T Nation

SCOTUS Takes Up Gay Marriage

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

Society EVOLVES. Get over it.[/quote]

It also DEVOLVES.[/quote]

Of course it does. Civilizations are cyclical. Our empire is in decline. We are now in season of bread and circus. Debauchery is the natural next step. Why fight the inevitable?[/quote]

“We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one thing that can not be taken from a man…” - Oswald Spengler [/quote]

This is a great answer.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]treco wrote:
Grammar? :slight_smile:

On topic
Funny how behavior that has been considered deviant by overwhelming numbers for centuries in this country is now not just tolerated or even accepted, but has plenty of crusaders - even among the non practitioners.

Simple answer: just keep repeating (screeching) the message tirelessly - until it is accepted as the truth.

[/quote]

If we held sacrosanct everything that overwhelming numbers for centuries believed, the world would still be flat, the sun (and the universe) would revolve around earth and spontaneous generation is how things decay…

Society EVOLVES. Get over it.[/quote]

Just because you personally have a low moral standard on top of denying what nature plainly shows to be incorrect - how about you getting over it.

[quote]treco wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]treco wrote:
Grammar? :slight_smile:

On topic
Funny how behavior that has been considered deviant by overwhelming numbers for centuries in this country is now not just tolerated or even accepted, but has plenty of crusaders - even among the non practitioners.

Simple answer: just keep repeating (screeching) the message tirelessly - until it is accepted as the truth.

[/quote]

If we held sacrosanct everything that overwhelming numbers for centuries believed, the world would still be flat, the sun (and the universe) would revolve around earth and spontaneous generation is how things decay…

Society EVOLVES. Get over it.[/quote]

Just because you personally have a low moral standard on top of denying what nature plainly shows to be incorrect - how about you getting over it.
[/quote]

Nature shows that a small amount of the population displays homosexual behavior…come to think of it, sounds exactly like what humans display!

Now we can’t continue on this way if everyone did, but I have excellent news for you:

Despite a small amount of the population of men sleeping with men and with women sleeping with women, my fiance and I are planning on having a baby in our first three years of marriage! So we are going to have kids DESPITE the fact that gays are sleeping together!

[quote]smh23 wrote:

As I’ve noted before, your view of homosexuality would find more support among rural Pakistanis than among my countrymen in the United States of America.

That is evidence enough that it is low on the scale of societal evolution.[/quote]

Actually homosexuality is endemic amongst the Pashtun. It’s considered normal.

Yes 2%, that means 98% doing it the accepted way - hence my statement that homosexuals are deviants.

By the noise and incessant activity generated by this tiny minority and their incomprehensible (to me) white knights and cheerleaders, you would think most people have homosexual preference.

The bottom line is that not a single person in the world is alive because their father was sodomizing his ‘husband’.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

As I’ve noted before, your view of homosexuality would find more support among rural Pakistanis than among my countrymen in the United States of America.

That is evidence enough that it is low on the scale of societal evolution.[/quote]

Actually homosexuality is endemic amongst the Pashtun. It’s considered normal.

http://publicintelligence.net/afghanistan-human-terrain-team-pashtun-homosexuality-report/[/quote]

Woah, I stand corrected.

Certain proponents of Sharia law, then.

Evolution? If anything, gay marriage is a sign of an immature society fixated on the frivolous and silly. On the topic of the public policy of marriage, instead of trying to do something about the weakness of marriage and focus on actually helping children or society at large (what the public policy of marriage is supposed to benefit), all of that is tabled in favor of clamoring for what amounts to legislative Prozac for a tiny minority of society.

Gay marriage doesn’t outrage me or make me angry - it disappoints me. It is emblematic of an unserious society fixed on navel-gazing. This isn’t the new Civil Rights - it’s the old bread and circuses.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
This isn’t the new Civil Rights - it’s the old bread and circuses.[/quote]

Sorry, I totally disagree with this. There’s lots of bread and circus going on, but this isn’t it.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

Sorry, I totally disagree with this. There’s lots of bread and circus going on, but this isn’t it. [/quote]

Doesn’t matter if you disagree with it or not - gay marriage doesn’t solve some large public policy problem nor does it resolve some glaring lack of social/political participation in civil society that amounted to de facto apartheid, as the Civil Rights movement did.

And, as I have stated before, if gay marriage is the moral equivalent of the previous Civil Rights movement, then that means its opponents are the moral equivalent of the opponents of the previous Civil Rights movement, which means that blacks - who overwhelmingly disapprove of gay marriage - are the moral equivalent to the racists that, for example, attacked the civil rights marchers walking from Selma to Montgomery.

Right?

This example demonstrates just how frivolous the whole enterprise is.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

Sorry, I totally disagree with this. There’s lots of bread and circus going on, but this isn’t it. [/quote]

Doesn’t matter if you disagree with it or not - gay marriage doesn’t solve some large public policy problem nor does it resolve some glaring lack of social/political participation in civil society that amounted to [i]de facto[/] apartheid, as the Civil Rights movement did.

And, as I have stated before, if gay marriage is the moral equivalent of the previous Civil Rights movement, then that means its opponents are the moral equivalent of the opponents of the previous Civil Rights movement, which means that blacks - who overwhelmingly disapprove of gay marriage - are the moral equivalent to the racists that, for example, attacked the civil rights marchers walking from Selma to Montgomery.

Right?

This example demonstrates just how frivolous the whole enterprise is.[/quote]

I’ve never said the problem is the moral equivalent of slavery nor does it have to be to present a real civil-rights problem that has a valid solution. Just like you can commit a war crime without being Hitler, invading Poland, or initiating the holocaust. But the treatment of gays in society has been a problem for almost forever and there’s no reason we need to treat this segment of society like shit or like second-class citizens. And a big part of the solution isn’t hurting anyone or creating social chaos like school desegregation. We’ve already de-criminalized sodomy, and this was a big step. Gay marriage is the next big step. “Modern Family” and “Will and Grace” will take care of the rest and the next generation of kids will be much less likely to beat the shit out of the “weird” kid because he’s gay and real, productive adults won’t have to live in the closet or feel like outcasts because of how they were born. Civil rights is largely about human dignity and this is a valid civil-rights issue.

And why the fuck is my post in italics?

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

I’ve never said the problem is the moral equivalent of slavery nor does it have to be to present a real civil-rights problem that has a valid solution. [/quote]

You don’t have to - if it is the “new” Civil Rights movement and people want to say gay marriage is the child of the Civil Rights movement, it has to be morally equivalent.

They are “second class citizens” in the same sense that 16 year olds who cannot vote are “second class citizens”, in that they aren’t allowed to participate in some civic function because there is no policy reason why they should - meaning, they aren’t second class citizens at all.

No, it isn’t - it’s emotionalism disguised as a civil rights concern. Trying to drape it in the garb of “civil rights” to enhance the “seriousness” of it has the counterproductive effect of forcing comparisons like mine and demonstrating how silly the entire thing is when compared to an actual struggle for civil rights.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

I’ve never said the problem is the moral equivalent of slavery nor does it have to be to present a real civil-rights problem that has a valid solution. [/quote]

You don’t have to - if it is the “new” Civil Rights movement and people want to say gay marriage is the child of the Civil Rights movement, it has to be morally equivalent.

They are “second class citizens” in the same sense that 16 year olds who cannot vote are “second class citizens”, in that they aren’t allowed to participate in some civic function because there is no policy reason why they should - meaning, they aren’t second class citizens at all.

No, it isn’t - it’s emotionalism disguised as a civil rights concern. Trying to drape it in the garb of “civil rights” to enhance the “seriousness” of it has the counterproductive effect of forcing comparisons like mine and demonstrating how silly the entire thing is when compared to an actual struggle for civil rights.[/quote]

So are you just bitching about the label? Push and the gun lobby are, IMO, a “civil-rights movement” because they are: (1) a “movement”, i.e., an organized force; and (2) trying to protect or enforce a “civil right,” i.e., their 2nd Amendment Rights. Whether the gun lobby calls itself that or not, that’s what it is. And whether it calls itself a civil-rights movement or not does not make its cause any more or less valid or more or less serious. And your comparison with limited rights of minors before they reach the age of consent is weak, sorry.

Also, what is the difference between “emotionalism” and human dignity? I mean, the back of the bus is just as good as the front, right? It gets you where you want to go?

Also, if the issue is so “unimportant” or “not serious” then why is there such vocal opposition?

[quote]treco wrote:
Yes 2%, that means 98% doing it the accepted way - hence my statement that homosexuals are deviants.

By the noise and incessant activity generated by this tiny minority and their incomprehensible (to me) white knights and cheerleaders, you would think most people have homosexual preference.

The bottom line is that not a single person in the world is alive because their father was sodomizing his ‘husband’.

[/quote]

Nah, it’s just the 98% is starting to realize that it doesn’t effect them if 2% of the population doesn’t think exactly as they do in regards to sex. I could care less if my neighbor has sex with his wife in the missionary position, girl on top, reverse cowgirl, doesn’t have sex with her, whatever. If he has sex with a guy instead of a wife that doesn’t matter to me either. It doesn’t effect me. Not one bit. I don’t care if you use toys, or whips, chains, bells, yo yos in the bedroom. Why the fuck would I? I could care less if you smoke marijuana. I’m not going to just because you do. And I’m not banging guys if you start either.

And in a world where the population is absolutely shooting up at a rate we have never seen before, we’re really worried about the fact that somehow less people might be born because of gay sex? This is precisely the reason we all need to get on board with contraceptive use and quit saying it’s against God’s will or some ludicrous bullshit. The worldwide population is absolutely exploding. We are going to have billions more mouths to feed. The last thing we need to be concerned with is oh no a few guys aren’t going to be able to be dads!

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

So are you just bitching about the label?[/quote]

No, I am bitching about trying to pretend there is a “need” for gay marriage when there is no such need, and I am also bitching about denigrating the struggles and accomplishments of the Civil Rights movement by comparing it to such a frivolous pursuit.

Well, you can take that up with Push directly if that troubles you, but at issue in there is a direct right (see the Second Amendment). No such comparable right exists re: gay marriage.

No, it isn’t - it’s the perfect example. We don’t let minors of a certain age vote because we have decided as a society that they aren’t equipped to do so and our public policy is better served by letting them mature before they vote. Exact same rationale behind gay marriage - there is no public policy benefit to let gay couples have their relationship recognized by the state, it serves no good purpose, so we exclude them from participation - just like we do with minors from voting.

The right to vote is one of the most sacred in a free democracy - are we “denying” minors this sacred right by not letting them vote until they are mature enough? Hell no - there is a valid public policy rationale behind it, even though these minors certainly have to live under laws they don’t get to vote for.

Same for gays and marriage. We have a valid public policy for not recognizing gay marriage (or polygamous marriage), and they aren’t being denied any rights.

Emotionalism is simply wanting to pass “feelgood” legislation that accomplishes basically zero rational public policy goals.

There is no “right” to have a personal relationship privileged by the state as a matter of human dignity. If there was, it would naturally have to encompass every personal relationship, and of course that isn’t true.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

Also, if the issue is so “unimportant” or “not serious” then why is there such vocal opposition? [/quote]

“Unimportant” doesn’t mean “apathetic”. We shouldn’t even be considering gay marriage, and instead we should be strengthening marriage and tradiational family institutions generally.

T-Bolt: I’ve got some work to do and it seems like we’ve been through this same exercise on the other thread. That said, I guess there’s a chance the Supremes will answer some of the con-law questions, but I suspect either they’ll: (1) mostly dodge them in the way they frame the issues; or (2) agree with you 5-4. It should be interesting in any event.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

T-Bolt: I’ve got some work to do and it seems like we’ve been through this same exercise on the other thread. That said, I guess there’s a chance the Supremes will answer some of the con-law questions, but I suspect either they’ll: (1) mostly dodge them in the way they frame the issues; or (2) agree with you 5-4. It should be interesting in any event. [/quote]

Agreed.

Also it’s an inevitable thing that is happening. That much is completely obvious. You still have people arguing against women’s suffrage and you will always have people arguing about gay marriage. The debate may never end for a vocal minority, but make no mistake it will be the minority. Public opinion polls show the support. The people who are vehemently against it are dying off. The younger generations absolutely don’t give a shit. They are over it. We can argue about it till we’re blue in the face, but it’s happening. Not now maybe, not tomorrow, but it’s coming. And somehow, I think we will survive.

3/4 of 18-29 year olds support it. The freaking President supported it and still won. The battle is over.