Breaking: Supreme Court to hear challenges to Proposition 8, DOMA

posted at 4:29 pm on December 7, 2012 by Allahpundit

I’m surprised. I said a few weeks ago that I thought neither wing of the Court had an incentive to grant cert on gay-marriage cases right now. The conservative wing should be worried that Kennedy, who’s written two landmark opinions supporting gay rights, will vote with the liberals. The liberal wing should be worried that a Court ruling imposing gay marriage nationwide will generate a ferocious backlash just at the moment that SSM supporters are starting to win state referendums.

It only takes four votes to grant cert. Which side decided to roll the dice?

The new California [Proposition 8] case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-144, was filed in 2009 by Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, two lawyers who were on opposite sides in the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, which settled the 2000 presidential election. The suit argued that California’s voters had violated the federal Constitution the previous year when they overrode a decision of the state’s Supreme Court allowing same-sex marriages…

Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt, writing for the [Ninth Circuit] majority [that struck down Proposition 8], relied heavily on a 1996 majority opinion from Justice Kennedy in Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that had banned the passage of laws protecting gay men and lesbians. The voter initiative in California, known as Proposition 8, had done something similar, Judge Reinhardt wrote…

“For now,” he said, “it suffices to conclude that the people of California may not, consistent with the federal Constitution, add to their state Constitution a provision that has no more practical effect than to strip gays and lesbians of their right to use the official designation that the state and society give to committed relationships, thereby adversely affecting the status and dignity of the members of a disfavored class.”

The Supreme Court has several options in reviewing the decision. It could reverse it, leaving California’s ban on same-sex marriage in place unless voters there choose to revisit the question. It could affirm on the narrower theory, which would allow same-sex marriage in California but not require it elsewhere. Or it could address the broader question of whether the Constitution requires states to allow such marriages.

My hunch is that it was the conservatives who voted to take both cases, not the liberals. The liberals have no real incentive to touch this right now. They were just granted four more years to hope for a conservative vacancy on the Court, at which point gay marriage by judicial fiat will be a fait accompli. The more states enact gay marriage in the meantime, the stronger their political position will be when that moment finally arrives. And Kennedy, while likely to vote with them, is always a wild card. Why take a chance on him now and risk an unfavorable precedent when they can simply punt? They’ve got time; they can wait. For the conservatives, the logic runs the opposite way. As skittish as they are about Kennedy, they’re better off forcing this issue and gambling on him than waiting for a fifth liberal justice to be appointed by Obama. Ruling against gay marriage now won’t stop a liberal Court from overruling the decision later, but it will help delegitimize the future ruling by underscoring how nakedly ideological the Court’s changing thinking is. The conservatives may also figure that accepting this now along with DOMA may incline Kennedy to issue a split decision. Striking down either DOMA or Prop 8 would be huge, but striking down both on the same day would be epochal, maybe too much so to make a moderate like him comfortable. It could box him in on federalism too. If he’s inclined to strike down DOMA in the name of letting states set the rules on family law, then why can’t Californians set their own rules with Prop 8?

The only reason I can think of why the liberals might want to hear this case is because they think it’s important to have justices from both wings of the Court in the majority for a ruling as controversial as finding an equal protection right to gay marriage. But like I say, even with Kennedy’s record on gay rights, that’s a serious gamble. And how would having a bipartisan Court majority help sell this decision to the public if the only bipartisan element is Kennedy? A majority with Scalia, Alito, or Thomas in it would be dramatic. A majority with four liberals plus the guy who’s voted with liberals repeatedly on gay rights would be meh.

Update: Split decision on DOMA?

Court watchers I’ve corresponded with believe that the likeliest outcome, given the justices’ individual histories on similar questions, would be a decision that strikes down the federal recognition prong of DOMA while also ruling there is no constitutional right to get married. This result would mean that married gay couples would be eligible for federal benefits but that gays could only get married in states where such unions were legal.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8

You got to get your moral foundation for laws somewhere. Christianity has always worked better than unrestrained sexual license and a basis for social interaction.

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Mere poltroons sans the Inquisition. If you really want to base your laws on something that has “worked better” and provides a very detail “basis for social interaction”, Sharia is your answer. Yep nearly 1,400 years and still going strong as Europe is slowly beginning to see – minus some appendages for only a few.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Ah, so you are no more consistent in your humanism than those you chide. Your worldview is just as hyprocritical any anyone elses.

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:22 AM

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word hypocritical. I would not do anything to oppose incest marriage. But the test of hypocrisy is not that you must give equal amounts of passion and energy to each cause that is intellectual consistent with your worldview. If I were faced with an incest vote at the ballot box, I would support it. But its not my responsibility to agitate and fight for that cause, its not high on my priority list. Are you a hypocrite if you give money to an anti-gay marriage cause but not to an anti-abortion cause?

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Translation: I still have no facts at all to back up my fallacious arguments.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Translation: I never listened to Momma.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:28 AM

The bible says they are adultery.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Well if you actually read the bible,

If one dies, then the other is free to remarry. If one commits adultery then other may leave the marriage but it’s preferred to stay and work it out.

If one divorces to remarry then that’s adultery.

b1jetmech on December 8, 2012 at 10:30 AM

The bible says they are adultery.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Would you like to know how to be forgiven, also?

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Please don’t move the goal posts. Your argument is that the law should adhere to the Gospels. Adultery is a sin, and according to you sin should not be legitimized by the law. Therefore, you believe second marriage should be illegal. Its not about whether God will forgive your sins its about the reach of the law.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:30 AM

The bible says they are adultery.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Divorce is not encouraged. I doubt if anyone in any church would actively encourage the behavior.

Gay marriage has a cheering section advocating for its practice. The comparison is weak at best.

Mimzey on December 8, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Mere poltroons sans the Inquisition. If you really want to base your laws on something that has “worked better” and provides a very detail “basis for social interaction”, Sharia is your answer. Yep nearly 1,400 years and still going strong as Europe is slowly beginning to see – minus some appendages for only a few.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Well said.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Translation: I never listened to Momma.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:28 AM

What does my long-deceased mother have to do with your lifestyle choice and your inability to quote facts to justify changing the definition of a word which has meant the same thing for centuries?

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:31 AM

I hope so. You can be forgiven, also. Would you like to know how?

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:21 AM

By declaring that there is no god but Allah and Muhammed is his prophet?

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Please don’t move the goal posts. Your argument is that the law should adhere to the Gospels.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Thats funny.

Mimzey on December 8, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Yep, till Theodosius weighed in with heavy Christian endorsement. So much for “thousands and thousand of years” of paradigm and centuries of custom. All for some new-fangled idea…

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Christianity had already taken hold across the empire and neighboring lands.

It was a squabble between Christian ideological factions. Theodosius declared Catholicism as the one Christianity to rule them all with the Nicene Creed because he was also facing civil war from the Goths and a splitting of the Empire.

It wasn’t a proclamation of Jesus vs Zeus, which is what you’re implying with “Christian endorsement”.

Most religions we associate with the empire were gone or mutated by incursions into the Mid-East or the Gothic lands by this point, and were taking on monotheistic properties.

budfox on December 8, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Mere poltroons sans the Inquisition. If you really want to base your laws on something that has “worked better” and provides a very detail “basis for social interaction”, Sharia is your answer. Yep nearly 1,400 years and still going strong as Europe is slowly beginning to see – minus some appendages for only a few.
JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:27 AM

No, Sharia is completely inconsistent with the God given rights the Declaration of independence and Constitution acknolwedge. Given the lack of freedom and advancment of Sharia cultures it is obvious it hasn’t worked at all.

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:32 AM

What does my long-deceased mother have to do with your lifestyle choice and your inability to quote facts to justify changing the definition of a word which has meant the same thing for centuries?

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Clueless as ever I see. About as much as what you posted here in response.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Are we still talking about SCOTUS and gay marriage?

Mimzey on December 8, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Mere poltroons sans the Inquisition. If you really want to base your laws on something that has “worked better” and provides a very detail “basis for social interaction”, Sharia is your answer. Yep nearly 1,400 years and still going strong as Europe is slowly beginning to see – minus some appendages for only a few.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:27 AM

We just need to look back in the 200 years of this country to see what made it so great….which was the influence of Christianity.

The OLD inquisition argument is OLD. Heck, look how many people were murdered in the 20th century by a handful of atheists…about a hundred million.

Europe is collapsing.

b1jetmech on December 8, 2012 at 10:34 AM

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:30 AM

When have I argued that? America’s laws, in fact, were based on our Judeo-Christian belief system. You were the one attempting to be an expert in God’s word, perfesser. I was simply offering forgiveness for you sins, which is available to all.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Divorce is not encouraged. I doubt if anyone in any church would actively encourage the behavior.

Gay marriage has a cheering section advocating for its practice. The comparison is weak at best.

Mimzey on December 8, 2012 at 10:30 AM

The question is whether the bible should be the exclusive foundation upon which law in the U.S. is made. If one believes that to be the case, then one must also believe that re-marriage should be illegal. Failure to believe that would, hypothetically, make one a hypocrite. So do you believe that the Bible should be used as a justification against legal same-sex marriage? And if so, do you believe that re-marriage should also be illegal?

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:34 AM

In part the gauge of a social change is how much support it can accrue over time. Though we are not a pure democracy, our culture has a deeply democratic ethos. That ethos has shifted in favor of same-sex marriage. If incest marriage advocates want to start that project then more power to them. I suspect though that they will not get much traction.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Remember in the 1930s and 1940s when the “democratic ethos” of the German people shifted toward Jew slaughter? How do you gauge that “social change”? It did, after all, manage to accrue a great deal of support over time.

steebo77 on December 8, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Clueless as ever I see. About as much as what you posted here in response.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Nope. I was right on. You’re evading…running as if your very life depended on it.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:35 AM

The question is whether the bible should be the exclusive foundation upon which law in the U.S. is made.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:34 AM

.

thus your support for sex with kids. You’re sick.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Nope. I was right on. You’re evading…running as if your very life depended on it.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:35 AM

This. Almost hilarious.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 10:37 AM

35tww on December 8, 2012 at 10:19 AM

You know what’s funny about your post?

You’re actually talking about the legit subject at hand.

While, as the progs always do, the conversation has mutated into debates about biblical interpretations and ancient cultures.

Obfuscation tactics. Every time.

budfox on December 8, 2012 at 10:37 AM

We just need to look back in the 200 years of this country to see what made it so great….which was the influence of Christianity.

Well that’s just silly. How did Christianity produce the industrial revolutions? How did Christianity allow for the U.S. to insert itself as global power after World War II? How did Christianity create the New Deal, Fair Deal and G.I. Bill welfare state which built the American middle class during and after the war? The only really major improvement to American life that we can lay at the feet of Christianity is the black civil rights movement which was rooted in genuine Christian principles and exposed the rank hypocrisy of white southern Christians who supported Jim Crow.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Remember in the 1930s and 1940s when the “democratic ethos” of the German people shifted toward Jew slaughter? How do you gauge that “social change”? It did, after all, manage to accrue a great deal of support over time.

steebo77 on December 8, 2012 at 10:35 AM

No where in my post did I suggest that a democratic ethos always leads to a morally good outcome. Though I think it is hilarious that you conservatives always look to Nazi Germany. Why don’t you ever point to Jim Crow? Which had near unanimous support from white southerners after Reconstruction, nearly all of whom called themsleves Christians. Its a domestic example, but for some reason never seems to come up in conservative discussions about the dangers of “majority rule.” Hmmmm.

But nonetheless, the law in this nation has most often been rationalized in democratic terms.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Christianity had already taken hold across the empire and neighboring lands.

Indeed, although it’s Arian variety was eclipsing orthodoxy for awhile. Yet for some reason efforts to use government force in championing Arianism are not celebrated much today.

It wasn’t a proclamation of Jesus vs Zeus, which is what you’re implying with “Christian endorsement”.

Ambrose of Milan would take exception to that.

Most religions we associate with the empire were gone or mutated by incursions into the Mid-East or the Gothic lands by this point, and were taking on monotheistic properties.

Yet they were still around and although a minority at the time had many adherents.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:43 AM

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Homosexuality is not a race. If it is, perfesser, please cite the Genetic Factors which cause it, and link to your sources.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:43 AM

do you believe that re-marriage should also be illegal?

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Already answered that.

Anyway..you missed these questions.. can you state your standing on them?

…but you do support the right of those so inclined? If they had trouble “getting it off the ground”, they could count on your support in the fight for their equal rights?

Mimzey on December 8, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Mimzey on December 8, 2012 at 10:43 AM

How did Christianity produce the industrial revolutions?

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:38 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guttenberg_press

Shakes head. Sighs.

budfox on December 8, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Nope. I was right on. You’re evading…running as if your very life depended on it.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:35 AM

You’re humility is quite the sight to behold, kings! Nope, still around to keep you company.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:45 AM

You’re humility is quite the sight to behold, kings! Nope, still around to keep you company.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:45 AM

How am I not humble? Because, I refuse to buy your unsubstantiated b.s.?

Get over it, tiny dancer. Put on your big boy pants and provide us with facts and the links to back up your fallacious arguments.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Well that’s just silly. How did Christianity produce the industrial revolutions?

Max Weber had a thing or two to say about that.

How did Christianity allow for the U.S. to insert itself as global power after World War II?

See above.

How did Christianity create the New Deal, Fair Deal and G.I. Bill welfare state which built the American middle class during and after the war?

The American welfare state was largely a project of the usual assortment of atheists, humanists, and the “Social Gospel” crowd. It didn’t have a whole lot to do with authentic Christianity. And, guess what? The welfare state is crumbling.

The only really major improvement to American life that we can lay at the feet of Christianity is the black civil rights movement

What about Abolition? What about the vast network of religiously-affiliated schools, universities, and hospitals? What about Christianity’s role in inspiring the very founding of this (Bernard Bailyn has a thing or two to say about that)?

which was rooted in genuine Christian principles and exposed the rank hypocrisy of white southern Christians who supported Jim Crow.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:38 AM

And the overwhelming majority of American Christians who led the civil rights movement would never have supported gay marriage. What do you have to say about that?

steebo77 on December 8, 2012 at 10:51 AM

We just need to look back in the 200 years of this country to see what made it so great….which was the influence of Christianity.

You mean the Enlightenment? Yes indeed. Which is why we cherish those Christian arguments for slavery and segregation to this day.

The OLD inquisition argument is OLD. Heck, look how many people were murdered in the 20th century by a handful of atheists…about a hundred million.

Hey, you’re the one who spoke about what works best for society and social interaction. The Inquisition provided the order and stability you seek, why cringe from it? As for murderous atheists, they had nearly 2,000 years of precedence from Christians on how to deal with dissenters and undesirables in society. You’re just jealous that they were better armed and racked up a larger body count.

Europe is collapsing.

Indeed. It does appear that way.

b1jetmech on December 8, 2012 at 10:34 AM

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Why don’t you ever point to Jim Crow? Which had near unanimous support from white southerners after Reconstruction, nearly all of whom called themsleves Christians.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 10:41 AM

It’s probably worthwhile to point out that white southern Republicans didn’t support Jim Crow, but white southern Democrats did. They also founded the Klan to enforce it. Hmm. Food for thought.

steebo77 on December 8, 2012 at 10:53 AM

No, Sharia is completely inconsistent with the God given rights the Declaration of independence and Constitution acknolwedge. Given the lack of freedom and advancment of Sharia cultures it is obvious it hasn’t worked at all.

tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 10:32 AM

A rather large number of Muslims would disagree.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:55 AM

A rather large number of Muslims would disagree.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:55 AM

And, they would behead you because of your choice of sexual lifestyle, infidel.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:56 AM

This. Almost hilarious.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 10:37 AM

I thought so too. See? We do agree on something!

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:57 AM

“True love’ has nothing to do with sexual attraction – tommyboy on December 8, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Indeed. Yet sometimes they do go hand-in-hand. – JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 9:21 AM

I guess heterosexuals get married for the money ……………… and how in the world did they steal word straight from everyone else./s

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 10:59 AM

And, they would behead you because of your choice of sexual lifestyle, infidel.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:56 AM

As they would you for your choice of religious lifestyle, infidel. Although acid in the face seems to be the all the rage against blasphemers in Pakistan right now, so who knows what method they’d prefer to use on your? Unless of course you accepted dhimmmitude. Ready to pay the jizya? Because of course there is no such thing as “separation of church and state”. That’s just a librul concoction…

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 11:04 AM

You mean the Enlightenment?

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Probably worth pointing out that Spinoza, Descartes, Locke, Bayle, Newton, and even Voltaire, Rousseau, and Montesquieu, were religious and their “Enlightenment” ideas were firmly rooted in the respective faiths, whether Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. all firmly believed in the Judeo-Christian God.

steebo77 on December 8, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Ambrose of Milan would take exception to that.

…Yet they were still around and although a minority at the time had many adherents.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:43 AM

We’re entering a territory of the conversation that is much bigger than SSM in the 21st century.

Paganism of this Roman era is truly anti-Christian, not hyperbole.

I’ve wondered for a few years now if 21st century progs understand who they’re becoming in historical context.

budfox on December 8, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Probably worth pointing out that Spinoza, Descartes, Locke, Bayle, Newton, and even Voltaire, Rousseau, and Montesquieu, were religious and their “Enlightenment” ideas were firmly rooted in the respective faiths, whether Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. all firmly believed in the Judeo-Christian God.

steebo77 on December 8, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Indeed. Yet most of their theological beliefs would be considered heretical by today’s lot. Try looking up Newton, for example. Besides his obsession with alchemy he had quite a problem with the Trinity.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 11:10 AM

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 11:04 AM

You do realize that you’re beclowning yourself, don’t you? You were the one who brought up the Muslims, as if you support them.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 11:11 AM

I’ve wondered for a few years now if 21st century progs understand who they’re becoming in historical context.

budfox on December 8, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Probably not. Many progressives like conservatives can be quite myopic at times. Then again in fairness, such does seem to be very human if you look at the history of our species.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 11:13 AM

I thought I logged on HA
Not the 700 Club

bazil9 on December 8, 2012 at 11:14 AM

You do realize that you’re beclowning yourself, don’t you? You were the one who brought up the Muslims, as if you support them.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 11:11 AM

But the forest, you cannot see the trees.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 11:14 AM

A rather large number of Muslims would disagree. – JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 10:55 AM

And, they would behead you because of your choice of sexual lifestyle, infidel. – kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 10:56 AM

I did not choose my sexual orientation. I denied it for decades and that denial almost cost me my life by suicide. But, someone surely one chooses his or her religion and what they believe. And, I truly detest Islamist and Sharia Law.

Within our society many things have changed over the last two hundred years. May I ask how have we gone from a god fearing society to a society that no longer believes in human slavery and allowing women the right to vote?

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 11:17 AM

I thought I logged on HA
Not the 700 Club

bazil9 on December 8, 2012 at 11:14 AM

For many socons whenever these topics come up on HA it’s always the 700 Club here. Lord be praised!

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Indeed. Yet most of their theological beliefs would be considered heretical by today’s lot. Try looking up Newton, for example. Besides his obsession with alchemy he had quite a problem with the Trinity.

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Newton believed in the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and therefore in the concept of the Trinity. He only really struggled with the idea of the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son (mostly because he thought it was ascriptural and a contribution from Greek philosophy. Try looking it up.

steebo77 on December 8, 2012 at 11:19 AM

I thought I logged on HA
Not the 700 Club – bazil9 on December 8, 2012 at 11:14 AM

What is this I hear about Pat Robertson moving the 700 Club to Colorado so he can smoke weed, legally? /s

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Newton believed in the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and therefore in the concept of the Trinity. He only really struggled with the idea of the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son (mostly because he thought it was ascriptural and a contribution from Greek philosophy. Try looking it up.

steebo77 on December 8, 2012 at 11:19 AM

I never said that he didn’t hold to these beliefs. I said that his theology would not be considered orthodox. This is usually glossed over, as well as the heretical beliefs of many others, in order to uphold a certain image of a supposed continuous orthodox Christian belief that should be imitated today in government and society at large.

Btw, since kingsjester likes links so much here’s one:

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no077/newton-b.html

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Well it’s been fun, but now time for the real world again. I’ll check back in later. Ciao for now!

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Within our society many things have changed over the last two hundred years. May I ask how have we gone from a god fearing society to a society that no longer believes in human slavery and allowing women the right to vote?

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Quite a strawman you’ve built there, Charlie. It was Christian Americans who freed the slaves. Are you somehow equating your sexual orientation to being in bondage?

I’ve always thought that was an entirely different preference.

78% of Americans are still Christians. Homosexuals are less than 5% of the population.

Are you equating legislating deviant (def: different from the overwhelming majority of a society) sexual behavior, in an attempt to forcefully get it accepted, with freeing a race of people from bondage and giving half the population the right to cast a ballot?

Mmm kay.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 11:29 AM

I never said that he didn’t hold to these beliefs.

You said he had “quite a problem with the Trinity,” which is, on its face, not true. He never denied the existence of the Trinity.

I said that his theology would not be considered orthodox.

Yet he would be considered a devout Christian nonetheless.

This is usually glossed over, as well as the heretical beliefs of many others, in order to uphold a certain image of a supposed continuous orthodox Christian belief that should be imitated today in government and society at large.

I don’t believe anyone is really arguing that a “continuous orthodox Christian belief” has ever existed. You’re making a specious argument against one hell of a strawman.

Btw, since kingsjester likes links so much here’s one:

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no077/newton-b.html

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Here’s another:

http://www.credenda.org/index.php/Theology/isaac-newton-on-the-trinity-hypothesis.html

Newton explicitly acknowledged the divinity of the both the Son and the Holy Spirit. He, however, held that the Father was the supreme member of the Trinity and not consubstantial with either the Son or the Holy Spirit. That still makes him Trinitarian, not Unitarian, in belief.

steebo77 on December 8, 2012 at 11:34 AM

For many socons whenever these topics come up on HA it’s always the 700 Club here. Lord be praised!

JohnAGJ on December 8, 2012 at 11:19 AM

I am well aware John.
Just poking.

I read this last thread only..don’t
need to read the rest-always the same comments.
As a ghey, Christian- These threads got old long ago.
Unless your a sadist.

I try and understand both sides of the argument
and enjoy a rational discussion/debate. But never happens.

I don’t plan on getting married, matters not to me.

SC.Charlie -nice to see you.
SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 11:17 AM
I am with you there.

bazil9 on December 8, 2012 at 11:35 AM

bazil9 did you see the youtube link I posted on page 5? Same for you SC Charlie. Its pretty amazing and blows all the socon scaremongering out the water.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 11:44 AM

I did not choose my sexual orientation.

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 11:17 A

Yes you did. You did it by repeatedly using homosexual images to arouse yourself. You may not have been aware that that was the choice you were making, but that doesn’t change the fact. The only sexuality humans have inherently is the desire for satisfaction — the various aids we use to get to that satisfaction are completely learned.
Beyond that, you chose to switch your lifestyle to suit your sexual habits rather than trying to resolve the issues which drove you whatever breaking point you experienced.

Count to 10 on December 8, 2012 at 11:53 AM

bazil9 did you see the youtube link I posted on page 5? Same for you SC Charlie. Its pretty amazing and blows all the socon scaremongering out the water.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 11:44 AM

LMAO! Your a racist, race baiting, trolling piece of shite.
Your part of the trash I have to walk around, thread after thread.
So to answer your question-no.

Good day.

bazil9 on December 8, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Let me get this straight here….

2 to 3% of the population of this is gay/lesbian/bi-tri-quad whatever sexual and the other 97%+ are supposed to change all the rules of human history and western civilization for this tiny but loud with a megaphone group?

And this is being driven by………THE MEDIA and POLITICIANS and the radical homosexual activists.

So would it be a logical assumption that the media and politics are populated with a HIGH concentration of 2%ers?

So why do the 97 or 98% have to change again?

If two people walk into a restaurant and management tells the 98 diners that they have to go eat on the patio so the 2 gay patrons can have a seat at the table is that right?

It would seem illogical and unnecessary.

PappyD61 on December 8, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Quite a strawman you’ve built there, Charlie. It was Christian Americans who freed the slaves.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 11:29 AM

It was also Christians who built and profited from the slave trade. The trade went on for a few hundred years during which time there weren’t material changes to the Bible or additional revelations. The culture was different in the 19th century than in the 17th, but it wasn’t due to an innovation in religion.

dedalus on December 8, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Yes you did. You did it by repeatedly using homosexual images to arouse yourself.

Can someone who actually went through puberty as a male explain to Count to 10 how utterly INSANE this is. You must be a woman…

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Let me get this straight here….

2 to 3% of the population of this is gay/lesbian/bi-tri-quad whatever sexual and the other 97%+ are supposed to change all the rules of human history and western civilization for this tiny but loud with a megaphone group?

And this is being driven by………THE MEDIA and POLITICIANS and the radical homosexual activists.

So would it be a logical assumption that the media and politics are populated with a HIGH concentration of 2%ers?

So why do the 97 or 98% have to change again?

If two people walk into a restaurant and management tells the 98 diners that they have to go eat on the patio so the 2 gay patrons can have a seat at the table is that right?

It would seem illogical and unnecessary.

PappyD61 on December 8, 2012 at 11:54 AM

It isn’t just that. Because they feel put upon by our disapproval of their choice of lifestyle, we have to not only cease expressing that disapproval, but actively support those choices and encourage new generations to make those same choices, despite overwhelming evidence that those choices are destructive, both personally and to society as a whole.

Count to 10 on December 8, 2012 at 11:58 AM

It was also Christians who built and profited from the slave trade. The trade went on for a few hundred years during which time there weren’t material changes to the Bible or additional revelations. The culture was different in the 19th century than in the 17th, but it wasn’t due to an innovation in religion.

dedalus on December 8, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Win!

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 12:00 PM

dedalus on December 8, 2012 at 11:56 AM

So…other tribes had nothing to do with it? Or Arab Slave Traders?

Let’s bring this back on topic. Justify Gay Marriage.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Its pretty funny. The very people who say the country was founded on Judeo Christian values will then conveniently forget that their argument proves that Judeo Christian values allowed for the existence of racialized chattel slavery. Also the Confederacy was pretty Christian.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 12:01 PM

I did not choose my sexual orientation. I denied it for decades and that denial almost cost me my life by suicide. But, someone surely one chooses his or her religion and what they believe. And, I truly detest Islamist and Sharia Law.

Within our society many things have changed over the last two hundred years. May I ask how have we gone from a god fearing society to a society that no longer believes in human slavery and allowing women the right to vote?

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Actually, Charlie, you did choose it, because you chose to deny it (I have no idea how, but I would suspect it involved actually marrying a woman) and now you choose to express it.

You must understand that, in the Christian and other tradition, the expression of sexual interest is very much a choice, and the choice can be made NOT to express it. Christians, to list one, have a tradition of millenia of abstinence and celibacy.

Meanwhile, your statement about religion being a choice: for someone who wrestled with a choice for years, do you not think that fear of eternal damnation, of never seeing your family again, of banishment, is something that can just be laughed off as easily as you pick a shirt to wear?

For the last, Christianity has never required slavery or the denial of rights of women. For the latter, the Bible is full of examples such as Deborah, Lois and Eunice, Tabitha, and others of women noted as wise, sought for counsel and insight, and participant in many great decisions. The argument for sexism in the Christian Church was more based on the Roman patriarchal ideal in which the hierarchy was rooted post-Constantine.

As for slavery, the Bible treats it as something that exists, not necessarily something that is desirable. It counsels in all cases that all are equal in the eyes of God, although we may not be in the eyes of man, and that indeed one of the marks of Christianity is to be able to treat those who are your inferiors as your equals and superiors, as Jesus did with washing the feet of the disciples at the Last Supper.

In short, Christianity has never been incompatible with emancipation and the rights of women. That’s a poor excuse for those who have sought to perjure Christianity or have sought to exploit it for their own personal dominance.

northdallasthirty on December 8, 2012 at 12:03 PM

northdallasthirty on December 8, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Nicely said.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 12:05 PM

must understand that, in the Christian and other tradition, the expression of sexual interest is very much a choice, and the choice can be made NOT to express it. Christians, to list one, have a tradition of millenia of abstinence and celibacy.

God you’re dumb. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with sexual expression. Here’s an easy way to understand this: Were you heterosexual before you had sex for the first time? Exactly.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Can someone who actually went through puberty as a male explain to Count to 10 how utterly INSANE this is. You must be a woman…

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Just because you were too stupid as a teenager to realize this doesn’t mean I was too. A self aware person will realize that they become sexually aroused by what they practice becoming aroused by. Most people are properly steered toward a healthy heterosexual set of arousal habits by society, but some children are exposed to other habits — and some of those never grow out of them.

Count to 10 on December 8, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Within our society many things have changed over the last two hundred years. May I ask how have we gone from a god fearing society to a society that no longer believes in human slavery and allowing women the right to vote? – SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Quite a strawman you’ve built there, Charlie. It was Christian Americans who freed the slaves. Are you somehow equating your sexual orientation to being in bondage?

I’ve always thought that was an entirely different preference.

78% of Americans are still Christians. Homosexuals are less than 5% of the population.

Are you equating legislating deviant (def: different from the overwhelming majority of a society) sexual behavior, in an attempt to forcefully get it accepted, with freeing a race of people from bondage and giving half the population the right to cast a ballot?

Mmm kay. – kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 11:29 AM

To say that Christians freed the slaves in the United States is laughable. Both sides held the same Bible and quoted from it in that horrible conflict to justify their positions. Human slavery is not condemned in the Bible. And, sadly, today human slavery still exists.

You equate homosexual activity as deviant sexual behavior. Yet any sexual act that can done between a homosexual couple can be done between any heterosexual couple.

The Catholic Church and most Protestant Churches relegate women to a lower role within their churches. In the Catholic Church women are not allowed to become a priest and are therefore blocked from becoming a Cardinal or a Pope.

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 12:06 PM

One reason abolitionists are forgotten is that they were inescapably Christian in their motives, means, and vocabulary.

AN INTERESTING HISTORIC POINT THAT I WAS UNAWARE OF.
In upstate New York, Charles Finney spurred huge revivals with thousands of converts. Finney preached that genuine conversion would always result in a changed life. Indeed, evangelicals formed a series of societies devoted to reform causes. The American Anti-Slavery Society, organized in 1833, was only one of these. It was, however, by far the most controversial.

BoxHead1 on December 8, 2012 at 12:08 PM

God you’re dumb. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with sexual expression. Here’s an easy way to understand this: Were you heterosexual before you had sex for the first time? Exactly.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Actual sex is seldomly a turning point in this. You have to go back to the circumstances of your first arousal.

Count to 10 on December 8, 2012 at 12:08 PM

You got it Count to 10, if there’s any word that describes a teenage boy’s relationship to his sexual desires its “choice.” /sarctags because you are being inordinately thick.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Its pretty funny. The very people who say the country was founded on Judeo Christian values will then conveniently forget that their argument proves that Judeo Christian values allowed for the existence of racialized chattel slavery. Also the Confederacy was pretty Christian.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 12:01 PM

LOL.

And gay and lesbian bigots like yourself endorse and support pedophilia and groups like NAMBLA as part of the gay and lesbian community.

Now watch the liar scream and cry that the fact that pedophiles were accepted by the gay and lesbian community and that the gay and lesbian community doesn’t mean that all gays and lesbians support pedophilia or that being gay or lesbian means your values allow for the existence of pedophilia.

And then go screaming away when it realizes that it just demonstrated how hypocritical, bigoted, and irrational it is in its thinking.

Libfreeordie has a problem: being black, it’s never actually been educated, since the liberal circles in which it runs believe firmly that black people are stupid and thus cannot be held to the same standards as white people; furthermore, since it’s also gay, it has a double whammy, in which people simply expect nothing of it because it’s a minority.

That’s why it can’t hold an intellectual thought or make a rational argument; it’s simply never been taught to do so.

northdallasthirty on December 8, 2012 at 12:09 PM

You got it Count to 10, if there’s any word that describes a teenage boy’s relationship to his sexual desires its “choice.” /sarctags because you are being inordinately thick.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 12:09 PM

You always have a choice, lib. Just because you have lead a life of refusing to acknowledge your choices or their consequences doesn’t mean you never had any.

Count to 10 on December 8, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Its amazing. Christians believe that peer pressure can encourage a good kid to try drugs, but if peer pressure coerces some young gay kid into dating or even sleeping with a woman when that is not his true desire they say “see! you’re really straight.” Intellectual dishonesty of the highest caliber.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 12:11 PM

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Whom do you think was operating the Underground Railroad? Muslims?

Yes, those same acts which homosexuals attempt are done by a man and a woman. With different results. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be here.

kingsjester on December 8, 2012 at 12:11 PM

northdallasthirty will not respond to my distinction between orientation and expression. Why? Because there is no response to truth.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 12:13 PM

God you’re dumb. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with sexual expression. Here’s an easy way to understand this: Were you heterosexual before you had sex for the first time? Exactly.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 12:05 PM

In that case, there’s no reason to give sexual orientation any consideration, since you admit it has nothing to do with sexual expression.

Ergo, you are not being deprived by limiting marriage to only one member of the opposite sex, because your sexual orientation is irrelevant to how you express yourself sexually, and you could just as easily choose to have sex with a member of the opposite sex as you do one of the same sex.

You lose that argument. As I pointed out, you would have been fine had you been raised and educated by conservatives instead of racist liberals; however, since you’ve never actually been educated and have just been passed based on black skin and professed sexual orientation, you simply can’t keep up with the logic and reason of educated minds.

northdallasthirty on December 8, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Its amazing. Christians believe that peer pressure can encourage a good kid to try drugs, but if peer pressure coerces some young gay kid into dating or even sleeping with a woman when that is not his true desire they say “see! you’re really straight.” Intellectual dishonesty of the highest caliber.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Not really.

Christians recognize that people are not animals and have control over their sexual desires.

Liberals, especially gays and lesbians, are very primitive mentally and quite incapable of controlling or managing their impulses. This is why gay and lesbian liberals in particular have advocated for pedophilia and insist that children must be allowed to have sex with adults.

northdallasthirty on December 8, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Its amazing. Christians believe that peer pressure can encourage a good kid to try drugs, but if peer pressure coerces some young gay kid into dating or even sleeping with a woman when that is not his true desire they say “see! you’re really straight.” Intellectual dishonesty of the highest caliber.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 12:11 PM

I’m not a Christian, but you have cause and effect backward here. Somewhere along the line, some form of pressure (possibly peer pressure) pushed said kid into homosexual arousal habits. Attempting pressure them out of those habits is like attempting to pressure someone out of a drug habit, not into one.
Or are you going to argue that it would be unethical to intervene in someone’s destructive drug habit? That we should just leave the druggies to their drugs?

Count to 10 on December 8, 2012 at 12:15 PM

As for slavery, the Bible treats it as something that exists, not necessarily something that is desirable. It counsels in all cases that all are equal in the eyes of God, although we may not be in the eyes of man, and that indeed one of the marks of Christianity is to be able to treat those who are your inferiors as your equals and superiors, as Jesus did with washing the feet of the disciples at the Last Supper.

In short, Christianity has never been incompatible with emancipation and the rights of women. That’s a poor excuse for those who have sought to perjure Christianity or have sought to exploit it for their own personal dominance. – northdallasthirty on December 8, 2012 at 12:03 PM

So the Bible conveniently just says that human slavery is undesirable. However, today we find slavery a horrid sin. How did Christians evolve in our interpretation of the Bible to that point? It seems like we are going down a slippery slope here.

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 12:18 PM

And the interesting part is that liberals like libfreeordie who have pushed for and advocated children be promiscuous and have sex with adults like libfreeordie have pushed up the HIV rate dramatically.

Young people between the ages of 13 and 24 represent more than a quarter of new HIV infections each year (26 percent) and most of these youth living with HIV (60 percent) are unaware they are infected, according to a Vital Signs report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The most-affected young people are young gay and bisexual men and African-Americans, the report says.

The analysis looks at the latest data on HIV infections, testing, and risk behaviors among young people and was published in advance of World AIDS Day, Dec. 1.

Overall, an estimated 12,200 new HIV infections occurred in 2010 among young people aged 13-24, with young gay and bisexual men and African-Americans hit harder by HIV than their peers. In 2010, 72 percent of estimated new HIV infections in young people occurred in young men who have sex with men (MSM). By race/ethnicity, 57 percent of estimated new infections in this age group were in African-Americans.

You would think libfreeordie would be against promiscuity and having sex with teenagers, especially black teenagers. But you have to understand that libfreeordie has been steeped in the Obama Party doctrine that black people are animals who are incapable of controlling themselves sexually or taking responsibility for their actions.

northdallasthirty on December 8, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Ergo, you are not being deprived by limiting marriage to only one member of the opposite sex, because your sexual orientation is irrelevant to how you express yourself sexually, and you could just as easily choose to have sex with a member of the opposite sex as you do one of the same sex.

This is just proof of the fact that you were probably doing black tar heroin at Plano high while I was winning debate trophies at Greenhill. Sexual expression is *distinct* from sexual orientation. One can express oneself sexually, i.e. engage in sex acts that are discordant with ones sexual orientation. The most extreme examples of that would be rape, which we know can sometimes actually produce physical signs of arousal in women despite the fact of their sexual assault. I know, I know that blows your Akin-addled mind, but its well documented.

No one has ever argued that gay people can not marry or even procreate with people of the opposite sex. But the argument for same-sex marriage is based upon our desire to enter into marriage with the people we *want* to marry. There is not an equal access to that component of marriage. Now I know that conservatism is all about self-denial, no doubt you also think parents should still have final say over who can get married, that no-fault divorce should be done away with. But through those initiatives the law has already enshrined the importance of desire, love and companionship as a necessary component of marriage.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 12:19 PM

perhaps some clarity on the issue could be achieved if chief justice roberts takes it upon himself to re-write the Proposition to state that marriage is a TAX only upon the union of a man and a woman….

mittens on December 8, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Christians recognize that people are not animals and have control over their sexual desires.

The entirety of human history says otherwise. Humans can control (with varying degrees of success) whether to act on their sexual desires. But humans have no control over *what* turns them on. Now of course, our sexualities can alter within their broad hetero/homo constructs. What may have been a taste for older men or an exclusive taste for white or Asian women can alter over time. And this is mostly the case with women who have a different sexual organizatoin than men. But to say that we actively direct and control our desires is just dishonest. The things that make one hard are the things that make one hard.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 12:22 PM

I’m off to meet friends for lunch, let anyone suggest that I am “running off”

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Its amazing. Christians believe that peer pressure can encourage a good kid to try drugs, but if peer pressure coerces some young gay kid into dating or even sleeping with a woman when that is not his true desire they say “see! you’re really straight.” Intellectual dishonesty of the highest caliber.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 12:11 PM

More fallacies. Will it ever end?

CW on December 8, 2012 at 12:23 PM

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012

Sure.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 12:24 PM

So the Bible conveniently just says that human slavery is undesirable. However, today we find slavery a horrid sin. How did Christians evolve in our interpretation of the Bible to that point? It seems like we are going down a slippery slope here.

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Not really.

The Bible is a lot like the Constitution; it espouses the fundamental principles and doesn’t concern itself too extraordinarily with the details.

Hence the argument. Has the changing of the interpretation of the Constitution to accomodate the changing of society rendered the underlying document and its espoused principles worthless? It has made portions of it archaic, but does that eliminate its value completely?

northdallasthirty on December 8, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Fact: Libfreeordie supports 30 year old men having sex with minors. He said it himself. In fact he advocates for it.

CW on December 8, 2012 at 12:25 PM

I’m not a Christian, but you have cause and effect backward here. Somewhere along the line, some form of pressure (possibly peer pressure) pushed said kid into homosexual arousal habits. Attempting pressure them out of those habits is like attempting to pressure someone out of a drug habit, not into one.
Or are you going to argue that it would be unethical to intervene in someone’s destructive drug habit? That we should just leave the druggies to their drugs? – Count to 10 on December 8, 2012 at 12:15 PM

When you study the science of human sexuality and get a doctorate on the subject please come back to this board. Now if you would like to tell this board how you chose to become a heterosexual that would just be fine with me.

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 12:25 PM

LMAO! Your a racist, race baiting, trolling piece of shite.
Your part of the trash I have to walk around, thread after thread.
So to answer your question-no.

Good day.

bazil9 on December 8, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Glad I checked back in. The loveliest part of this thread. ; )

Bmore on December 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Say did they find that gay gene yet?

CW on December 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM

But humans have no control over *what* turns them on. Now of course, our sexualities can alter within their broad hetero/homo constructs. What may have been a taste for older men or an exclusive taste for white or Asian women can alter over time. And this is mostly the case with women who have a different sexual organizatoin than men. But to say that we actively direct and control our desires is just dishonest. The things that make one hard are the things that make one hard.

libfreeordie on December 8, 2012 at 12:22 PM

That’s like a creationist arguing that a species and “microevolve”, but never “macroevolve” into another species. Every sexual habit is learnable — though, like all habits, unlearning them is difficult and often fragile. It isn’t “what you are”, it is “what you have done”, and how that changes over time is largely up to you.

Count to 10 on December 8, 2012 at 12:30 PM

This is just proof of the fact that you were probably doing black tar heroin at Plano high while I was winning debate trophies at Greenhill.

Not likely. Greenhill actually has standards for debate that involve calling out and docking points for strawmen, such as this:

Now I know that conservatism is all about self-denial, no doubt you also think parents should still have final say over who can get married, that no-fault divorce should be done away with.

Since Greenhill’s program is far better than that, you clearly are lying when you state you attended there, since your “debate” skills would be a disgrace to such an organization. More likely you were raping teenage boys in Oak Lawn and giving them HIV.

Now, let’s deal with your attempt at an argument.

Sexual expression is *distinct* from sexual orientation. One can express oneself sexually, i.e. engage in sex acts that are discordant with ones sexual orientation. The most extreme examples of that would be rape, which we know can sometimes actually produce physical signs of arousal in women despite the fact of their sexual assault. I know, I know that blows your Akin-addled mind, but its well documented.

No one has ever argued that gay people can not marry or even procreate with people of the opposite sex. But the argument for same-sex marriage is based upon our desire to enter into marriage with the people we *want* to marry. There is not an equal access to that component of marriage.

Unfortunately, as the bans on incestuous, plural, child, and bestial marriage demonstrate, there is not an “equal access” to marriage to whatever you “want” to marry in any context.

Unless you want to attempt to argue that any restriction on marriage whatsoever represents a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Again, you debate much more like a Carter closet case than you do a Greenhill anything.

northdallasthirty on December 8, 2012 at 12:30 PM

When you study the science of human sexuality and get a doctorate on the subject please come back to this board. Now if you would like to tell this board how you chose to become a heterosexual that would just be fine with me.

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Oh, I can answer that one.

He decided he was going to have sex with women.

He could have gone out and had sex with men, I suppose, but he chose not to do so for several reasons.

Unless you’re planning to contradict libfreeordie’s argument, quote, “No one has ever argued that gay people can not marry or even procreate with people of the opposite sex”, which makes it clear that sexual orientation and activity are quite the matter of choice.

northdallasthirty on December 8, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Not likely. Greenhill actually has standards for debate that involve calling out and docking points for strawmen, such as this:

Now I know that conservatism is all about self-denial, no doubt you also think parents should still have final say over who can get married, that no-fault divorce should be done away with.

A strawman from Libfree? Really?

/

CW on December 8, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Not really.

The Bible is a lot like the Constitution; it espouses the fundamental principles and doesn’t concern itself too extraordinarily with the details.

Hence the argument. Has the changing of the interpretation of the Constitution to accomodate the changing of society rendered the underlying document and its espoused principles worthless? It has made portions of it archaic, but does that eliminate its value completely? – northdallasthirty on December 8, 2012 at 12:24 PM

So we have a living Bible that at one time accepted human slavery but because of changes in our perception of what is right and wrong we now criminalize it. Perhaps with today’s scientific understanding of human sexuality, we have come to a time for another major shift.

SC.Charlie on December 8, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Henry “Harry” Hay is considered the founder of the modern American gay movement.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Henry-Harry-Hay-gay-rights-pioneer-He-2779360.php

Wikapedia-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hay
Hay’s belief in the cultural minority status of homosexuals led him to take a stand against assimilationism. This stance led him to offer public support to controversial groups like the North American Man Boy Love Association

Sort of like Sanger and eugenics…The progressives have sick skeletons that are recent. 150 years after slavery. Liberals are fascists.

BoxHead1 on December 8, 2012 at 12:38 PM

The SCOTUS has ruled on Marriage, and the re-definition of it and the Family before. This was how they ruled:

Reynolds v. United States (1878) – SCOTUS determined:

“[Polygamy] is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity had produced in the Western world.”

Davis v. Beason (1890) – SCOTUS:

“Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. . . . To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind. If they are crimes, then to teach, advise and counsel their practice is to aid in their commission, and such teaching and counseling are themselves criminal and proper subjects of punishment, as aiding and abetting crime are in all other cases.”

The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States (1890), :

“the property of the said corporation . . . [is to be used to promote] the practice of polygamy — a crime against the laws, and abhorrent to the sentiments and feelings of the civilized world. . . . The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy is, in a measure, a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity had produced in the Western world.”

Gay Marriage is just part of the on-going war on God, the Bible, Christianity and Truth and the War on the Family unit in place of the Hegelian State

jp on December 8, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8