SCOTUS Refuses review of opinions striking down gay marriage bans

Let's make it easier for each other...What is your definition of discrimination.

Marriage in the realm of my pov of this conversation is the state granting the exact same legal rights to Two Human beings of legal age that are not siblings that have been married in a Civil Union regardless of race , religion or sexual orientation. . Originally Posted by WTF

Let's not get off track, I'm happy to answer your question. I just want to make sure I'm answering it based on a mutual agreement of what marriage is.

It appears that we are using a more contemporary, secular definition of marriage rather than the traditional, religious definition. Am I correct? That's not intended to be a loaded question. Just want to be on the same page otherwise we could argue this all day.

So marriage is a consensual civil union between two unrelated(not siblings) adults(consenting age). The authority for the union is granted by the state(or people) and the state has the authority to dissolve that civil union.

Are we on the same page with our definition of marriage?

And simple biology!!!! 2 men cannot create a baby.....of course, to people who love killing babies, creating life is not a big deal...... Originally Posted by LowRider69

Obviously Homosexuals cannot reproduce. Homosexual union cannot sustain the species. Lets look at something hypothetically. Lets say there are two islands separated by hundreds of miles of water. Island number one has only two people on it, two male Homosexuals. Island number two has only two people on it, a male and a female. Lets say all four of the individuals on both islands are 20 years old and the life expectancy is 75 years old. I think it would be safe to assume that in 55 years Island number one wouldn't have any people living on it and island number two would be populated. So a Homosexual union isn't equal to a heterosexual union on that basis alone. You can't achieve equality in bits and pieces it must be overall.

Jim

If the government sells you a license, how is it illegal?????????

Originally Posted by LowRider69

Simple fuck try fishing, hunting, driving a car, marriage. starting a business. To name a few stay on the porch.

Would y'all please stop interrupting so WTF can answer?

It's an opinion based on science, Psychology and Sociology. Saying Gay marriage is equal to Heterosexual marriage is like saying a car and a boat are equal.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Which again is subjective....do you understand what subjective means?

It appears that we are using a more contemporary, secular definition of marriage rather than the traditional, religious definition. Am I correct? ? Originally Posted by boardman

Yes , I was hoping we could discuss marriage as it pertains to present day society.



We can talk about the religious definition of marriage and its views on divorce another time.
1 Corinthians 7:1-16

Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Question....do you think banning gays from marrying is discriminatory?


Originally Posted by WTF

Marriage in the realm of my pov of this conversation is the state granting the exact same legal rights to Two Human beings of legal age that are not siblings that have been married in a Civil Union regardless of race , religion or sexual orientation. . Originally Posted by WTF

It appears that we are using a more contemporary, secular definition of marriage rather than the traditional, religious definition. Am I correct? That's not intended to be a loaded question. Just want to be on the same page otherwise we could argue this all day.

So marriage is a consensual civil union between two unrelated(not siblings) adults(consenting age). The authority for the union is granted by the state(or people) and the state has the authority to dissolve that civil union.

Are we on the same page with our definition of marriage? Originally Posted by boardman

Yes , I was hoping we could discuss marriage as it pertains to present day society.
Originally Posted by WTF

I would agree by that definition that banning marriage among gays is discrimination.

I will go further by giving you my definition of discrimination

Discrimination would be the behavior of treating someone differently based on personal characteristics.

Can we agree on that?

Please, Tell me how I think. Originally Posted by boardman

You apparently think that if the majority believes it's OK to discriminate against gays who want to be treated equally, it's OK to do that just so long as the voters say so.

Am I wrong? If the cretins and religious whacks in Mississippi and Texas manage to win a vote on the issue, then the gays in Mississippi and Texas are shit out of luck when it comes to all the legal rights associated with marriage? If a state votes to reinstate slavery, would that be OK with you? Or, say if they voted to allow discrimination based on the color of a person's skin, would that be OK with you? Reinstate segregation? How do you think that vote would have gone in 1956 in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida....and probably multiple other states?

Because that seems like what you're thinking.....or, at least posting.

Obviously Homosexuals cannot reproduce. Homosexual union cannot sustain the species. Lets look at something hypothetically. Lets say there are two islands separated by hundreds of miles of water. Island number one has only two people on it, two male Homosexuals. Island number two has only two people on it, a male and a female. Lets say all four of the individuals on both islands are 20 years old and the life expectancy is 75 years old. I think it would be safe to assume that in 55 years Island number one wouldn't have any people living on it and island number two would be populated. So a Homosexual union isn't equal to a heterosexual union on that basis alone. You can't achieve equality in bits and pieces it must be overall.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Same tired old bunny trail argument. It's just stupid, what else could anybody with an IQ above room temperature think when confronted with this type of thinking? Ridiculous.

NEWS FLASH: Homosexuals aren't reproducing anyway, and never have, and guess what? It doesn't matter in terms of world population.....we have plenty. More than we need in fact.

FAGGOTS! FAGGOTS!

One for them and one for YOU!

Same tired old bunny trail argument. It's just stupid, what else could anybody with an IQ above room temperature think when confronted with this type of thinking? Ridiculous.

NEWS FLASH: Homosexuals aren't reproducing anyway, and never have, and guess what? It doesn't matter in terms of world population.....we have plenty. More than we need in fact. Originally Posted by timpage

That's right they can't reproduce and there is no point in them getting married either. This country needs to concentrate on far more important issues. Besides that's the whole point of heterosexual marriage to have children and raise a family not to do your taxes together which is essentially the argument on homo sexual marriages.


Jim

FAGGOTS! FAGGOTS! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You would rather have an America made up of them than conservatives, wouldn't you?

That's right they can't reproduce and there is no point in them getting married either. This country needs to concentrate on far more important issues. Besides that's the whole point of heterosexual marriage to have children and raise a family not to do your taxes together which is essentially the argument on homo sexual marriages.


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

At some point in this absurd end game of individual rights above all else, we get what we have here, the redefinition of marriage in favor of the buttfuckers.
Individual rights have to be balanced against the needs of society at some point; individual rights, while wonderful, are not absolute. Homosexual marriage is just stupid and any society that elevates it to normal is doomed to a slow decline. In another 25-50 years, if the Muslims continue to promote real families and have more children than anyone else, they will overrun the West and you sodomite lovers will see too late how you helped destroy a once great nation.

Stupid spam (again).

FAGGOTS! FAGGOTS!

One for them and one for YOU! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I would agree by that definition that banning marriage among gays is discrimination.

I will go further by giving you my definition of discrimination

Discrimination would be the behavior of treating someone differently based on personal characteristics.

Can we agree on that? Originally Posted by boardman

You apparently think that if the majority believes it's OK to discriminate against gays who want to be treated equally, it's OK to do that just so long as the voters say so.

Am I wrong? If the cretins and religious whacks in Mississippi and Texas manage to win a vote on the issue, then the gays in Mississippi and Texas are shit out of luck when it comes to all the legal rights associated with marriage? If a state votes to reinstate slavery, would that be OK with you? Or, say if they voted to allow discrimination based on the color of a person's skin, would that be OK with you? Reinstate segregation? How do you think that vote would have gone in 1956 in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida....and probably multiple other states?

Because that seems like what you're thinking.....or, at least posting. Originally Posted by timpage

I don't know...Are you wrong?

Thanks for clarifying that you are trying to interpret what I am thinking. You don't know for sure what I am thinking.
Is it perhaps your subjectivity getting in the way of your interpretation?