Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 163

Thread: Gay Marriage ruling

  1. #21
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    29,328
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    It's abnormal, and will always be so

    Thanks to the 60's radical hippies and other fruits nuts and flakes running the nation it's legal

    No law in favor of it will make this social climbing exercise approximate anything more than a similacrum of normalcy
    You won't see any bounce in your life, but this will make many people very happy.

  2. #22
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,156
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    You mean Liberal Radio all week this week discussing how to fire SC Justices or hold them to term limits or how their power isn't legitimate, etc, etc, etc?

    Same stuff Mark Levin and many righties trot out when rulings go against their beliefs?

    Seems neither side trusts the court, regardless of how they rule.

    Yep. It's a big problem, IMO.

  3. #23
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    No. Sexual activity (of any kind) simply for enjoyment is no different that any other activity just for enjoyment.

    Exclusive sexual attraction to the same sex is not the same thing.



    Again, it's not the action that counts, but the evolutionary design of the species. This is not about choices.

    We are designed by evolution to have eyes, hence lacking eyes is not normal, it is a dysfunction, even if 10% of us might lack vision.

    In the same vein, we are designed by evolution to be a sexual reporducting, heterosexual species. Hence being homosexual is not normal, it's a dysfunction, even if 10% of us might like our own sex.

    the only reason it is called "normal" desite not meeting the definition of the word is to A. reduce abuse of gays (a good purpose) and B. to make gays feel better about being gay. It's the same as why we can no longer use "retarded" even if someone is, by the definition fo the term, metally retarded by their specific problem or ailment.

    It's PC speak. I reject it.



    Could care less if people agree tbqh, although I never cease to be amazed at how brainwahsed most are by current era political correctness and fear of offending anyoen about anything.

    Rightiousness and consensus are two different words for a very good reason. As some say about freedom of speech, I may disagree with what you say completely but would defend your right to say it with my life. I feel the same way here, I may disagreew ith teh claimed "normality" of homosexuality, but I do defend their rights to be free from descrimination abuse or any other unequal treatment under the law fully and completely.

    If that isn't good enough, if )like the freedom of speech issue) it's not enough to support the right, but to be forced to support the content too.....well, too bad.
    It's interesting from an historical perspective that cultures have dealt with homosexuality in so many different ways. It's not a matter of current PC at all, but the dominance of Judeo-Christian beliefs in our culture that have imposed "sin" on virtually all practices that don't lead to procreation. That includes the dreaded "onanism" practiced by Noah. I would argue that it is actually the PC Judeo-Christians who are drawing the lines on normalcy here, not those who see homosexuality as a "live and let live" issue.

    As to "normalcy" in any case, I think the whole construct is strained and useless. I have determined that anyone who has more than six kids is "abnormal;" anyone who has more than two dogs; anyone who wears stripes and plaids at the same time; anyone who is less than five feet tall; anyone who actually likes eggplant. If it helps you sleep at night, then by all means go about neatly categorizing "normal" and "abnormal." Although you still must answer the question why from an evolutionary perspective homosexuality exists at all. Could it actually serve a purpose?

  4. #24
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,280
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by WestCoastOffensive View Post
    You won't see any bounce in your life, but this will make many people very happy.
    Not a good enough reason to make anything legal. I believe it makes more people unhappy, it certainly displeases me and cheapens my marriage considerably. No matter how hard libs try, they cant dictate what is moral in the hearts and minds of people. I am looking forward to adult-child, animal-human and polygamy combos in the interest of the industry of human happiness, and southside marrying a shell corporation to get that married filing jointly tax break



    In a libertarian way, the Federal government should not have any interest in legislating marriage in any way whatsoever. In a practical way, it should encourage hetero marriage and the natural family whenever possible (they do it in teh tax code). The problem was lavender states making the mockery of a sham of a pretense of gay marriage legal in the 1st place. Oncest that happened, the Federal law prohibiting such was endangered. On the surface, this decision does not prevent SSM from being prohibited in the states that wish to do so. I expect the gay lobby to focus on making those unconstitutional as well.
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-26-2013 at 02:08 PM.

  5. #25
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    5,836
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    it...cheapens my marriage considerably.
    Im going to regret asking this, but how does it do that?

    As a married person, IMO how you or anyone else live your married lives has no reflection on mine. Just like I could care less how big your house is, your car, or whatever. The value of my marriage is impacted by two individuals and two indivuals only; My wife and me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    I am looking forward to adult-child, animal-human and polygamy in the interest of the industry of human happiness, and southside marrying a shell corporation to get that married filing jointly tax break
    Another slippery slope argument that I never quite saw the validity in. Again, I'll probably regret asking... I guess im a pseudo/neo/crypto conservative or something.

  6. #26
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    19,603
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    It's interesting from an historical perspective that cultures have dealt with homosexuality in so many different ways. It's not a matter of current PC at all, but the dominance of Judeo-Christian beliefs in our culture that have imposed "sin" on virtually all practices that don't lead to procreation. That includes the dreaded "onanism" practiced by Noah. I would argue that it is actually the PC Judeo-Christians who are drawing the lines on normalcy here, not those who see homosexuality as a "live and let live" issue.

    As to "normalcy" in any case, I think the whole construct is strained and useless. I have determined that anyone who has more than six kids is "abnormal;" anyone who has more than two dogs; anyone who wears stripes and plaids at the same time; anyone who is less than five feet tall; anyone who actually likes eggplant. If it helps you sleep at night, then by all means go about neatly categorizing "normal" and "abnormal." Although you still must answer the question why from an evolutionary perspective homosexuality exists at all. Could it actually serve a purpose?
    You conveniently left out the third major religion, Islam. And how do they handle gays? I think we all know.

    Luckily, none of those things you mentioned have anything to do with biological functions. Eggplant? Really?

    Fact is, gays can't reproduce without artificial scientific means.

    And to Flubber: don't trot out the tired "animals are like that also" tripe. Animals will hump anything. If a dog tries to hump a cat, does that mean he's into bestiality?

  7. #27
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    It's interesting from an historical perspective that cultures have dealt with homosexuality in so many different ways. It's not a matter of current PC at all, but the dominance of Judeo-Christian beliefs in our culture that have imposed "sin" on virtually all practices that don't lead to procreation. That includes the dreaded "onanism" practiced by Noah. I would argue that it is actually the PC Judeo-Christians who are drawing the lines on normalcy here, not those who see homosexuality as a "live and let live" issue.
    Again, you are discussing social acceptance/toleration, not evolutionary design/normalcy. I am strictly speaking of the second, not the first.

    As to "normalcy" in any case, I think the whole construct is strained and useless. I have determined that anyone who has more than six kids is "abnormal;" anyone who has more than two dogs; anyone who wears stripes and plaids at the same time; anyone who is less than five feet tall; anyone who actually likes eggplant. If it helps you sleep at night, then by all means go about neatly categorizing "normal" and "abnormal." Although you still must answer the question why from an evolutionary perspective homosexuality exists at all. Could it actually serve a purpose?
    /facepalm

    Love the personalization and vitriol "if it helps you sleep at night".

    Yes, because my sleep is determined by this debate.

    /double-facepalm

    Now even the word "normal" is offensive hate apparently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    I am looking forward to adult-child, animal-human and polygamy combos in the interest of the industry of human happiness
    The first two won't happen, as neither an animal nor a child can give consent under our system.

    With that said, you may want to consider the ages of wives in the era of Jesus, which (today) would be considered pedophilia, but in jesus's time was perfectly normal.

    The third, Polgyany is absolutely going to happen next IMO, based upon the specific arguments used to win this and other Gay marriage suits.
    Last edited by Churchill; 06-26-2013 at 02:28 PM.

  8. #28
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    291
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum View Post

    Fact is, gays can't reproduce without artificial scientific means.
    And neither can sterile couples. Or elderly couples who marry late in life.

    If marriage was solely about reproduction, there would be many, many less married people.

  9. #29
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    19,603
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by OBENjet View Post
    And neither can sterile couples. Or elderly couples who marry late in life.

    If marriage was solely about reproduction, there would be many, many less married people.
    we're not talking marriage, we're talking biology and reproduction and how its not normal (ie biologically viable).

    weak obfuscation sauce.

  10. #30
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,280
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn Jet View Post
    Im going to regret asking this, but how does it do that?

    As a married person, IMO how you or anyone else live your married lives has no reflection on mine. Just like I could care less how big your house is, your car, or whatever. The value of my marriage is impacted by two individuals and two indivuals only; My wife and me.



    Another slippery slope argument that I never quite saw the validity in. Again, I'll probably regret asking... I guess im a pseudo/neo/crypto conservative or something.
    No, you're a lib. Especially if you have to ask why its cheesy.

    No need to give a social aberration social and moral privilege/standing it doesn't deserve on behalf of a mixed up minority.

    Marriage is not a right, if it were, children and all the wet and wild combos you could imagine would be permitted to marry and society would have no objection.

  11. #31
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,280
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post

    *snip* you're arguing with a guy in the Village, nuff said


    The first two won't happen, as neither an animal nor a child can give consent under our system.

    With that said, you may want to consider the ages of wives in the era of Jesus, which (today) would be considered pedophilia, but in jesus's time was perfectly normal.

    The third, Polgyany is absolutely going to happen next IMO, based upon the specific arguments used to win this and other Gay marriage suits.
    Glad you're so certain the "system" wil remain in place.

    Color me skeptical when a heathen cites the time of Jesus as a basis for argument. Any stoont of history knows people in those days lived shorter . more laborious, less comfortable lives and got on with marriage and procreating as soon as menarche occurred.

    IMO the age of consent barrier will also be struck down as an archaic artificial social construct preventing the pursuit of happiness.
    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-26-2013 at 02:43 PM.

  12. #32
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    7,986
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Again, you are discussing social acceptance/toleration, not evolutionary design/normalcy. I am strictly speaking of the second, not the first.



    /facepalm

    Love the personalization and vitriol "if it helps you sleep at night".

    Yes, because my sleep is determined by this debate.

    /double-facepalm

    Now even the word "normal" is offensive hate apparently.



    The first two won't happen, as neither an animal nor a child can give consent under our system.

    With that said, you may want to consider the ages of wives in the era of Jesus, which (today) would be considered pedophilia, but in jesus's time was perfectly normal.

    The third, Polgyany is absolutely going to happen next IMO, based upon the specific arguments used to win this and other Gay marriage suits.
    I'm pressing the point that you've locked in on the "it doesn't serve reproduction so therefore it's abnormal" argument and it frankly doesn't hold up. Nor have you answered my question as to whether it may actually serve an evolutionary purpose. In the bigger picture, it may actually be part of "normal."

    Here's an article re the paradox of homosexuality in evolution...

    http://chronicle.com/article/The-Evo...ery-of/135762/
    Last edited by long island leprechaun; 06-26-2013 at 02:54 PM.

  13. #33
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,874
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    I'm pressing the point that you've locked in on the "it doesn't serve reproduction so therefore it's abnormal" argument and it frankly doesn't hold up.
    I'm not going to restate a clearly presented and supported argument for you just because you choose not to understand it.

    Nor have you answered my question as to whether it may actually serve an evolutionary purpose. In the bigger picture, it may actually be part of "normal."
    Only if you redefine what normal means. Being in posession of a variance form the norm will never be normal without socio-political re-definition, as is occuring here.

    To answer you somewhat off-topic question, there is no such thing as "evolutionary purpose", evolution is an unguided and random process, not a guided hand of God that has things like "purpose". What works works and lives on, what does not does not and doesn't.

    So no, it does not serve an evolutionary "purpose", and if evolution could overpower our collective-social-intelligence (which in this case it clearly cannot), any supposed genetic cause would die off due to lack or reproduction, and only social choice (which COULD then be judged by society if it so choose) would remain.

    Only the socio-political mandate requires that we redefine something that is not normal to be normal. Without that social pressure, there is no question that a deviancy from the norm (norm being hetero) would be called what it is.

    The logical proof is thus: If being gay is normal, it's normal to be gay. Hence all of us hetero would not be normal, because the very meaning of normal does mean "any possible combination fo traits", it means what is says on the tin, the "normal", i.e. Normality (also known as normalcy) is the state of being normal. Behaviour can be normal for an individual (intrapersonal normality) when it is consistent with the most common behaviour for that person.

    Which brings me back to the beginning. It's not enough to support and tolerate. The socio-political pressure to agree fully even if illogical and counter-factual or else isnever more obvious than when discussing this issue or others like it.
    Last edited by Churchill; 06-26-2013 at 03:05 PM.

  14. #34
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    29,328
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    Not a good enough reason to make anything legal. I believe it makes more people unhappy, it certainly displeases me and cheapens my marriage considerably. No matter how hard libs try, they cant dictate what is moral in the hearts and minds of people. I am looking forward to adult-child, animal-human and polygamy combos in the interest of the industry of human happiness, and southside marrying a shell corporation to get that married filing jointly tax break



    In a libertarian way, the Federal government should not have any interest in legislating marriage in any way whatsoever. In a practical way, it should encourage hetero marriage and the natural family whenever possible (they do it in teh tax code). The problem was lavender states making the mockery of a sham of a pretense of gay marriage legal in the 1st place. Oncest that happened, the Federal law prohibiting such was endangered. On the surface, this decision does not prevent SSM from being prohibited in the states that wish to do so. I expect the gay lobby to focus on making those unconstitutional as well.
    YOU cheapens your marriage because YOU have assigned it a value...and if you think anyone else is keeping score, you're not paying attention.

  15. #35
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,647
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Churchill;4918181

    So is being born blind, using your definition of "normal". Just like blindness (a lack of correct function of the eyes), I see Homosexuality as a lack of correct function of the human sexuality/attraction/mental system.

    I wouldn't legislate against bline people either, I shouldn't have to point out.[/QUOTE]

    Agree 100%.

  16. #36
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,280
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by WestCoastOffensive View Post
    YOU cheapens your marriage because YOU have assigned it a value...and if you think anyone else is keeping score, you're not paying attention.
    I gots the solution, just sprinkle a few o' these onto the ersatz, counterfeit similacrums - worked wonders for "New Coke"

    Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-26-2013 at 03:23 PM.

  17. #37
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    5,836
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    The third, Polgyany is absolutely going to happen next IMO, based upon the specific arguments used to win this and other Gay marriage suits.
    Agreed. May not be soon, but it was around before these arguments, and they can certainly be extrapolated to support the practice.

  18. #38
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,647
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Which brings me back to the beginning. It's not enough to support and tolerate. The socio-political pressure to agree fully even if illogical and counter-factual or else isnever more obvious than when discussing this issue or others like it.
    I think reasonable people can accept your support of their rights but not approval of their activities.

  19. #39
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    49,647
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    Not a good enough reason to make anything legal. I believe it makes more people unhappy, it certainly displeases me and cheapens my marriage considerably.
    How is your marriage different than is was yesterday?

  20. #40
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    5,836
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    No, you're a lib. Especially if you have to ask why its cheesy.

    No need to give a social aberration social and moral privilege/standing it doesn't deserve on behalf of a mixed up minority.

    Marriage is not a right, if it were, children and all the wet and wild combos you could imagine would be permitted to marry and society would have no objection.
    About what I expected for an answer.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us