render its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, say, 50 years ago, or even earlier. In response, you mentioned a whole host of evils that previously had been permitted or tolerated under the Constitution and asked why decisions obviating these evils hadn't been rendered earlier. It's hard for me to respond to a post that has been deleted, but, in the hope that my memory serves me reasonably well, I'll do my best. Most of the things you mentioned (either explicitly or obliquely, such as slavery, "Jim Crow" laws, and other, similar institutions) are instances in which, although the Constitution, by its terms, says that such rights are inherent and unalienable, the government had positively denied those rights to certain classes of people based on invidious criteria. In the cases you mentioned (except for the priesthood ban, which is not a governmental action and, thus, is a red herring), the Court said, essentially, "No, no. The relevant Amendments and any other relevant Constitutional provisions, such as the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, really do mean exactly what they say: The government cannot positively deny Equal Protection and Due Process to anyone based on invidious criteria." But that's not what happened in Obergefell v. Hodges. In Obergefell, a majority of the Court invented a right to gay marriage and decided that the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses mean that government cannot deny to same-sex couples a right that it grants to opposite-sex couples, notwithstanding the fundamental differences between the two types of relationships. By the way, before I set you straight on that score, you said that EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL COURT (caps and bold previously used by you for my benefit, since, due to my limited intellect, attention span, and so on, I was sure to miss your point if you had not used them ) that had considered gay marriage had ruled in favor of its proponents. I pointed out that if such unanimity really had existed in lower federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court would have had no incentive to consider the issue. You then changed your argument and began arguing that "virtually" or "nearly" every federal court that had considered the issue had ruled in favor of gay marriage. Should I hold my breath waiting for you to give me due credit for setting you straight? It is your belief that the supreme court created a right to marry. But that is not what the Supreme Court ruled. They specifically spelled out what constitutional amendments their ruling was based upon and why gays have ever legal right to marry as straight couples. And I did correct that original statement to say Every single federal court except one ruled in favor of gay marriage and every single district court ruled in favor of gay marriage. To pretend that this was some kind of foggy issue decided by 5 judges is disingenuous. When you only have one federal court rule against gay marriage, then yes that is virtually or nearly. Having all of those federal and district courts clearly see that the law does give gays the right to marry would have thrown this country into judicial chaos if the Supreme Court would have overturned all but one federal and district court. You may disagree with gay marriage. But it is pretty difficult to pretend that there is no law to support the decision. In any event, it is the law of the land and pretty pointless to be asserting that the loosing side should have won. Believe what you want if it makes you feel better. But you are arguing from a point without the majority of judicial ruling supporting your belief. You may be a good fellow on the internet, but you are not a Supreme Court justice. 1
california boy Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Gray said: Yes, I'm confident that gay marriage is as sacred as straight marriage. Jesus is for gay marriage. Satan is against. Jesus taught that good fruit can't come from a bad tree, and gay marriage produces good fruit. Traditional conservative Christian ideas about homosexuality have produced untold misery. That's a bad fruit, it therefore comes from a bad tree. Perhaps the biggest weakness in the argument for those that oppose gay marriage is the complete lack of reason not to allow it in a secular society. Marriage has always been a building block in civilizations. To exclude someone from the ability to marry simply because they are gay seems totally arbitrary and counter to the importance of marriage in a society. I personally find the rhetoric forbidding of marriage to be far more destructive to the stability of any culture. 3
Kenngo1969 Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 8 minutes ago, california boy said: Perhaps the biggest weakness in the argument for those that oppose gay marriage is the complete lack of reason not to allow it in a secular society. Marriage has always been a building block in civilizations. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.] To exclude someone from the ability to marry simply because they are gay seems totally arbitrary and counter to the importance of marriage in a society. I personally find the rhetoric forbidding of marriage to be far more destructive to the stability of any culture. Yes, it has, but the reason for this is because opposite-sex marriage is the optimal arrangement for the conception, bearing, and nurturing of children. Whatever its other merits might be, any arrangement which does not involve complementarity of the sexes involved lacks that capacity. 4
Kenngo1969 Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 43 minutes ago, california boy said: It is your belief that the supreme court created a right to marry. But that is not what the Supreme Court ruled. They specifically spelled out what constitutional amendments their ruling was based upon and why gays have ever legal right to marry as straight couples. They pressed the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses into service of a cause they were never intended to serve. Quote And I did correct that original statement to say Every single federal court except one ruled in favor of gay marriage and every single district court ruled in favor of gay marriage. Not before I called you on it. Quote To pretend that this was some kind of foggy issue decided by 5 judges is disingenuous. Perhaps, but that's no more disingenuous than pretending that the federal circuit courts or that the U.S. Supreme Court were unanimous on the issue. Quote When you only have one federal court rule against gay marriage, then yes that is virtually or nearly. Having all of those federal and district courts clearly see that the law does give gays the right to marry would have thrown this country into judicial chaos if the Supreme Court would have overturned all but one federal and district court. My point is that you never inserted that qualifier until I pointed out that your original statement was incorrect, but don't worry: I'm not holding my breath to get any credit from you for that. I can see that you're entirely too proud for that. Quote You may disagree with gay marriage. But it is pretty difficult to pretend that there is no law to support the decision. You may disagree with opponents of gay marriage, but it's pretty difficult to pretend that support for it has been unanimous in the United States Supreme Court and in lower federal courts. Quote In any event, it is the law of the land and pretty pointless to be asserting that the loosing side should have won. Believe what you want if it makes you feel better. But you are arguing from a point without the majority of judicial ruling supporting your belief. You may be a good fellow on the internet, but you are not a Supreme Court justice. You think it's pointless only because you discount the concerns of proponents of religious freedom, so it's not your ox being gored. If it were, you would feel much different. 3
stemelbow Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't want anyone leaving the Church, but the fact of the matter is the Church of Jesus Christ has never been governed by popular opinion, political pressure or even threat of mass apostasy, and that certainly won't be happening now. I wouldn't be so dogmatic in claiming the above. For instance the well argued piece sanctioned by the Church as official about Race and the Priesthood said, "The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah" and we know the justifications for the restrictions were most often offered by those at the top, and were given as official and revelatory. Thus, in a way the attempt is to dismiss the explanations for the restriction, at least, as being governed by popular opinion. Interestingly enough when the ban was lifted and McConkie did an about face, if you will, he said, "We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." So they spoke authoritatively but in ignorance--basing the explanations for the ban on what was at one time, popular opinion. I don't know how assuring that is when trying to describe the church as never having been governed by popular opinion, political pressure or even threat of mass apostasy. But at some point popular opinion got the Church to change. From my perspective so much of what has directed the Church is not so much revelation but the Church trying to stick close to the conservative wing of Christianity. 2
Bobbieaware Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) 46 minutes ago, california boy said: Perhaps the biggest weakness in the argument for those that oppose gay marriage is the complete lack of reason not to allow it in a secular society. Marriage has always been a building block in civilizations. To exclude someone from the ability to marry simply because they are gay seems totally arbitrary and counter to the importance of marriage in a society. I personally find the rhetoric forbidding of marriage to be far more destructive to the stability of any culture. A very good reason why faithful Latter-day Saints should be opposed to gay marriage in secular society is because the Family Proclamation is addressed to the people of the entire world, not just the Latter-Day Saints, and the document warns the secular world that if they allow the Judeo-Christian model of male-female marriage to be undermined God will visit the rebellious nations with the cataclysmic destructions prophesied in the scriptures (the scriptures go on to say that the spirits of such destroyed people will be thrust into hell). "THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife... THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed... WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family (the family as clearly defined above) will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.... WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere (not just Latter-Day Saints) to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family (as defined above) as the fundamental unit of society. (Exerpts from the Family Proclaimatiom)." Those members of the LDS Church who promote gay marriage and families in the secular world are acting in direct defiance of the most solemn prophetic warnings of the Lord's presiding latter-day servants. They have been fairly warned. Edited July 7, 2017 by Bobbieaware 2
stemelbow Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 6 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: A very good reason why faithful Latter-day Saints should be opposed to gay marriage in secular society is because the Family Proclamation is addressed to the people of the entire world, not just the Latter-Day Saints, and the document warns the secular world that if they allow the Judeo-Christian model of male-female marriage to be undermined God will visit the rebellious nations with the cataclysmic destructions prophesied in the scriptures (the scriptures go on to say that the spirits of such destroyed people will be thrust into hell). When I think of God going about slaughtering people because they can't quite get on board with some idea He has, I think of Joseph's old comment about turning hell into heaven then. I guess I'd gladly die with my friends and if He's intent on sending us all to hell because He's all upset that we while trying to view things through a glass darkly weren't able to see the picture quite like He, then so be it. "I'll kill you if you don't see clearly....even though I made it so you can't see clearly" feels like something from someone I'm not interested in worshipping, myself. But hey, have at it. 6 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: "THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife... THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed... WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family (the family as clearly defined above) will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.... WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere (not just Latter-Day Saints) to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family (as defined above) as the fundamental unit of society. (Exerpts from the Family Proclaimatiom)." Those members of the LDS Church who promote gay marriage and families in the secular world are acting in direct defiance of the most solemn prophetic warnings of the Lord's presiding latter-day servants. They have been fairly warned.
HappyJackWagon Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 1 hour ago, california boy said: Perhaps the biggest weakness in the argument for those that oppose gay marriage is the complete lack of reason not to allow it in a secular society. Marriage has always been a building block in civilizations. To exclude someone from the ability to marry simply because they are gay seems totally arbitrary and counter to the importance of marriage in a society. I personally find the rhetoric forbidding of marriage to be far more destructive to the stability of any culture. When someone at church acts surprised when they learn I am pro SSM I simply say, "Of course, I support families." Seems pretty simple to me. 3
Bobbieaware Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, stemelbow said: When I think of God going about slaughtering people because they can't quite get on board with some idea He has, I think of Joseph's old comment about turning hell into heaven then. I guess I'd gladly die with my friends and if He's intent on sending us all to hell because He's all upset that we while trying to view things through a glass darkly weren't able to see the picture quite like He, then so be it. "I'll kill you if you don't see clearly....even though I made it so you can't see clearly" feels like something from someone I'm not interested in worshipping, myself. But hey, have at it. You are correct. With the exception of those destined to become the sons of perdition, hell is a place where those who rebel against God will learn -- in dramatic, convincing and life-changing fashion -- why the Lord, who loves them with infinite and eternal devotion, is right and they are wrong. The Lord loves his children too much to let them go on forever believing untruths that are counterproductive to their eternal happiness. If there is still hope the rebellious have the capacity to awake to the truth, he will not forsake them, even if it means he must descend into hell and suffer with them in order to reclaim them. Edited July 7, 2017 by Bobbieaware 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Gray said: CB said exactly this: "Because gays are legally entitled to the same rights as straights." That's not circular, and it's not question begging. That's a solid constitutional principle- equal protection under the law. Whatever you think of the supreme court decision (and I don't agree with all their decisions), it is the legal justification for gay marriage in this country, and it's the law of the land. USU78, as I understand him, was asking why it should be the law of the land. CB, in essence replied that it should be because gays are entitled to it. That's begging the question. If you don't agree with every SCOTUS decision then surely you must realize that some of their decisions (Dred Scott is a clear example) in theory, at least, are not exempt from being questioned and debated. And the dissenting opinion I cited from Justice Scalia persuasively rebuts the "equal protection under the law" argument. SCOTUS is not a lawmaking body, and they should not act like one. Edited July 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 3
Scott Lloyd Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: When someone at church acts surprised when they learn I am pro SSM I simply say, "Of course, I support families." Seems pretty simple to me. Well, I suppose redefining terms to suit ones own position is one way to halt a conversation. By the way, I hope you're not pushing your opposition to the position of the Church leaders too much at church; it is not the place for it. 1
Gray Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: USU78, as I understand him, was asking why it should be the law of the land. CB, in essence replied that it should be because gays are entitled to it. That's begging the question. No, what he said was "Because gays are legally entitled to the same rights as straights." When you alter what he said use the word "in essence" you're changing the substance of his comment. Classic straw man. Equal protection under the law is well established. Quote If you don't agree with every SCOTUS decision then surely you must realize that some of their decisions (Dred Scott is a clear example) in theory, at least, are not exempt from being questioned and debated. Yes, by all means, question the reasoning of the SCOTUS decision. I think their Citizens United decision was disastrous. SCOTUS is not infallible, but their process is at least substantive. Quote And the dissenting opinion I cited from Justice Scalia persuasively rebuts the "equal protection under the law" argument. SCOTUS is not a lawmaking body, and they should not act like one. SCOTUS decides the constitutionality of laws, and laws against gay marriage are unconstitutional. SCOTUS has done exactly this sort of thing from the beginning. Edited July 7, 2017 by Gray 2
HappyJackWagon Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Well, I suppose redefining terms to suit ones own position is one way to halt a conversation. By the way, I hope you're not pushing your opposition to the position of the Church leaders too much at church; it is not the place for it. If you mean I am "redefining" families as spouses and children, then yes, I suppose I am. I support families. Some people prefer to only support certain kinds of families but to me that seems short sighted and counter productive. Committed family relationships are core to both personal happiness and also cultural success. If some people decide that certain other people shouldn't enjoy family life and would prefer that they stay alone and uncommitted, then there's not much I can do about that kind of double standard except push back against it. Regarding my position at church, it's not really your problem how I talk about it there, but my SP is supportive. 1
california boy Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: Yes, it has, but the reason for this is because opposite-sex marriage is the optimal arrangement for the conception, bearing, and nurturing of children. Whatever its other merits might be, any arrangement which does not involve complementarity of the sexes involved lacks that capacity. For you that would be true because you are straight. If someone is attracted to the same sex, the optimal marriage is with someone of the same sex. Not really a hard concept to understand is it?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 55 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: If you mean I am "redefining" families as spouses and children, then yes, I suppose I am. I support families. Some people prefer to only support certain kinds of families but to me that seems short sighted and counter productive. Committed family relationships are core to both personal happiness and also cultural success. If some people decide that certain other people shouldn't enjoy family life and would prefer that they stay alone and uncommitted, then there's not much I can do about that kind of double standard except push back against it. Regarding my position at church, it's not really your problem how I talk about it there, but my SP is supportive. If he supports your vocally opposing the Church's position on this or any other matter while at church, then he, as well as you, are in the wrong. And I would tell him so directly. Feel free to give him my email address.
california boy Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: A very good reason why faithful Latter-day Saints should be opposed to gay marriage in secular society is because the Family Proclamation is addressed to the people of the entire world, not just the Latter-Day Saints, and the document warns the secular world that if they allow the Judeo-Christian model of male-female marriage to be undermined God will visit the rebellious nations with the cataclysmic destructions prophesied in the scriptures (the scriptures go on to say that the spirits of such destroyed people will be thrust into hell). "THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife... THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed... WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family (the family as clearly defined above) will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.... WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere (not just Latter-Day Saints) to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family (as defined above) as the fundamental unit of society. (Exerpts from the Family Proclaimatiom)." Those members of the LDS Church who promote gay marriage and families in the secular world are acting in direct defiance of the most solemn prophetic warnings of the Lord's presiding latter-day servants. They have been fairly warned. I understand why some Mormons oppose gay marriage. The proclamation on the family tells why marriage is good between opposite sex couples. I am also am pro family. I believe that strong families are good for any society. I support a call upon all citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures to strengthen the family as a fundamental unit of society. Where is the conflict here? Straight couples should marry someone of the opposite sex. But the proclamation on the family doesn't tell us ANYTHING about why same sex couples should not marry. In fact, the document is all about strengthening marriage. The only way a gay couple can have a strong marriage is by marring someone of the same sex. Anything less than that weakens the family unit. That is something the church found out all too well when they were going around telling gay men that God wants them to marry a woman and making the false promise using the name of God, that if they would do that they would become straight. Do you see that as something that strengthened families? Because the vast majority of those marriages ended in heartbreak, sorrow and divorce. Not really a pro family solution.
california boy Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: You are correct. With the exception of those destined to become the sons of perdition, hell is a place where those who rebel against God will learn -- in dramatic, convincing and life-changing fashion -- why the Lord, who loves them with infinite and eternal devotion, is right and they are wrong. The Lord loves his children too much to let them go on forever believing untruths that are counterproductive to their eternal happiness. If there is still hope the rebellious have the capacity to awake to the truth, he will not forsake them, even if it means he must descend into hell and suffer with them in order to reclaim them. Do you think all gay couples that want to spend eternity with the person they love are all going to hell?
HappyJackWagon Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If he supports your vocally opposing the Church's position on this or any other matter while at church, then he, as well as you, are in the wrong. And I would tell him so directly. Feel free to give him my email address. With respect, why would I or my church leader care about your judgment on this. You may have your opinions but you have no stewardship. So your judgment seems rather presumptuous, condescending, inappropriate, and impotent. Edited July 7, 2017 by HappyJackWagon
Kenngo1969 Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 20 minutes ago, california boy said: For you that would be true because you are straight. If someone is attracted to the same sex, the optimal marriage is with someone of the same sex. Not really a hard concept to understand is it? No, but no children will result naturally from a same-sex union. For that, the intervention of a third party is necessary. You may be successful in changing the law of the land to suit your preferences, but changing the laws of biology is much harder. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: No, but no children will result naturally from a same-sex union. For that, the intervention of a third party is necessary. You may be successful in changing the law of the land to suit your preferences, but changing the laws of biology is much harder. So what? There are many, many marriages in which no children will result naturally. Are all of those marriages counterfeit? The elderly? The sterile? Just try to be consistent. If you oppose SSM because they can't have children, then you should oppose any marriage in which natural child bearing is not possible. It's kind of an ugly position to take, though.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: With respect, why would I or my church leader care about your judgment on this. You may have your opinions but you have no stewardship. So your judgment seems rather presumptuous, condescending, inappropriate, and impotent. I'm not endeavoring to usurp stewardship here, only to express an opinion, which I am entitled to do, on a matter that you yourself chose to make a part of the debate. And I'm signaling that I will stand behind that opinion with my real-life identity. l didn't expect you to take me up on the offer, but it's on the table nonetheless. Edited July 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
california boy Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: No, but no children will result naturally from a same-sex union. For that, the intervention of a third party is necessary. You may be successful in changing the law of the land to suit your preferences, but changing the laws of biology is much harder. So what. Every marriage is not required to have children. Edit. I didn't see HappyJacks post. We both pointed out the obvious. I go back to my original statement: For you that would be true because you are straight. If someone is attracted to the same sex, the optimal marriage is with someone of the same sex. Not really a hard concept to understand is it? And now I would add, Not all marriages are required to have children. Edited July 7, 2017 by california boy 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 2 hours ago, Gray said: No, what he said was "Because gays are legally entitled to the same rights as straights." When you alter what he said use the word "in essence" you're changing the substance of his comment. Classic straw man. Equal protection under the law is well established. I disagree that I have changed the essence of it, but I suppose we must let the individual reader decide. Quote Yes, by all means, question the reasoning of the SCOTUS decision. I think their Citizens United decision was disastrous. SCOTUS is not infallible, but their process is at least substantive. Not when they endeavor to make laws instead of adjudicating existing laws. Again, they are not a law-making body and should not act like one. Nor should any lower court, for that matter. Quote SCOTUS decides the constitutionality of laws, and laws against gay marriage are unconstitutional. SCOTUS has done exactly this sort of thing from the beginning. I take strong exception to their ruling. i do this for the reason so well articulated by Justice Scalia in his dissenting opinion.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) testing Edited July 7, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
california boy Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I disagree that I have changed the essence of it, but I suppose we must let the individual reader decide. Not when they endeavor to make laws instead of adjudicating existing laws. Again, they are not a law-making body and should not act like one. Nor should any lower court, for that matter. I take strong exception to their ruling. i do this for the reason so well articulated by Justice Scalia in his dissenting opinion. You did indeed change the meaning of my statement. I stand by what I actually said, not what you decided take it upon yourself to change. "Because gays are legally entitled to the same rights as straights."
Recommended Posts