Lawmaker Warns Supreme Court May End Gay Marriage: 'Prepare for the Worst' - Newsweek
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Mandy Taheri is a Newsweek reporter based in Brooklyn. She joined Newsweek as a reporter in 2024. You can get in touch with Mandy via email: m.taheri@newsweek.com. Languages: English, French
Michigan's first openly gay state senator, Jeremy Moss, a Democrat, warned Thursday that newly introduced legislation seeking to overturn the Supreme Court ruling protecting same-sex marriage, though legally unenforceable, "underscores that we have to prepare for the worst," and the possibility of the top court reversing the decision.
Newsweek has reached out to Moss for comment via email on Thursday.
Why It Matters
Republican lawmakers in several states have introduced various measures encouraging the Supreme Court to strike down Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 decision that established the nationwide right to same-sex marriage. Conservative Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have signaled in a court dissent that the case should be reconsidered.
A majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, though a 2024 Gallup poll found Republicans are less likely to back it than Democrats.
What To Know
In an opinion article in the Detroit Free Press, Moss called a new resolution by Michigan GOP Representative Josh Schriver "a statement of the values of Schriver and his co-sponsors," of which there are six.
On Tuesday, Schriver introduced a resolution condemning the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell, saying it is "at odds with the Constitution of the United States and the principles upon which the United States is established."
He told Newsweek that his "resolution condemning the decision is a step toward overturning it. Same ballpark. People get the picture."
The resolution also states that "Obergefell invokes a definition of 'liberty' that the Framers of the founding documents of the United States would not have recognized, rejecting the ideas captured in the Declaration of Independence that human dignity is innate and, instead, suggesting that it comes from the government."
Over the past decade, some people and legislators have protested Obergefell and its enshrinement of same-sex marriage rights.
Protesters rally in front of the Supreme Court as it hears arguments on whether gay and transgender people are covered by a federal law barring employment discrimination on the basis of sex on Tuesday, October...Protesters rally in front of the Supreme Court as it hears arguments on whether gay and transgender people are covered by a federal law barring employment discrimination on the basis of sex on Tuesday, October 8, 2019. More Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via AP Images
Resolutions explicitly calling for the Supreme Court to reverse the decision in Obergefell have been introduced in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota, as well as in Idaho.
Since the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling, it has shifted to a more conservative majority after President Donald Trump appointed three justices during his first term. The court has also overturned previous decisions, doing so most notably in 2022 with abortion rights established in the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973.
However, same-sex marriage rights were bolstered in late 2022 when Congress passed, and President Joe Biden signed into law, the Respect for Marriage Act. The law "requires that interracial and same-sex marriage must be recognized as legal in every state in the nation," the president said.
Moss argued that Schriver's legislation "could lead to a political movement to bring a case to overturn it [same-sex marriage] before a now-more-conservative Supreme Court." He called for a "public-led ballot proposal to repeal the 2004 Michigan Marriage Amendment and protect marriage equality." The now defunct amendment made it unconstitutional for the midwestern state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions.
If Obergefell was overturned, the state "would snap back to the language in our state Constitution banning same-sex unions," Moss explained. In order to prevent this, he is calling to repeal this language, either through sufficient signatures or two-thirds votes from each chamber to put it on the ballot.
He stressed the urgency of the matter, saying Michiganders should act "before it's too late."
A 2024 Gallup poll found that 69 percent of Americans support legal same-sex marriage, with more support among Democrats than Republicans. It found that 83 percent of Democrats support same-sex marriage, 74 percent of independents, and 46 percent of Republicans.
What People Are Saying
Michigan Representative Josh Schriver said about Obergefell decision in a press conference on Tuesday: "[The decision] defaced the definition of marriage, undermined our God-given rights, increased persecution of Christians and confused the American family structure."
Michigan Senator Jeremy Moss said in an X post on Thursday: "You've all seen the buffoons in the MI House attack marriage equality. If Obergefell is overturned, MI snaps back to the ban in our constitution and no new same-sex marriages would be licensed. We must repeal this language."
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, said in a video posted on X on Tuesday: "In Michigan, everyone has the freedom to marry who they love. It's not only the law of the land, it's a nonnegotiable.
"Right now, however, some extreme members of the Michigan Legislature are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn marriage equality. Here's my response to that: 'Hell no.'
"We've fought a long, hard fight to win marriage equality and we will always protect our family, our friends and neighbors from hateful attacks."
Idaho Representative Heather Scott, a Republican, said at a January hearing, perThe Idaho Stateman:"The purpose of this resolution is just to affirm our state authority to regulate marriage."
Idaho House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, a Democrat, previously told Newsweek: "The Supreme Court wisely recognized in the Obergefell decision that our Constitution guarantees the freedom to marry the person you love, and that fundamental right should not be subject to the anti-LGBTQ biases of a state legislature. The partner you choose is not the government's choice nor should it be. GOP politicians must get out of the business of persecuting their own citizens."
Mat Staver, chairman of the conservative Christian ministry Liberty Counsel, said in a video last week: "There is no so-called constitutional right in the Constitution to same-sex marriage, that's ridiculous." He said that, "it's not an if, it's just a matter of when" Obergefell will be overruled.
What Happens Next?
Schriver's bill is assigned to the House Government Operations Committee. It needs to pass through the committee before being voted on by the lower chamber. In order to become law it would then need to pass the Senate and be signed by the Governor.
Tags
Who is online
31 visitors
And So It Begins...
Don't you mean continues?
We were told our worse fears were imaginary and unlikely.
Yet only the meanest of MAGA want families torn asunder.
there's 4 LGBTQ members within my extended family. coincidentally, they're all from the most religious and right wing elements. why is that?
I have 2 that I know of. One from a fairly liberal branch of the family, one from a very conservative one. The one whose mother is very conservative married a black man, and was ostracized by the family for a while, so I would think she'd understand about marriage equality, but I guess it's good for her, but not for her gay son.
as the black sheep in both sides of my families, I like to force my penchant for exposing any hypocrisy I see. it's despised by maga my age and older, respected by the sane, but appreciated by all those that are younger. I don't give a fuck what the maga thumpers think ...
Morning.... always good to have a black sheep in the family..
It livens things up and adds to the spice of life...and keeps people on their toes ...
Now what to have for breakfast..eggs, toast , cereal..ahh decisions decisions..
I had an omelet topped with green chile and sour cream ... eh ... I should have gone with my usual eggs, bacon, biscuits and gravy. no, not those kind of biscuits you bloody ripper ...
That omelet sounds good.
I've never managed to acquire a taste for sausage gravy, although I do love a good biscuit (not cookie).
I thought Vegemite on toast was the mandated breakfast down under?
Almost all the school teachers in the county seat where I attended grade through high school were lifelong single women who kept to themselves, living close together in one neighborhood. They also socialized with and sat close by each other at church and events.
People thought what people thought. Nobody had a problem with what was unsaid because they were good teachers and were tough enough for playground duty and to dish out punishment. This was common. Rural America had its secrets. Two women ranchers lived together as men for sixty years. Two men would have got kilt!
Well they do say change is as good as a holiday...besides can't have to much of a good thing...
Dumb question...your glorious leader the Orange one....if/when he brings in all the new legislation/rules and turns the country upside down..(see Devangy then you will be like us) and his 4 years expires..(pity he didn't) does the next poor buggar have to undo all that he has done??
If that is the case the whole country would grind to a halt reversing everything that the Orange one has brought in...
my mom still makes the gravy with bacon grease. I don't care either way, since it's all about the white gravy and pepper shaker to me ...
don't get me started ...
welcome to democracy mate, and that's the way it's been so far this century. however, with the way the orange menace is running amuck, it's a good bet that most of the cult will probably need to be exterminated for just cause before they put the US any deeper into the russian bin ...
I've only ever seen it made with sausage. Mom used to make it all the time, but since Dad's appetite has decreased with age, she doesn't make it as often.
I echo Dev on this one. It's just the way of things.
Unfortunately, this time around, the next several buggers will have an uphill battle regaining the trust of our allies, if we still have any left.
Ummm... The Donald promised that we wouldn't have to vote again. While I don't trust most of his promises, I'm pretty sure he means to keep this one.
[deleted][✘]
To be honest I don't think that will be much of a problem..
The general consensus around the world and the allies is roll on 2028..
We all have to deal with rotten oranges in the bowl and when it's time, you turf them out..
We just feel sorry for you mob in the meantime...
No doubt something will crop up between us and the US.. it's bound too...one thing at least our Vegemite is safe..
Wonder what he did with the 500 million cheque we just coughed up for AUKUS...not that it appeared he knew what that was...bit of a worry...😁
I hope you're right. I've been on an international forum where the sentiment against us is pretty strong.
It was no different to when he got his ear scratched...the world leaders all offered commiserations, platitudes etc and shocking....
But behind closed doors it was crap they missed...
Everyone is just waiting for the next 4 years to pass and then it will be...next!!!
Most people with half a brain can see what Trump is like..yep you mob will probably cop some flak but the people who know Americans will offer nothing but commiserations...
Same here including one of my brothers and a cousin on my Mom's side, and a couple nephews on my Dad's side of the family.
Good question. Why do you think that is?
I don't know, maybe they all got molested by their priests at mackerel snapper madrasas when they were kids. most likely genetics or total rejection of religious and political oppression in their youth would be my guess. all of them live their own lives in different states far away from their narrow-minded parents now.
that's a handy lever for somebody like me that likes to highlight and exploit bigotry and hypocrisy whenever any conversations turn political. I enjoy twisting the blade of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on alleged ultra patriots and self appointed defenders of their cherry-picked constitution, especially when they're thumper wackos ...
What do you mean by that? Being molested by priests makes you LGBTQ? I understand the "rejection of religious and political oppression" part but that is not why they are LGBTQ right?
I think it is very sad that they feel they have to separate themselves from their narrow-minded families. I suppose my brother and cousin and nephews are pretty fortunate that despite our families varying political and religious beliefs we all accept one another for who we are and support and love each other unconditionally. My brother and cousin and all their LGBTQ friends we have met are all very good people, hard workers, very generous with their time and resources, and just generally fun to be around. They are certainly deserving of all the rights and privileges of our society that the rest of us enjoy, especially life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, including marriage should they choose it.
Religion does not make one heterosexual or homosexual. Simply put: sexuality is not a spiritual 'power.'
Because I come from a Baptist background growing up and being 'immersed' in religion as a child did not make me heterosexual, even to the point some thirty years ago returning to be in the church-after my time out of the church-did not make heterosexual EITHER. I am living proof, along with many, that our sexual attractions are what they are. That is, I would rather be celibate than pretend to be spiritually bonded to a woman. . . which I have never/ever been internally.
To this very day, I can think of a 'thousand plus' males I could spiritually bond with but can't and alas won't.
Family can be vicious toward what they don't understand. In some families from the 'old country' where shame abounded first generation families still believe in honor killings of their own children over familial shaming. I have even watched several movies which expressed same-sex love and relationships where the "supportive" family member plotted to have a 'hit' done on their own child (in the film). What was that: a "teachable moment" —for the viewers; for the public?
I am glad you have friendly relations with homosexuals in the family. Really. It all depends on the person and their attitude.
it's a sarcastic indoctrination joke, based upon actual events, and aimed directly at xtian conservatives.
I agree with most of what you say, but my constitutionally valid religion is none of the above, and beyond the establishment clause in our constitution, religion has no place now at the american political table when it comes to due process and our rights. it is a shared belief/opinion by some and not the law for everyone else. besides, how can anyone be trusted or respected that does or says one thing with family, and then turns around and votes against them. in the partisan quest by some of those in the religious and conservative communities to identify others that are "less than", they need to realize that in america, it's them.
I've had no mental or religious issues (oops, redundant) with the LGBTQ communities for the last 45 years. I have friends and family in that community. I bought my first house from a gay real estate agent that was a close friend. he was the greatest prankster I have ever known with a sense of humor to match. he needlessly died of aids in '89.
Agreed.
Very sorry to hear that, but glad that you have such great memories of him. Maybe he left you with some of his sense of humor, if you believe in that sort of thing.
he was the first openly gay person I ever met, he was my equal in pranks and twisted humor. we shared and taught each other a lot, and we both insisted that each of us had benefited more for knowing the other. we became close friends and his funeral was filled with laughter over the many antidotes of his pranks from those who knew of them, mixed with tears from all the lives he touched.
I felt that 'testimony' - Devangelical. Message properly received. Such witness is deep.
There has been at least two times when I was impressed upon by my heterosexual male friends who accepted me: 1. In the military. 2. Now in the present. They are all long-time married men and I respect them and their marriages.
I will never forget the one time I got joked on in front of 'everybody' by "P—" I'll just call him that. He asked me: "Do you know what a woman sounds like when she co—es?" And I stood there like a deer in headlights . . . because I did not know the answer or have a comeback!
Memories. Jokes. Pranks.
Then there was the young southerner who loved him some "CB" but it was platonic. We went everywhere together. Everywhere. We even bedded a woman together though I got 'roped' into it at the last moment. Military stories. Wow. (And no she did not 'sound' for me.) (Chuckles.)
I loved that guy too. Yes I did. What a friend taught me in his own way too. (He had a love for cars, horses, and picking up (spitting) cottonmouth snakes.)
(Okay ladies. Sorry about that up there. It got 'real' in here for a moment. Respect.)
Note: This did not come out right. I have plenty deep friends whom are girls in and out of my family and women. I meant the sexual/spiritual connection is not nearly as tight and connected for me with them as it is with a male. Which means why I am definitionally homosexual.
Sorry for any confusion. I don't wish to make anybody to feel 'weirded' because of a poorly put together statement on my part! And I appreciate that many would understand without the additional explaining but am glad to deliver it, nevertheless.
closed minds deserve to have a window installed ...
Most of my neighbors in New Hope PA were Republican Catholics
which never made sense...
there's not much wiggle room in either ideologies ...
seems like all the kids produced from my generation have completely abandoned the RCC ...
lots of people stopped going to church when they became adults, and mom and dad could no longer make them go ...
wtf? anecdotes ... goddam spell check suggestions.
We feel the 'pain' of getting caught by the 'system.' Happens to me all the time (on reread). (Can you telling I am blushing?)
Why? If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t be in one. How does it hurt anyone?
How do you deface a definition?
Your God-given rights are fine.
No, it hasn’t. There is no persecution of Christians in this country. For example, no one is trying to outlaw Christian marriage.
There is no such thing.
I’m so tired of religious conservatives pretending to be persecuted simply because other people don’t live like they do.
Like they do? No they're too hypocritical for that. More like because other people don’t live like they tell them to
Depends on what a person considers moral. The moral definition of marriage, in my opinion, is a union between one man and one woman. It appears you believe it is between two people, irrespective of gender. I have seen stories where people wanted to marry themselves or some animal.
The point is, when something is whatever you want it to be it hurts society because everything becomes undefined. There's no solid ground for a common frame of reference. I think pedophilia is as immoral as gay marriage. You, presumably, think gay marriage is just fine. What about someone who thinks a 40 year old man marrying a 13 year old boy should be legally recognized if they both consent? The natural argument is that the 13 year old isn't mature enough to make informed consent, yet many who would say so would also say that 13 year old boy is mature enough to make life altering changes to their body because the child "feels" like he's in the wrong body. That's called cognitive dissonance, and it's growing in our society.
When I was a kid, I never could have imagined that gay marriage would ever be a thing. Now it is. Now I have to wonder when, not if, pedophiles become a legally protected class. After all, there's already been a push to go from the pejorative "pedophile" to "minor attracted individuals".
When you give it a meaning it never had.
That would be a matter of perspective. While we certainly don't experience the deadly kind of persecution Christians face in places like Africa, Asia and the Middle East, the media demonizes the white Christian male, people inflict endless lawsuits on people like bakers who will not bend to their will and so on.
Well, to be more precise, although there is a concerted effort to destroy the American family structure, it's still there in a lot of places, although it's been incredibly weakened. However, the family structure, American or otherwise, has been the single greatest factor in any society throughout history, until Communism showed up.
I agree, somewhat. Persecution isn't the right word any more than saying Japan persecuted America during WWII. Not really the right term for what is actually a war.
Only for the people getting married. What you consider moral is irrelevant to my marriage. I don’t get to tell you how to be married, and you don’t get to tell me how to be married.
You do not need to know how my marriage is defined because you are not part of it.
None of your other silly horror story analogies are in play here. We’re talking about two consenting adults. The only difference is one couple is two people of different sex and the other people are of the same sex. Years of legal gay marriage has not led to calls for marrying 13 year olds. In fact, the only places in America that would be so inclined are the states most likely to try and outlaw gay marriage.
Your impulse to connect homosexuality with pedophilia is a prejudice that educated people discarded more than 50 years ago.
The only ones being demonized are the ones who are assholes trying to control people who aren’t like them. White males still enjoy more power and privilege than any other demographic group. White men are doing just fine, but some of them lack the fortitude to allow others to live as they will in peace.
Hardly endless.
Not only is there no such thing as an American family structure, there is no concerted effort to destroy this mythical institution. There are an endless variety of families in this country and in the world. What makes a family a good one is the people in it, not its structure. Gay people have struggled for the right to share in the blessings of marriage, just as their straight brothers and sisters do. There is no justification for denying them that blessing.
We have all sorts of resolutions or attempts at legislation to do away with gay marriage. There is no such resolution to do away with straight marriage. You are not a victim.
And everyone has a right to their opinion. Some might believe that Christians are selfish spawns of Satan that corrupt everything and anything around them as they practiced forced conversion at the point of a sword for centuries and have so much blood on their hands it will never wash off. Others believe most Christians are generally good people and that most understand that there is a big difference between pedophilia (the raping of children too young to consent regardless of gender), and homosexuals who are adults and who choose to be intimate with other adults regardless of gender. Most rational persons understand that to declare gay marriage illegal again, would be violating gay Americans rights. It's as simple as that. Anyone who has a problem with that can go cry in the fucking corner if they like, that's up to them, but they should never be allowed to strip law abiding tax paying adult American citizens of their right to love who they want all because of their own personal religious beliefs. That would be an establishment of religion to make such a law based on your or anyone else's religious beliefs.
Lol. That's just too fucking adorable.
Rightwing religious conservatives have been working hard to prevent or destroy happy family structures for decades by attempting to stop gay couples from adopting. All these qualified loving parents ready to accept tens of thousands of unwanted children into their homes and hearts, but not if some Christians get their way!
So, you're saying it's not just persecution, it's a "war on Christians"? It seems you're actually claiming that secular non-Christians have "bombed" Christians spiritual Pearl Harbor, no? Isn't the fantasy "war on Christian's" trope a bit too tired nowadays? I mean come on, we hear it every fucking year now and have for years and yet 88% of our congress still claim to be Christians, only 6% are Jewish, the other 6% are a mix of nones and others, but you really see a "war" on Christians? How exactly does a majority Christian controlled nation go to war with Christianity?
Did you forget the question I was responding to?
The point behind my reply is that when there is no standard, what is morally acceptable degrades. Sixty years ago, few people would have imagined gay marriage would be considered acceptable. Sixty years from now, will 40 year old men be marrying 13 year old boys? Women marrying their dogs? For most of human history, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Now, in much of the world, it's not.
The reason is some people's interpretation of what morality consists of. It's subjective, so they say "what makes your morality better than mine?" and use that to justify gay marriage. Once we do that, then the pedophile can use the same reasoning. Worse, the stage is being set for them. If a child can make the decision it can't possibly be mature enough to make concerning sex changes, then upon what grounds can anyone claim a 13 year old boy can't marry if he wants to? A man his cow or a woman her dog? Who are you to subject them to your morality?
Do you understand, now? I don't care about how you personally feel about gay marriage. I'm answering your question about how it hurts society to not have a standard.
So, then. You would, by that reasoning, not have a problem with a 13 year old boy marrying a 40 year old man as long as they both consented. I mean, since you're not a part of it. Good to know.
It's not an impulse and the only connection is that I find both to be immoral. You guys always try to create the straw man that I'm saying they are related, as if one leads to the other. I guess you guys do that so you can feel like you're making some valid point or something.
Kind of funny how only your side gets to dictate how our society should be without being labeled as assholes or trying to control people. Thing is, we have just as much right to influence and shape our society as you do.
This is so obviously untrue historically that I have to wonder if you're trying to make a point other than what these words indicate. In every society, the family structure has consisted of a mother, father and the children. What is it you think represent this variety you speak of?
Didn't say I was so I wonder what made you say this.
That comment contains quite a bit of religious bigotry. Equating gay marriage to moral degradation is bigoted.
It also ignores the fact that religion has historically looked the other way or even encouraged that 13-year-old marrying the 40-year-old, so long as the older partner was male and the younger female.
Religion persecutes those who harm nobody while engaging in consensual relations as adults, and defends the harming and legal enslavement of children for the sexual pleasure of men.
How is allowing consenting adults to marry controlling people? It's the opposite.
“How is allowing consenting adults to marry controlling people? It's the opposite.“
.
There is only one group attempting to control people, and it’s almost always done under the muddied and muddled interpretations of those up on that Steep Hill. And from the Steeple they a tempt and assert to pervert, as the perversion of the incursion to fight “against “ control over an a tempt to be a Pro whilst simultaneously a Con, strolls into territory i feel tends to troll under a tunnel of sighs, that can only bridge US further a part of A whole is the result and the toll, house cookie cutlets too many be Conned into the job they were never appointed. 47 never anointed, for needed is the ointment to quell the uprising of pseudo fears who create actual tears from peep holes unable to see and be gay and Happy U C, just as they don’t wish to be told how to live,
they seem to not be lucid of the hippocracy they tend to give,
as asserted attempts to control others
about who is aloud under covers
is three sheets to the wind up marching soldiers banned from band camp cause they lost their pie eyed pipers’ cub, four clauses shed and shred light infractions hell bent on distractions depleting the traction’s as peeled out are the layers of sinking foundations, just like our nations’, that was built on the bedrocks,
that Fred Flintstone is undermining like only an animated attention starved
Drama Queen attention fiend can’t help but beg for, all as he has been locked out like the prehistoric cat he was attempting to put out for the night, cause the ones who use such issues to confuse the tissues, that can cause quite the mess, whence the Happy tissues become confused and a distraction from the true concerns that the tissues required to blow one knows, that the true meaningful issues get engulfed in deep flames of snot asz important tissues hiding so many of the true issues that should be the real ones attracting the real concerns.
It reminds of that slippery slope, where as we are told once one gun law goes in effect, there will not be a way to interject in the removal of an amendment second to the first and third play absurd when called out for balking at running to walk the next player via nay sayer in what is read about red meet to vegan defeat by the thousands of small paper cold cuts the cheese melt formunda the deck dealt , a trump card to fealty regard felt, buy an insecure not won cast spelt by that which spells division through incision that cuts out our higher ground that once we held high, now it’s smoke mirrors and hair and heir dying and die ing eggs zactly that witch we cannot have afforded to be on bored with, as all are instruments used by gravity to bring US Down, as we have not leaders to look up, just lying cheaters to destruct the more perfect Union, that has brought about a less perfect Division, that multiplied, while distracted and Lied Too,
like the carried tune in the decisive decision, that when lied, will subtract when Lied Too
Please read the quoted comment again more carefully. I stated that persecution was not the right word, did I not? So why do you have me saying it's persecution? And while I can see how you arrived at "war on Christians", that would not accurately reflect what I meant by war. The war I meant concerns what morality is and who ultimately determines what that is. It is not a war "on" any group specifically, it's a war "between" competing beliefs concerning these things. Therefore, it would be as accurate to say the war is on atheists as much as it is on Christians, for instance. The war between "progressive Christian movements" and actual Christians. It is societal struggle for these things on a macro level.
All of you are reading my comments on the wrong level. You all think I'm talking about specific or individual things. I'm not. I'm talking about what societies are based on and who gets to decide that? I already know none of you are going to agree with my views on those individual or specific things so I would not waste my time trying to convince you to hold some other view.
Rather, I'm trying to get you all to back up a bit and see the bigger picture. It was once inconceivable that gay marriage would be an accepted practice. Now it is. It was once inconceivable that children would be allowed, and even encouraged, to make irreversible, life altering modifications to their own bodies based on the feelings of the moment, a decision they could not possibly be prepared to make. Worse, even having the government do all it can to encourage it and make it happen. Now it is a reality in many places. Anyone who says it's inconceivable that, in the not-too-distant future, children will be encouraged to marry adults if they feel like it. People will be able to marry their animals or themselves or have group marriages.
Know why? Because once you mess with the standard, what you mess with reality and declare something untrue as true, it's inevitable. I've already shown you examples in the previous paragraph that have actually happened. It's the shift from preferring what is true to what you want to be true. The move from duty and values to hedonism.
Leading question. How your side attempts to control society concerning this issue is attempting to force those who disagree with gay marriage to accept it as legitimate on some level. Hence, suing a baker for refusing to make a gay-themed wedding cake or refusing to photograph a gay wedding. Forcing them to participate in something they think is wrong. People who reject their friends because they do not have the proper supportive attitude toward gay people. Campaigns to portray those like me as bigoted because of my views when in reality, I'm only bigoted in your view and according to your worldview, rather than some agreed upon standard. Are you bigoted because you reject pedophiles as a legitimate sexual orientation suitable for society? Yes, you are, from their point of view.
We have different beliefs. The point behind everything I've said in this thread is, who decides what beliefs are, or should be, a part of what makes up our society? You guys just assume that your beliefs are the ones on the side of angels so, automatically, I'm the bad guy because I don't agree. The question is, who made you, or your side, the arbiter of such things? What authority do you claim to decide I'm bigoted, especially when all your charge of bigotry rests on is that I'm not in agreement with your moral standards? Why should your standards be the standards rather than mine?
Obergefell doesn't address gay wedding cakes or photographers.
An attempt to overturn it is controlling the actions of adults in a supposedly free society.
My standards are in accordance with my Constitutional right to freedom from religion. Yours are in opposition to it. I'm not trying to stop you from marrying anybody. Theocrats are trying to take away my friends' right to be married. One of us is for freedom. One opposes it.
Um. Care to explain that?
Actually, I am in opposition to your interpretation of what the Constitution has to say on the subject, not in opposition to the Constitution itself. That's the point you're not getting. In other words, you are behaving in the same manner you claim I'm behaving.
Not really. As I have said many times before, if two guys want to live their lives as if they were married, that's their business. I object to it being called a marriage in both the definitional sense and legal sense, since, in my view, it's neither. It should be called something else. Else it is forced on society as something legitimate when it isn't to a great many people.
sandy isn't a priest, preacher, youth minister, or a republican politician. try asking one of them ...
gee, I wonder whatever happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
[✘]
It's pretty self-explanatory.
Religious institutions often support, and have even forced, the marriage of underage girls to men much older than themselves. On occasion, they are even forced to marry men who have raped them.
Once trapped in marriage, due to lack of financial resources and early pregnancies, they are de facto slaves of the men they've married.
The Tahirih Justice Center webpage contains multiple stories of women forced to marry early, by religious parents, to religious men, who were then abused. This is Morgan's. Her forced marriage happened near where I live.
Here is Trevicia's story, even more chilling:
Tough beans.
What makes it different?
the associated churches getting a pay day ...
that child bride bullshit is still happening in the LDS deseret west ...
Unethical exploitative business practices are not "legitimate" to a great many people either, but are generally legal. As long as gay marriage is legal its legitimate.
Do you think Elon Musk became the richest man in the world by being mainly ethical? I seriously doubt it. But the rich write the laws, so why shouldn't the "woke" get to write a few laws?
How do you come to that definition?
About what I expected you to say. These things do happen but they are exceptions, not the rule. These stories represent just one way in which parents of any background can be horrible to their children and is not therefore exceptional simply because religion is involved in some way.
I see that you, and everyone else jumping on the righteous indignation bandwagon aren't going to answer my question. Since you aren't likely to, then I'm done here. I'm here to have a discussion, not provide you guys entertainment. Have a nice day.
You’re just in love with this prejudiced analogy, aren’t you? You keep bringing it up. I can’t think of a reason why 40 year old men would be marrying 13 year old boys, but you are obsessed with this idea. Don’t ask me to explain your obsession or to explain it away. It’s up to you to justify this bizarre take, not me. “Anything can happen” is not a reasonable argument.
Homophobic bigotry is often based on this feeble claim that marriage has some kind of eternal, never changing form, but nothing could be further from the truth.
First of all, for millennia, marriage generally was an institution for the rich or powerful. Regular peasants just shacked up with each other. That’s because for a long time, marriage was a tool of political or economic contracts and alliances and regular poor folk had neither money nor power. The idea of consenting adults joining together in logeal matrimony on their own volition because of romantic love is barely two centuries old, perhaps less.
There is nothing special or biblical about monogamy. Usually, religious conservatives are the ones claiming some immutable standard for marriage, but the Bible is replete with a variety of adult arrangements.
Adam and Eve, for example are not even married. They just live together and make babies. Abraham fathered children with both his wife and her slave. By Hebrew law, a married man also married the widow of his deceased brother, and she had no say in the matter (aka forced bigamy). In fact, several men in the Bible have multiple wives. Solomon had 700 wives and even more concubines. Female POWs were given to soldiers and expected to submit to them sexually. Male and female slaves could be forced by their masters to be with each other.
So don’t bother trying to sell me on the idea that there is some biblical gold standard for marriage that involves only one man and only one woman.
No, because, as I have said, and you deliberately ignore, the 13 year old is not a consenting adult.
Murder and littering are immoral, too, but you don’t seek to equate those acts with gay marriage. The only one bringing up the 13 year old is you. You bear full responsibility.
Not at all. My “side” isn’t trying to tell you who you can or cannot marry. That’s all your side.
All of your whining about persecution and a war against Christianity or society (which I assume you to mean Christian society).
gee, that takes the fun out of most theological discourse ...
So, you know it's happening, but want us to ignore it. "Pay no attention to the rapist slaveowner behind the pulpit."
But them gays, now, they're immoral.
In the comment to which I replied, you did not ask a question. You made a statement about how you thought gay marriage isn't marriage, and shouldn't be called that.
You don't get to dictate the definition of marriage for others.
That is correct. However, you ignore the fact that the statement wasn't made in isolation but, rather, in support of the question.
Nor do you get to change the definition to fit your desires.
Beliefs should be grounded in sound evidence. Without such grounding one could literally believe anything.
If one believes that homosexual marriages are categorically wrong then one should be able to make a [fact | strong-evidence]-based case as to why. Homosexuals are a natural consequence of biology. Why deny adult, sane, willing homosexuals the societal rights and privileges of marriage?
And just stick with the basics: two adult human beings committing themselves to each other. Pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, incest, etc. are clearly very different circumstances.
your deity isn't an american citizen and has no vote, or rights, beyond the establishment clause ...
My married lesbian friends are married, despite what you say. I didn't have to change a thing.
YOU, of course, had to, to claim that "one man, one woman" marriage is biblical, because the Bible was hunky-dory with polygyny and the owing of sex slaves (only by men, of course). Your definition is not consistent with its own source.
$5 Million will get It there.
vagitarians?
I got to run all the LGBTQ leads in my sales organization, because everybody else had their heads up their asses. breaking into those referral networks moved me into another income bracket and I can thank the restaurant industry for enlightening me.
thumpers will never effect change on this planet, despite 2+ millennium of threats, intimidation, and millions of innocent deaths ...
Except, "Biblical Marriage" is actually between one man and one woman and another woman and another woman and so on and so on and sometimes also with their servants and handmaidens...
It would have to show itself
I'm a fan of Mrs. Betty Bowers.
I think getting the necessary documentation for citizenship would be a problem. Who signed God's birth certificate? Himself? There's a problem with the timeline there.
Officially the Catholic Church does not recognize marriages not sanctioned by the Catholic Church or performed by a Catholic priest. Which, has zero effect as to any marriage's legality!
And, don't even think about getting approved for a divorce...
like cain got his wife from another village. it's hilarious when xtians try to build on top of non-load bearing walls. the LDS church foundations are collapsing into their basements as we speak ...
he'd never get across the border, and if he did, his psycho hypocrite believers would have him deported ...
oops, no real xtian has $5 million in cash ...
It's not that difficult a concept to understand, Tacos! Once it was A. Then the gays came along and made it A and B. Then the trans made it A and B and C. Then they destroyed any identity having to do with gender and kids and people started to come up with some sexuality no one ever heard of before just to outdo each other and we ended up with A and B and C and an infinite subset somewhere between C and D. The point, Tacos!, is where does it end and what's the criteria for it ending???? What if E is adults and kids having sex if both consent? Who are you to stop them if you're not personally involved?
Pretty sure you understand this but chose to go with the ad hominem attack instead.
This thread has turned into a clown show and echo chamber.
As opposed to insisting on morality being determined by one's own thoughts on what a deity whose existence is not evidenced would want. That's not an echo chamber at all.
I am sure that he would not have a problem producing the documents... Proving he was a citizen... "Where is 1 Pearly Gate Drive? Is That in California?"
Minors are incapable of consenting. Even if they so desire.
No it wasn’t. It was never A. I just demonstrated that to you by listing just some of the many ways adults hook up according to the law in the Bible. Let me say that again: it has never been just one way. Your entire premise there is incorrect.
I have no idea. Why do you need for it to end? How is it impacting your life?
A key feature of human civilization is that we are always learning new things. Gay people have always existed. Gay animals exist. It is an ordinary variation. However, over the course of the last century plus, we (meaning sexual and psychological experts) have studied the phenomenon and come to learn quite a bit about it that we never even conceived of before. That’s why gay marriage isn’t as traditional. We didn’t understand it.
We now understand that being gay is not some kind of moral failing, nor is it dangerous. Good, intelligent people - many of whom are devoted followers of Christ or some other religion - happen to be attracted to someone of their sex rather than another sex. They seek to express their love for another through the bonds of matrimony. Because they cannot make their own children, they often adopt and exist in healthy, loving families.
You have no right to deny them that. You also have no right to marginalize them by creating unnecessary, exclusionary laws intended to restrict their pursuit of happiness. You may say they should settle for civil unions, but that is unacceptable. It still marginalizes them. You like civil unions so much? You go first.
Save that whining. I have already told you I don’t buy into this right wing victimization bullshit. Nobody has attacked you - only your point of view.
You say these things because you believe you have the moral grounds to do so. Where does your morality come from and what authority do you appeal to in order to back it up?
Do not say "The Constitution", since it is just the product of a human mind and is demonstrably fallible. The initial provisions of the Constitution protected slavery, for instance, and needed to be corrected. This means that the Constitution can be made to say whatever we want it to say, and therefore, cannot be the source. Put another way, the Constitution is not the source of morality. That is, the Constitution doesn't tell us what morality is. It's the other way round. The constitution is just a record of what we think morality consists of.
Um, yeah. What you said was:
Rather than address the point and subsequent question I raised, you responded with this. Now, I don't feel victimized by this in the least, primarily because your good opinion of my moral viewpoint is completely unnecessary to my peace of mind. I am not bothered in the least by what anyone in here says about me and, for that reason, would not consider myself a victim of any of you.
What does bother me greatly, however, is that I am trying to engage in something meaningful with you and all I get is the same tired effort to shame me for my beliefs. I accept that your morality is not the same as mine. I have not, nor will I, denigrate you for holding your beliefs. Instead, I am trying to engage you concerning why you believe your morality is better or more justified than mine by demonstrable objective evidence. Instead, I have to waste my time listening to how much you despise my morality, as if that wasn't something I already know.
So, for the last time. what makes you think your morality, and those who agree with it, should be the basis of our society rather than mine and those who think like me? How do you justify it?
This law is not about 'them' or pedophiles. . . .is it? So that is laying an opening for a "rabbit-hole."
Why? You did not bother to clarify. And, I just know you wish to be clear in this discussions. Tell us what a pedophile worldview has to do with same-sex marriage approved and law in the United States.
Do tell us plainly why this not another 'rabbit hole' for the discussion to get lost inside.
That is not persecution or demonization. Persecution and demonization manifests as exclusion and violence, not as inclusion, diversity, and equality of opinion and living conditions.
Political warfare on the LGBTQ community is offensive. Time for the LGBTQ community to stop defending itself from attack and go on the offensive to protect itself.
So is religion.
You presume that morality must come from an authoritative source.
Why do you think that is necessary? Do you not see that morality differs culturally (and even individually based on their experiences)? Do you accept the possibility that morality is learned? That we learn to understand the difference between right and wrong based on a history of human beings engaging in trial and error (reinforcement learning)? That morality is ultimately a set of learned guidelines whose effect have been shown to be advantageous to a culture?
It should be obvious why we find it immoral to murder someone ... especially those who are defenseless and innocent like children. This is likely an easily learned lesson. It is no mystery why we would have learned that stealing, lying, rape, slavery, etc. are ultimately bad for civil society.
Not only does morality as an emergent property of living and interacting with other beings explain the basics, it also explains why cultures will differ in details of morality. Why some cultures will murder daughters if they disgrace the family name, or why some cultures did not consider slavery to be immoral. And why morality differs (in details) among individuals due to their different experiences and mental states.
The notion that morality must come from God is begging the question. It essentially argues that since morality must come from an authoritative source greater than a human mind (a presupposition), and since morality exists it must have come from such an authoritative source. And then this argument goes on to say that this authoritative source matches the definition of God.
My view is that common, societal/cultural morality evolved naturally just as language evolved naturally. We learned what is ultimately in the best interests of human beings coexisting in a social order.
And i would say that it is still evolving even today .
Hence the conflicts we see due to disagreements .
That 'dig' about "war on Christians" is a self-styled fear-mongering that is used 'every' voting cycle to turn out Christians for any number of conservative causes. It's propaganda and its a utility device that works. Pastors on the political Right are actively using the tactic to galvanize the vote against those they CHOOSE to demonize—the other utility device.
My advice is the LGBTQ community and associates go on the offensive against it.
The point is conflagration. Homosexuals do not 'slide' into pedophilia or bestiality (with dogs). The comment is offensive and show a lack of respect for a proper discussion since you have been told this already (time and time again).
Yes, Christians have had the 'run of the place' in this country and world for many years but that does not make give Christians ownership and make tradition a possession of Christians alone. Christians should not be jealous of others. It goes against what Spirit teaches.
What you find immoral is a matter of faith. . . and opinion based on what you are 'taught.' We will remind the collective "you" essentially that there is no linkage to what a pedophile does with a non-consenting child and what consenting adults—either sex do together, thereby causing no harm to one another. BTW, there are many forms of what you would call immorality and yet you do not link either of those to your deliberate and offensive 'pick' of immorality in this discussion.
That’s some bullshit right there. You want to interfere in someone else’s life, and when they object, you demand they produce authority for resisting that interference. Meanwhile, you have demonstrated no authority to tell other people who they can or cannot marry.
I have explained that homosexuality is natural, healthy, and safe. This is very well studied and understood now. It is therefore incumbent on you to explain why gay people should be treated differently than straight people.
I believe you should be ashamed for the belief. But even that is merely an attack on the belief, not you personally. Still, the ease with which you are distracted by that, and focus on what you claim are ad hominem attacks, shows that you aren’t prepared to make an actual, persuasive argument justifying this exclusion of gay people from the institution of marriage.
The last time? It’s the first time. I never said gay marriage should be the basis for society. I don’t even know what you mean by “basis for society” or how that would work.
Not long ago in America, homosexuality was criminalized. It still is in some parts of the world. There is no valid justification for that. Even where it is decriminalized, denying basic rights to people just because they are gay is similarly unjustified, and rooted - as Justice Kennedy explained - in an irrational animus. I share that opinion.
If correlation is proof of causation, then the only conclusion must be that being and evangelical youth leader or pastor is an obvious and almost irrefutable indicator of pedophilia...
People who continue with argument do not deserve to be engaged. It's the same argument time and again.
The difference is "your side" is offensive and mean-spirited and 'driven' to drive into other people's lives in a country we are repeatedly (and delusional apparently) to believe is free. Influence people to be free as long as they do no harm: Nobody can disagree with "your side' over and about that! Stop meddling, mocking, and demonizing and effectively dividing people (voters) because that is evil personified.
Or, anybody willing to take on the arduous task of working with youth today—including team sport coaches.
To be clear, my point is homosexuality is not pedophilia and that should be obvious when explained ONCE to a person who has been misinformed or 'clumsy' on the subject matter. Homosexuals seek consenting relationships on the adult spectrum, while pedophiles seek out intimacy and relationships with minors. And, oh, by the way, pedophilia has its on 'branch' on the sexual attraction 'tree.'
Yes. Still, I, we, have to push back (and even go on the offensive) 'everywhere' because letting certain reprobates and 'repeaters' have the floor to themselves is understood by him or her to be winning. They are not winning. They are evil and vindictive people and nobody should let them alone as they strike out to destroy other people's lives once more!
Bullshit? So, you don't believe you have moral grounds for your position? Or do you believe you do not need some authority to which to appeal to in order to justify your moral position? That is, it's valid just because you feel it is? You say "I have explained that homosexuality is natural, healthy, and safe. This is very well studied and understood now" but don't seem to realize such a view is only held by you and those who think as you do. You think as you do because you start from certain presuppositions before believing what you do about homosexuality. For those who do not share those presuppositions, your argument is flawed and erroneous.
No, it's not, since that isn't the subject I'm addressing here. Nor would I waste my time attempting such a thing. I will attempt, again, to explain the subject I'm addressing.
I believe A. You believe B. It literally doesn't matter what A and B concern when it involves morality. What matters is that neither of us can empirically prove our position is the correct one in the manner of, say, proving that the earth is spherical in shape. The fact is our beliefs concerning whatever subject A and B addresses begin with suppositions held before even addressing the subject that informs A and B.
If that is true, then upon what basis do you claim your morality is superior to mine? If you think I'm literally asking you to prove that it is, you haven't understood anything I've said because what I've said also prevents me from being able to prove mine is superior to yours in an inarguably objective sense. While I believe mine is superior to yours, I can't objectively prove it in the sense that I can prove the world is spherical in shape. This is because we start from different suppositions and that is the point. So, the purpose of the question is to get you to realize this, not to actually answer it. That is why I keep asking you to present the authority behind your position.
At this point, the question becomes, why am I trying to make this point? The reason is twofold.
One reason is the responses I have received to the things I've said in this thread. I am trying to have a conversation about a topic that interests me and all I receive is grade school responses. I find that intently frustrating. Not because they affect me emotionally. They don't. I'm frustrated because everything anyone says, with the exception of TiG, are simply personal attacks rather than attempts to address the subject. My guess is that Perrie is, on some level, frustrated by what she has provided. A place where ideas can be discussed. But that isn't what this place is. It's just a platform for one side to taunt the other.
The other, more important reason is to get you, and others, to realize that because someone disagrees with your point of view doesn't necessarily imply evil intent or that their position is wrong. While I could have an argument with you as to why homosexuality is immoral, doing so would be pointless without first attempting to change your presuppositions. If I said something about the immorality of homosexuality that changed your opinion, it wouldn't be because I proved homosexuality is wrong. It would be because I said something that changed your presuppositions. In the mean time, I recognize that you don't hold the beliefs you do because you intend evil. I recognize that you hold the views that you do because you believe that they are moral and I treat you that way.
Do you honestly believe an objective reader, with no stake in the conversation would read this quote....
... would not consider this a personal attack? You aren't addressing what I said, you're questioning my motive for saying it.
That would be because it isn't the subject I am addressing.
(sigh) I'm frigging not talking about gay marriage as the basis for society. I'm literally speaking of whatever your personal morality is, regardless of subject. You have some idea of what society should be, yes? What makes your view of whatever that is more morally relevant than someone else's? Upon what authority to you base your claims on???
Don't you get it? I'm not asking you to accept my moral claims simply because you can't empirically refute them. I'm asking you to understand that your moral views are simply that. Your moral views. That you hold them does not translate that they are therefore empirically moral. If you can do that, then you would take the following statement made by you as I do...
That doesn't bother me in the least. In fact, I appreciate the honesty, although I already assumed as much. I understand that such a view stems from your view of morality and therefore, don't take it personally. That is, I agree that someone who acts immorally should feel shame. That we don't agree on what is moral in certain things doesn't negate that.
And therein lies the problem. We both feel we are acting, or speaking, morally. Hence, why I keep hounding you about whence comes your authority. How else will we resolve who's right, if that's even possible? Our personal opinion is insufficient.
Equality under the US Constitution trumps what you believe!
The only ones starting with presuppositions are the religious conservatives who start the debate at "Homosexuality is a sin". Rational persons without presuppositions listen to the facts and science which clearly shows homosexuality is natural, healthy, and safe. Science doesn't care about dip shit bible thumpers opinions; it doesn't give a fuck if you think "it's gross" or "it's a sin".
You start with a presupposition. I listened to the debate and listened to the evidence and seeing that NO ONE IS HARMED by two adults choosing to marry one another, I see no reason why not to rule in their favor. There is ZERO evidence that any religious conservative is harmed by any gay couple getting married. Those are the facts.
If your view is that gay marriage is immoral because God said so, then no one needs to "empirically refute" your claim. You can't empirically prove your God exists, so why should anyone spend even a moment trying to dispel your unproven beliefs? I understand that you believe you hold moral views, and you're entitled to that. However, unless you can prove either you or other religious conservatives are harmed by other people choosing to be gay and get married then keep your unproven beliefs and live them all you want, but keep them out of our laws and government. This is not a Christian nation, we have NO established religion and thus basing ANY laws on religion or banning consensual relationships between adults because of religious beliefs would violate the constitution.
Color me surprised. A Christian who isn't bothered by bullying others, claiming unproven moral superiority and forcing their morality on society around them? I'm shocked I tell you, shocked... /s
Oh I do have moral support. But I’m not trying to inflict my beliefs on your behavior, so I’m not obligated to justify it to you.
Our society, which you have referenced, holds personal liberty and the freedom to associate as foundational to our beliefs. Additionally, we believe that people should be treated equally under the law.
So, if the state is going to sanction marriage, it must do so with respect for those values.
You want to use the state to violate my liberty. You want the state to make it illegal for me to have a state recognized marriage with another consenting adult because of our sex.
You must justify this intrusion. The state has already tried and failed to justify it. “It’s immoral” has been your only justification, so far. That is insufficient. You speak of moral authority, but the only authority you have cited is your own personal feeling. Again, that is insufficient.
It’s not simply people who think as I do. I have already explained to you that this is the consensus of experts in the fields of biology and psychology. It is defined in educational and reference texts with the characterization I have used.
False. As a child, I thought homosexuality was weird and unnatural. It was common in our culture to fear and mock homosexual people. I had to learn about it before I came to my present understanding. It has nothing to do with presuppositions.
No, this is shifting the goalposts. The seed is about laws prohibiting gay marriage and so is the discussion.
No, you're not. I'm asking for the sake of discussion. That is, unless we both realize that, as individuals, our beliefs are just that; beliefs. I'm asking you to engage me on that level. Apparently, you are unwilling.
Since this appears to be the case, I will not trouble either of us further. Have a nice day.
Actually I think have justified my position very well. Especially in my previous post. Guess you chose not to read it.
Really? Prove your golden calf is the source of morality, then.
The most likely source(s) of morality is societal evolution.
Yes. Not only did you justify your position with what you said, I also attribute to you all the arguments I've heard in support of your argument that you didn't mention. I know them all. Well done. What you have not done is demonstrate why those justifications trump the justifications of my position.
You are arguing B from the condition of A without establishing A is actually what you believe it is. The difference between us is that I recognize this but, apparently, you do not. Instead, you argue B as if we both agree on A. We do not. I cannot prove A any more than you can, in empirical terms, so I'm no more able to prove B than you are. Because of that, I speak to you on that level. You, however, do not.
To put it differently, I believe you are blind to morality because you do not know my God. I also know that you believe the same thing about me. That I am blind because I don't understand whatever it is that informs your notion of morality. That is A. Don't you realize that arguing B, your notions concerning homosexuality for instance, which constitutes B, are meaningless unless we agree on A? Respectively, A is our source of morality. If we cannot agree on that, what point is there in arguing B?
For that reason, I have refused to engage you on the morality of homosexuality beyond my stating that I believe it is immoral. It would be a waste of time. In order to have a meaningful discussion about it, we'd first have to start from the same place, which, obviously, we don't. So, why would I bother? Rather, I'd much prefer to engage you on why we differ on the subject to begin with.
Based on your comments my morals stand on their own...
They are based on my ability to discern right from wrong!
Why would my comments be necessary for your morality to stand on their own?
And what is that ability based on?
I 'find' that, and this is going to come off strange coming from me - a Christian and religious person, but let me say this on my behalf: I take my faith seriously and deeply enough to make it make sense and make it stand on its 'own' in its truth. I won't twist it to allow for my points of view. . . just to 'belong' and so I call out the 'big crap talkers' and am angry with them 'all day long.' So then, I find that some people are hand-fed there beliefs and because they want to remain in the "center of the will" of there belief structure and rise in it. . . they go along to get along or accept anything that is given them for its own sake of belonging.
Therefore, such people are religionists, and zealots, running around imagining they are afflicting themselves for God - when God has no need of their activities which actually are an offense and spiritually directionless. They can not properly defend themselves so they just act-out.
Well, for the LGBTQ+ community it is time to act out again and not allow themselves to be cornered and quartered by any group of zealots-be they religious confused or just Stupids are as stupid does.
There is no war between progressive/liberal Christians and evangelical Christians. Because it takes two offensive sides in order to fight and progressive Christians simply strive to keep their Christian opposites off their turf. It begs the question that some would not honor their Lord by not starting a 'hatefest' and separation in the midst of our singular faith, simply because they can't abide living in peace with the Other. But, let's learn more about this 'war' between self-styled "actual" Christians and the Other less genuine Christians under the 'tent.' Put it all out there for public consumption—already.
A digression. The above commits to 'fatalism' but then has expectations of us accepting what exactly: hope?! Incredible.
Now that's entrenched thinking, I see. It has been explained time and time again that homosexuals do not 'sleep' with children/minors at all. That is a different class of sexuality with its own definition and structure. . . for which it it ever becomes an growing "addition" instead of one suffered in this society-for it is already looked at/over in some places in the world. . .it still won't exist because of SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. Just realize that pedophilia is illegal and immoral because it involves children of both sexes: males and females. Not just one sex: males or females.
We will tirelessly call out this conflation and ineptness to concede to a fact as often as it needs to be done.
That's bull crap. And it is easy to falsify: 'Somebody' in this discussion is arguing for the sanctity of marriage as the standard, right?
But, has admitted to not being married or ever planning to marry.
So much for marriage being the standard. . .s/he won't even 'partake' and live a "satisfying" life before his or her God in a spiritual bond with another.
Now then the question: If marriage is the standard to teach, why the "hell" are so many so-called evangelicals committed to the single life of celibacy? It's obligatory to marry, thus magnifying holiness upon oneself and the marriage partner and any attending offspring.
And somebody wants to discuss hedonism. Let's discuss the pain single Christians of marrying age and consent are avoiding by ignoring their own spiritual "Standard"! (Now who is "messing with" the conservative standard; not doing their religious "duty"—Who?)
Emphatically.
So when did personal opinion become a "legal sense" respected by law in and of itself? More conflation.
Not much. For in marriages (truth be told) sex is performed in various forms, fashions, and positions- in and out of pregnancy-or done so simply for pleasure sake or ease. But the bigoted religious male types want to protect themselves from any hint of being perceived as "penetrable" even if it never-ever could be realized. They simply do not want the temptation (that should not exist for heterosexual males as a position to be in anyway).
I’m pretty sure that is the first time you have mentioned God to me. Previously, you have just said that you personally find it immoral. So, it’s not my fault that I don’t know your God. It’s yours.
Now I no longer know if you decided on your own that homosexuality is immoral, or if you would be fine with it except that God told you it was immoral.
Whatever it is? No, unlike you, I have explained my position in actual detail. It is apparent that you are not interested in engaging with that material.
He needs it for the "narrative" to succeed and divide people asunder. Plus, it's what been 'told' some people who do not test the 'deeper' depths of their faith. Such as this: (I write what comes next by way of explanation and not persuasion to anyone here.)
No man has seen God at any time for men are flesh and God is Spirit, as a result the witness' testimony exist through faith not evidence.
And, that/such faith is thrown from a 'depository' of a book or a set of books. The 'books' are our Faith. That is, we, believers, have belief in a set of books.
(Here is where it gets interesting.)
What we shall now call the 'faith books,' plural, direct us to trust in God for what God alone can do on our behalf and we as mere men and believers can not! The books tell us that. . . it is God who will bring us through this life through faith alone and not by any set of laws. (For it is laws which condemn believers as it is the inherent nature of laws to show us where our 'problem areas/ are and we are condemned by the breaking of a single law.)
What am I saying above? God, nor the 'book' has told these 'zealots' to meddle in the affairs of their fellow citizens or to make a 'mess' of anybody's life: Religious or secular. These religionists are truly bigots and reprobates who have gone after their own way in order to make a false religion of old decrepit laws that have passed away due to God's setting them aside.
You say this as if it were some revelation you just arrived at rather than the numerous times I told you plainly that I will not debate the morality of homosexuality with you. It is also clear by your response that you still don't seem to have a clue as to what I am talking about. At this point, I don't think you ever will. I'm just going to give up trying.
What does morality have to do with anything, especially marriage? Marriage is a legal issue. Morality is irrelevant. Neither does SSM negatively affect you or anyone else or society. So there is no rational or legal basis to oppose or overturn it.
Mine comes from millennia of scientific truth, where yours comes from millennia of dogma, mistranslated and twisted for political bias. Marriage creates stability in a society in whatever forms that takes. This has been demonstrated since humans gathered in groups and continues through today. Outlawing same sex marriage has no logical basis in fact and destabilizing families and communities because of other people's religious dogma is immoral in my opinion.
The basics of this are that marriage between two consenting adults is something personal to them and them only. The legal construct of marriage gives each partner certain rights they otherwise would not have and there is no MORAL basis to deny that to loving partners. Just as the populist left should not mock or deny traditional (trad wife) marriages, the populist right should not mock or deny any others their love and devotion under law.
I found this to be one of the most hilarious things you've said so far. You point out how our constitution must be fallible because it once condoned slavery yet you completely leave out the fact that the bible you cling to also condoned slavery and has never been "corrected".
20 “When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment, for the slave is the owner’s property." Exodus 21:20-21
44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you and from their families who are with you who have been born in your land; they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property." Leviticus 25:44-46
So, I guess that means the same goes for the bible, right? Oh, and don't bother trying to reply with some convoluted rationale based in your own fictional religious doctrine for how the bible can be holy and the unchangeable word of God while also endorsing slavery, incest and polygamy. And I don't expect to convince you to abandon your faith, just stop trying to force it on anyone else, especially when you obviously have no moral leg to stand on.
The parts often used to attack homosexuality are taken out of context and then rendered moot by the the acts and words of their own Savior. It makes absolutely no logical sense to me in any way and until they want to start outlawing Red Lobsters I'll continue to point out the blatant hypocrisy.
You literally started this as a debate on the morality of homosexuality. I asked the question “How does it hurt anyone?” And you responded with:
You brought morality into a discussion of gay marriage, not me.
That's why humans have been "interpreting" the bible for centuries and funny thing, the interpretations almost always support whatever beliefs the interpreter believes. It's been used to justify or vilify just about everything, from condoning slavery, polygamy, incest and murder while also condemning slavery, polygamy, incest and murder depending on the interpreter who will cherry pick and emphasize scriptures that support their position regardless of what the position is. This to me proves there is no divine inspiration contained within, just human inspiration that can be easily manipulated to support whatever belief or position you want while refusing to accept any responsibility for those beliefs claiming they're not "their" beliefs but some higher power's beliefs that isn't answerable to humans.
This is legislation I could get behind.
I have yet to see anyone actually explain how SSM negatively affects them (beyond their own personal feelings or prejuduces) or society in general. Even going back to when legalizing SSM was an issue.
This is precisely what drove me away from the church, to deism, and then to atheism. I had, for a short time, seriously contemplating becoming minister.
Could be physical evolution as well, such as the development of cognitive and emotional brain functions associated with empathy. Empathy I think is a major component, perhaps even the root, of one's moral outlook.
I was a minister for over 20 years but eventually I started reading books other than the bible and studying other religions and faiths after seeing the massive amount of undeserved hubris and hypocrisy among the conservative Christians I was preaching to and among the church I was a part of.
my old drinking and drugging buddy from the 80's once asked me what business should he buy to become wealthy. I jokingly told him to buy a catholic church franchise. fast forward 45 years, I find him on FB. he's married his ex-prostitute girlfriend, turned full maga, and has his own evangelical church. somehow I don't think we have very much in common anymore. true story.
Did you get a royalty from him? You gave him the idea
I've had similar experiences, although I was never a minister.
Indeed, a big red flag when forming one's opinion about pretty much any institution or group, especially those that claim a higher moral ground.
It's difficult to put into words how both disappointing and wonderful people can be. It doesn't take the scare of eternal damnation to be a wonderful example of what a person should be. It doesn't take a commitment to religion or for any person to find wonder, love and fulfillment either. I don't envy, resent or cast aspersions to those who do. I only ask them to return the same courtesy. And if people only spent more time enjoying the ways in which we are all alike and less on how we are different we'd all be better people.
props. hopefully you still dabble enough to take advantage of all the tax exempt dividends available. no christo-fascist would ever question it, and there soon won't be enough IRS agents to investigate many tax returns.
nah, I watched some of his religious feeds. I don't want him to find me, he's gone stark raving maga crazy ...
And, furthermore, he is debating morality of homosexuality. And doing so with a political lens: Likes and Dislikes. The Right and MAGA choose to dislike homosexuality thus they invoke religion as the rationale to express (legitimize) their reason to divide the nation and by extension the world against it.
That's 1 reason I don't bother with morality. It's little more than arguing with appeals to emotion.
I will stand with my Christian beliefs and point out the foolishness as it is too! I, we, can do both! Be faithful, considerate to all, and friend to all. . . without 'doing' everything others do!
We can know that is hatred (dislike) of homosexuality, because heterosexuals do similarly in their relationships and marriages and "the Church" looks the other way and takes no recognition of it. Suddenly, it's a private affair. And all the conservatives 'fall' muted. In the matter of morality, we all have our rights and wrongs. The problem arrives when we try to codify our personal (or collective) biases into law against others simply because we don't like what they do void of any harm to others.
These are the same. . .dumbasses who have something to say against same-sex marriage, while doing NOTHING to protest or stop white power, clans, and self-affected militias from harming innocent people.
Let's deal with that: So it is 'up' to the "Select" (who made them 'God'?) to decide what is "in" and what is "out' for the national culture. And when the supreme court quote, "upends" same-sex marriage what will these CRITICAL THINKERS be using as a measuring stick: Life, liberty, or Prosperity as a basis.
Surely the court will not be using harm, because there is no harm same-sex marriage causes anybody.
I mock only the trad wife marriages where the wife claims to stay home financially dependent on her husband, but monetizes her TikTok channel, or whatever the hell it's called, and actually makes more money than he does.
Or the ones who claim to be all about dressing modestly, but show a lot of cleavage and have the cameras aimed right at it.
The performative ones.
They should be mocked for their dishonesty.
I mock the ones who insist that all women take up that role.
Nuh-uh....not me, Sister
Marriage is not the issue. These sanctimonious jerks don’t want gay people to exist, period.
Two types of marriage; holy matrimony and legal marriage. Someone should remind the SCOTUS that one is LEGAL and NOT a religious event.
meh, there's too many fake thumpers on that bench. but no worries, the coming trump backlash will envelop the theocrats and set them back a century or two. fortunately, when their historical cycle repeats, it usually involves lots of wailing and memorials ...
personally, I always preferred the whole lions and tigers in an enclosed space solution ...
MAGA demand those they, "Don't Believe In", respect their beliefs...
Now how exactly is that supposed to work?
yeah, ask richard that ...
We atheists have been sounding the alarm of creeping Dominionism for many years, while conservatives acted like they’d never heard of it. Sound familiar? Think Project 2025. Thou shalt not lie is apparently a negotiable command.
their 10 commandments are for everyone else and they're at the top of my priority list if the shit ever hits the fan ...
Why is anyone surprised?
During their confirmation hearings, Trump's appointees to the Court all said that Roe was settled law... and they overturned it at the first occasion.
Does anyone think they'll let gay marriage stand?
They won't go after racially mixed marriage as long as Clarence Thomas is there, but when he goes.......
He cannot and will not have it both ways; either all decisions based correctly on substantive due process are correct or
none of them are which would turn us back to Medieval times.
Somehow I don't think Thomas would be bothered by hypocrisy.
No they didn't.
yeah, they did. will seeing the video montage again make you go away?
Of course not. Since when has a reality had any effect at all?
You can't show any such proof of what you claimed.
They said it was a precedent. Which it obviously is. Anyone who claims they testified it was settled law is lying.
They did not call it settled law (a precedent that is so strong that it is unlikely to be overturned) but they sure as hell indicated that Roe v. Wade was a long-standing precedent and gave no indication that they would consider overturning it. And that is in response to questions probing to see if the nominee would consider overturning Roe v Wade.
hey did not call it settled law
Correct. Bob wrongly claimed they did. We will see if the reality of that has any effect at all.
d) but they sure as hell indicated that Roe v. Wade was a long-standing precedent
It was. It was 50 years old. That's a simple fact that no one could deny. Imagine thinking simply agreeing that Roe is 50 years old means something other than recognition that it is 50 years old.
And that is in response to questions probing to see if the nominee would consider overturning Roe v Wade.
Of course they didn't. Do you think they should announce their opinions on a case before they hear it? That would be a breach of ethics.
Read what they said and understand the meaning of their words in context. You will not because you want to argue that they did not use the literal words 'settled law' (chickenshit nit-picking) while ignoring that they danced around that and gave the senators answers sufficient to convince them that they are not a threat to overturning Roe v Wade.
But, as we all know, they were indeed a threat to Roe v Wade.
I do. I don't think you do.
round that and gave the senators answers sufficient to convince them that they are not a threat to overturning Roe v Wade.
That's delusional.
When the next democrat nominates a justice they will testify: "dobbs is a precedent of the Court . It's 10 years old. It's entitled to deference as a precedent. I'll evaluate any challenge in line with how the court handles precedent. I can't, of course, testify whether as to whether I'll vote to overturn it"
They will say the exact same things as Kavanaugh and then vote to overturn Dobbs. Only a fool would think that such testimony serves as a promise not to overturn it.
Not a surprise that you refuse to recognize that they used words suggesting that Roe v. Wade was safe.
I don’t think that’s necessary. Where I think people have an issue in the confirmation hearings is when nominees are asked their opinions on settled cases and they only respond with the thing we already know: “it’s precedent.” It would be perfectly reasonable - and honest - for a nominee to declare that they think Roe or Griswold or Miranda, etc was decided wrongly or rightly. Sitting justices do that all the time. And we all had to do it in law school. The Senate should insist on that minimal level of candor.
All they did was make general, generic statements of fact and describe the deference due and factors to consider when overturning precedent. It was general, formulaic tripe that serves as little more than a generalized intro to the process of con law. Anyone who took it as something else is projecting their own political desires.
I think Kagan was correct when she testified "it's inappropriate for a nominee to ever give any indication of how she would rule in a case that would come before the Court. And I think, too, it would be inappropriate to do so in a somewhat veiled manner by essentially grading past cases."
I don't think that will change anytime soon.
Ummm... TiG... You agreed with Sean. Don't bother to try to walk that back. That's impossible. If you agree with one single word, you will inevitably be presented as agreeing with everything.
You should know that by now.
Gee bob, you get caught spreading misinformation and rather than take responsibility and admitting it you make it personal.
I guess we now know reality doesn't have any effect at all on progressive talking points.
I doubt anyone is surprised. It was probably expected.
The definition of "marriage" has evolved enormously over the millennia. For most of recorded history, marriage has been primarily a property contract. For most of recorded history, marriage has been polygamous. For most of recorded history, marriage has been indifferent to race (because "race" is a relatively recent sociological construct).
The limitations that ignorant fools want to put on marriage today are ridiculous.
they want it to be another one of those "only thumpers can join" bullshit clubs ...
Ignorant people often think that their personal experience is the same for everyone else and for all time.
Fair point.
In much of the world, it still is.
Meh. That's probably fair about our modern (idiotic) fixations on race, but there has always been some level of drama around marrying outside whatever is designated as an acceptable social/cultural group.
Old habits die hard.
I have not read through the comments above yet, but let me state here and now. Don't just look at what MAGA wishes to do (harm) to transfolks, LGBTQ folks, and women. . . they are coming for YOU: 'NEXT!'
MAGA is friend to MAGA—Only.
First they came for the Communists....
Remember when we told only a few months ago that Project 2025 was a nothing burger, move along folks, nothing to see here, the sky is not falling....
Yeah, well....
They knew they were lying. We knew they were lying. And get this, so-called, "God's people" are using evil means to achieve their ends of 'lifting' the rights and freedoms of other people off of them! How are these evil religionists any different than other destroyers of the rights, liberties, and freedoms of others. They are not!
They are even bunglers of their own Faith! Making it unworthy to be shared with anybody outside of themselves.
The more important part was that we knew they were lying.
'MAGA, MAGA, why are you persecuting LGBTQ people'?
The "B" in LGBTQ is a human qualifier: Bisexual. Not Bestiality. In addition, there is isn't any 'P' at all for "Pedophile" in the acronym. We expect the uninitiated and the misinformed to wise up before they engage others in open discussion about same-sex marriage or its moral value.
I challenge 'anybody' willing to engage to a discussion on the moral/value of same-sex marriage and same-sex relationships.
I don't think they know what any of those letters stand for...don't forget the + . That gives them carte blanche to add anything they want
And Again...
We have had enough of the hatred! Enough of their damn threats and religiously evil ways! Especially the insincere smiles and "god loves you" while they lie, cheat, and suck the civil rights and human rights out of others!
Condemn the offense of religious bigotry- NOW!
lol.
Do you have any idea how desperate this persecution complex makes you look to non crazy people ?
The government isn't executing gays. And those places that do, Gaza, Iran etc., are the favorites of progressives.
Legislating suppression of same-sex marriage is a type of destruction. And, it ain't going to make our society any healthier. Indeed, it will be a national setback. So don't go patting yourselves, plural, on the head and shoulders. Now share with us, please: What about homosexual marriage offends MAGAs the most. I'm curious. Let's discuss.
You must understand, CB: the "freedom" that MAGA requires is the freedom to impose their ideas on everyone. If you try to limit their power to impose their will, then you are infringing on their "freedom".
"Freedom" is for MAGAs only.
That rationale of itself is not and can neve be the whole story. We must not allow it to be - not here; not there!
It's what America voted for.
"MAGA"-America. It's a fine distinction, certainly.
MAGA got a majority.
Trump got a majority of electoral votes because of how we count them (winner-take-all in most states). He won a plurality of the popular votes cast. It’s an even smaller plurality if you include eligible voters who just didn’t vote.
Just saying that he keeps claiming this overwhelming landslide victory and mandate, and that is just not factually the case.
I completely agree that he didn't get a mandate, and even less a landslide. He got either a very slim majority or a plurality.
Whatever.
He won, and will proceed with the destruction of democracy in America.
Oh but as long as we maintain our democracy. . . the 'phoenix' can rise again! Think positive!
Then what would you call Elon ?
(clever)
"Do you, Elon Musk, want to be my unlawfully empowered work wife, do all my dirty work in secret, own the libs with me and remake this government to work better for us, white male billionaires?"
"I do."
Lots of things...
Because some people are more equal than others.
Animal Farm
Of course, the 'great moralizers' on the site won't enter into an open discussion with someone s/he does not consider a Christian, be that as it may here is my question:
Do the 'great moralizers' on this site want "model" citizens or a country full of "saints"?
They just want to do what they want to do, everyone else be damned
Exactly, Thomas. Exactly.
How long before the people around Trump push government sponsorship of places like Camp Siegfried and Camp Nordland?
It has already begun, with immigrants camped at Guantanamo.
They are not fucking immigrants, they are [deleted] [✘] illegal aliens, if their own countries won't take them back why the fuck should they be allowed to wander around free here?
[deleted] [✘] the illegals sent to guantanamo are violent. It’s amazing how some prefer to keep violent illegals on our streets.
It hasn't already begun. Your statement really just shows how out of touch you really are with what's happening.
I would think one would do even the minimum bit of research before spouting off with nonsense like that.
The camps I referred to were American youth Nazi summer camps.
Camp Siegfried
Another FDR program for the masses.
I didn't know that. Thanks for that info
"Scumbag". Oh.
You know them personally?
Soon...
Fiction.
Bullshit.
the choice between the constitution or theocracy will probably become much more clear to the unprotected very soon.
You mean like these?
When the supreme court quote, "upends" same-sex marriage what will these CRITICAL THINKERS be using as a measuring basis: Life, liberty, or Prosperity. . . something else? What?!
Surely the court will not be using harm, because there is no harm same-sex marriage causes anybody.
Except to the snowflakes of Christianity
thumper trumpsters ...
That is what speaks to a point: Some of the members of the Supreme Court are church-going conservatives in their beliefs. However, the judicial system is a fact-based system which makes decisions in the midst of various factions and petitioners to the high court. Logic would dictate that the master court in our land could not consider any legality less than its "servant' courts.
Therefore, if there is no harmed caused by same-sex marriage to the republic; why 'discover' it? Why do that for a one-sided constituency when actually the court is critically accountable to all-sides of the people?
I find this notion that our high court can be acceptably ideological to conservative or liberal 'whims' is wrong. As judges are to be neutral participants in law (seeking what is 'best' according to written law at all times for the republic) up and down its hierarchy.
We have to get the partisanship out of the court system. It is a corruption that has abided there in our public discussions way to long. We must have someone appoint judges, but we can not have judges deciding cases based on non-critical evaluations of the law leading to ideological 'bent' as means to a certain planned destination.
That is, the republic will be corrupt when judges are merely POLITICIANS expressing their likes and dislikes through the their legal judgement.
Do Muslims support gay marriage?
'Muslim' is not an assigned designator in the United States system of courts. Moreover, nor is Christian. We do have 'them' as resident/s on the courts! Are judges and justices politicians?
Do Christians support terrorism?
Are all Muslims alike? Are Christians, Hindus, Jews, Buddhist etc?
funny, I assume you and others would immediately call them snowflake Muslims
Don't forgo asking. As I do here: Are judges and justices politicians?