U.S. Supreme Court halts gay marriage in Utah

[shadow9d9]

I don't know -- I am not against interracial marriage. My point isn't whether or not someone has a valid reason, but the fact that they can have an opinion.

A lot of the time, people just feel a certain way about things for reasons only known to them.

At any rate, the comparisons are not worth replying or, for a specific reason:

You're saying my argument X (disagreement with gay marriage) is false because argument Y (disagreement with interracial marriage) was false. This is a fallacy of virtue....which is why I am wholly ignoring them.

If you want to show me why I am wrong about disagreeing with gay marriage, tell me why I am wrong about gay marriage...don't tell me why racists were wrong 99 years ago, or why slave owners were wrong.

That's like saying I was wrong for eating a cheeseburger because by great-grandfather was wrong about eating a can of soup.

You were born in a time when the fear and hatred of one thing has become accepted(with no negative consequence) and simply focused on another one. Same human weakness. Still pathetic.

You are wrong on gay marriage simply because you want to deny rights to a group for no actual reason aside from your fear and hate towards them. Giving them equal rights does literally zero to harm you.

People continue to practice hate and fear throughout history. It is simply funny that you can't see that you are the exact same kind of person as them, but you have a new focus.

 

[Retro Rob]

It's an analogy. In both cases, there was a social group that was looked down upon - and subject, sometimes, to violent beatings (and a death penalty in the UK, among other places) - that started speaking up for equal treatment. In both cases, the majority was comfortable with the way things were and got very upset that someone was trying to change things from the 'natural' order. In both cases, the Bible was used to justify this oppression, pseudoscience was used to justify the oppression, and laws were passed to legitimate and solidify this oppression. You're wrong to be supporting the active legislation specifying that this minority group be banned from involvement in the same social and legal structures everyone else gets to take part in, solely because (and your reasons are unclear, so clarify if you like) you just find them icky and wish they would go away.


Indifference to evil is evil.

Where have I done this?

 

[shadow9d9]

Where have I done this?

All you are doing is twisting and turning. You might fool yourself, but it won't fool anyone else. You are rationalizing/justifying behavior that is oppressing others. You should be ashamed, yet you feel nothing. This is because of the rationalization/justification.

 

[werepossum]

That's why the argument is fallacious, because it doesn't address the merit of my argument, but the merit (or lack thereof) of other arguments.

For instance, many in Detroit live in poverty...some rob and kill people. So just because people in Detroit share similarities with the killers and thieves, is ok for me to use that as an indictment against ALL Detroiters?

You see the similarities? Poor, living in Detroit...so logically, they're all thieves and killers.

I agree. I HATE when religion attempts to legislate their beliefs. That's not what I am doing, nor proposing as a action to be taken.

Oh, I agree it's an unsupportable argument in the end, I'm just saying the two have strong similarities that lead people to compare them. It would be different if people were arguing that opposing gay marriage is bad because people once thought kumquats were poisonous. While not linked, the arguments for opposing gay marriage are similar in origin to those for opposing interracial marriage, albeit much stronger on the religion argument. Doesn't mean one can't be morally correct and the other morally incorrect, but the similarities suffice for an argument for that conclusion.

All you are doing is twisting and turning. You might fool yourself, but it won't fool anyone else. You are rationalizing/justifying behavior that is oppressing others. You should be ashamed, yet you feel nothing. This is because of the rationalization/justification.

Demand conformity of thought. Nothing less will do. Only when diversity has been ruthlessly stamped out can we have the benefits of, um, diversity.

He is not supporting a ban on gay marriage, nor other legal restrictions on or discrimination against gays. Why on Earth is that not enough for you?

 

[shadow9d9]

Oh, I agree it's an unsupportable argument in the end, I'm just saying the two have strong similarities that lead people to compare them. It would be different if people were arguing that opposing gay marriage is bad because people once thought kumquats were poisonous. While not linked, the arguments for opposing gay marriage are similar in origin to those for opposing interracial marriage, albeit much stronger on the religion argument. Doesn't mean one can't be morally correct and the other morally incorrect, but the similarities suffice for an argument for that conclusion.


Demand conformity of thought. Nothing less will do. Only when diversity has been ruthlessly stamped out can we have the benefits of, um, diversity.

He is not supporting a ban on gay marriage, nor other legal restrictions on or discrimination against gays. Why on Earth is that not enough for you?

He is absolutely standing against it by allowing the status quo to continue, which keeps gays oppressed.

"I don't support slavery, I just don't care to do anything about it."

No one cares what he thinks. He could masturbate to the idea of gays being rounded up and killed if he'd like. Good try at a strawman though.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I don't know -- I am not against interracial marriage. My point isn't whether or not someone has a valid reason, but the fact that they can have an opinion.

A lot of the time, people just feel a certain way about things for reasons only known to them.

Sorry but that makes no sense to me and that's why I asked you to come up with a non racist reason to be against mixed race marriage (remembering that until recent times it was illegal for people of different 'races' to marry in many American states).

This is one of those 'opinions' that really can have no justification. For example, the obvious issue of white folk and black folk being legally prevented from marrying each other for no other 'reason' that the fact that they were of different races. And the 'opinion' of those behind the laws was that black folk were inferior to white folk. Interestingly enough this is also, in a sense, the 'reason' given for the laws, they didn't want to taint superior white blood with inferior black blood.


So, you have an 'opinion' that black folks are inferior to white folk and shouldn't be allowed to legally marry. And that 'opinion' was expressed through the various state laws that prevented white folk and black folk from marrying one another.

Seriously, can you come up with *any* reason that isn't racist that could have gone into forming that 'opinion'

At any rate, the comparisons are not worth replying or, for a specific reason:

You're saying my argument X (disagreement with gay marriage) is false because argument Y (disagreement with interracial marriage) was false. This is a fallacy of virtue....which is why I am wholly ignoring them.

If you want to show me why I am wrong about disagreeing with gay marriage, tell me why I am wrong about gay marriage...don't tell me why racists were wrong 99 years ago, or why slave owners were wrong.

That's like saying I was wrong for eating a cheeseburger because by great-grandfather was wrong about eating a can of soup.

Re the above, I wasn't actually arguing anything with you prior to this. I just thought that interracial marriage was a *really* bad example for you to use in the way you seemed to be trying to do.

 

[Retro Rob]

Sorry but that makes no sense to me and that's why I asked you to come up with a non racist reason to be against mixed race marriage (remembering that until recent times it was illegal for people of different 'races' to marry in many American states)

Why should I have to come up with a "non racist reason" to be against interracial marriage? I've never been racist....I've never been against interracial marriage.

This is one of those 'opinions' that really can have no justification. For example, the obvious issue of white folk and black folk being legally prevented from marrying each other for no other 'reason' that the fact that they were of different races. And the 'opinion' of those behind the laws was that black folk were inferior to white folk. Interestingly enough this is also, in a sense, the 'reason' given for the laws, they didn't want to taint superior white blood with inferior black blood.

Good for them. I am not against interracial marraige, I don't care why people were/are. I know I'm not, and at the end of the day, that's all that really matters.

So, you have an 'opinion' that black folks are inferior to white folk and shouldn't be allowed to legally marry. And that 'opinion' was expressed through the various state laws that prevented white folk and black folk from marrying one another

No, I *DON'T* have an opinion that blacks are inferior to whites. I am not white, and don't object to interracial marriage, and never have.

For those who still do, so what? Why does it matter to you so much?

Re the above, I wasn't actually arguing anything with you prior to this. I just thought that interracial marriage was a *really* bad example for you to use in the way you seemed to be trying to do.

What are you talking about? Your pro-gay cohorts compared interracial marriage and slavery and voting rights and women's rights to gay marriage. I was explaining why I will continue to ignore those arguments.

 

[MrPickins]

Why should I have to come up with a "non racist reason" to be against interracial marriage? I've never been racist....I've never been against interracial marriage.

To justify this statement:

Lol -- a racist isn't a person who doesn't think whites should marry blacks. That's an opinion, only. We choose to attach race because we think everyone should think like we do.

Like Victorian Gray, I don't really think you're racist, I just think that you need to choose your examples much more carefully.

As for the race analogy, it may not be perfect, but it's pretty darn accurate. I suppose we'll see how accurate in 40 years.

 

[Murloc]

What good is a democracy, or even a republic, if it does not reflect the will of the people?

the federal constitution reflects the will of the people and states.
States are bound by it. The courts or other federal institutions decide whether state laws and constitutions respect it or not.

It didn't respect it, deal with it or let's see how many utah citizens want secession.

EDIT: didn't see that there was more than one page, sorry.

 

[MrPickins]

Thinking that people shouldn't think differently is practically the definition of fascism

I suppose I should make it clear that I don't think we should have uniformity of opinion.

But, if you have an opinion, you shouldn't fool yourself as to the reasons.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I think that phrase "LGBT community" has done a lot of damage by implying not only homogeneity but also difference. If one accepts that there is an LGBT community which is distinct and therefore different from non-gays, then assuming that the most visible gay people are representative of that group is natural. Blacks suffered much the same a bit, but not to nearly as strong a measure because most people who identify as black are easily visually identified, so that one knows (assuming one has at least enough wit to dress oneself and is not living a segregated lifestyle) that the black carjacker on the evening news is not representative of blacks as a whole. If however one knows few or no gays, then it's easy to assume that the most visible specimens are representative of the "community". In reality people tend to be individuals, such that while I do not care for watching sports a significant amount of gay men do. Yet everyone would associate watching football with the straight community rather than the gay community.

I understand the need to have a sense of community when one is so different from one's family and childhood friends, but I still think the concept is ultimately damaging.

It is not just a wanting a sense of community, it is needed to even find each other. Other groups can find each other because it is obvious who belongs to that group. For the LGBT community it is non-obvious. Even asking someone if they are LGBT is likely to get you into trouble. So, for a LGBT to have a dating pool, mentor, or support network they need to be a part of a LGBT community.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Why should I have to come up with a "non racist reason" to be against interracial marriage? I've never been racist....I've never been against interracial marriage.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding the point? You used this as an example. I was simply pointing out the problems with using this as an example. In other words, It's *NOT* an appropriate example to use to make your argument.

The reason I'm asking for a non racist reason is to help you to understand this point.

You apparently have no desire to understand this point so, carry on.

Good for them. I am not against interracial marraige, I don't care why people were/are. I know I'm not, and at the end of the day, that's all that really matters.



No, I *DON'T* have an opinion that blacks are inferior to whites. I am not white, and don't object to interracial marriage, and never have.

For those who still do, so what? Why does it matter to you so much?

What are you talking about? Your pro-gay cohorts compared interracial marriage and slavery and voting rights and women's rights to gay marriage. I was explaining why I will continue to ignore those arguments.

I have no "pro-gay cohorts" and I don't care why you ignore the arguments of whoever this is supposed to be.

I told you why I was raising the issue and tried to explain it.

If you're not willing to make an effort to understand what's going on, that's your problem, not mine.

Have a nice day.

 

[sportage]

Every day something new.
What a time we live in.

With the federal government now recognizing Utah SS marriages that occurred in past weeks, recognizing as valid marriages, will give much power on the side of marriage equality arguments in the 10 circuit court now considering the matter.

Some might call this a stunt by the Feds. Yes, an ingenious stunt at that this truly was.
I tell you.... where all this is heading is to separate the issue of marriage from a state issue into an federal issue.
Exactly as with mixed marriages back in the 60's, all states will have no options with not recognizing SS marriages nation wide.
Even if one were SS married in a recognized SS marriage legalized state, out of this every state will be forced to recognize that marriage regardless of the state where the marriage occurred.
And you know what that means?
A few legal challenges here and there, and voila, marriage equality nation wide.
Coast to coast.
And I might add, forever more.
No bans, no banned constitutional amendments, no state amendments banning.
Settles law.

Obama May hope and believe his reform of healthcare is to be his lasting legacy, but I believe his legacy will be his administrations support and advancement with marriage equality.
Truly a proud legacy indeed for any president.
Ending slavery, Lincoln.
Civil rights, LBJ.
Marriage equality, Obama.
Not bad for an enduring legacy.....
Healthcare will be reformed and re-reformed throughout our history.
Marriage equality? That will be here to stay. And this president will get the credit.