(July 17, 2018 at 10:01 am)vorlon13 Wrote: I note in the Mormon world, in less than 200 years, the concept of marriage has been updated, redefined and changed numerous times.

But vorlon the mob must decide that because otherwise it's not "democratic"

---

Quote:There is no right in the constitution to redefine words/concepts/institutions. So, really nothing for the Supreme Court to comment on. I'm not going to go round and round with this. My position is the same as Justice Roberts. At the end of the article above:

Yes it is and they have and Roberts is a biased shill 

Quote:Roberts ends the opinion on a high note, urging those in favor of same-sex marriage to celebrate the decision. He warns, however, "But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

And again he's full of shit

I love how Steve latches on to a dissenting  judge as if he's the grandest authority on the matter .While 5 judges who disagree with him are all "activists" who's opinion don't mean shit

(July 17, 2018 at 10:06 am)SteveII Wrote:

(July 17, 2018 at 9:25 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: The USA is a constitutional republic, not a mob democracy. As the saying goes, when two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner, the sheep loses. In the USA, minorities have rights that can't be easily voted away by the majority. To deprive someone of the opportunity to take part in an action freely allowed to others, it must be shown that barring them from doing so is allowed under the constitution or show a compelling interest in enforcing the restriction for such reasons as national security or because it would cause greater harm to the rights of other citizens. The Supreme Court has the ultimate responsibility to determine cases concerning these matters. I don't always agree with their decisions, and expect to disagree more in the near future, but if they make a wrong decision, it's not because it wasn't enough people deciding it. If Americans don't like the way the laws are interpreted, they have avenues to address that. New laws can be made that are more in line with the constitution. The constitution itself can be amended, if enough people agree with you that it should be. If you're so into the majority determining what's right and wrong, try that.

There is no right in the constitution to redefine words/concepts/institutions. So, really nothing for the Supreme Court to comment on. I'm not going to go round and round with this. My position is the same as Justice Roberts. At the end of the article above:

Roberts ends the opinion on a high note, urging those in favor of same-sex marriage to celebrate the decision. He warns, however, "But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

Dictionaries and common usage can redefine words, you don't need an act of congress or supreme court decision. You're getting silly here.

(July 17, 2018 at 10:10 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(July 17, 2018 at 10:06 am)SteveII Wrote: There is no right in the constitution to redefine words/concepts/institutions. So, really nothing for the Supreme Court to comment on. I'm not going to go round and round with this. My position is the same as Justice Roberts. At the end of the article above:

Roberts ends the opinion on a high note, urging those in favor of same-sex marriage to celebrate the decision. He warns, however, "But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

Dictionaries and common usage can redefine words, you don't need an act of congress or supreme court decision. You're getting silly here.

Hell a bunch of millennial's can redefine words

(July 17, 2018 at 8:58 am)SteveII Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 10:14 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Funny how you're not squawking about how secular governments changed the definition of marriage when they started allowing judges not ordained by any church to perform them.

You claim you're fine with civil unions. But, the only way to be fair about civil unions is to make them the only legally binding agreement. That means your local shaman would no longer have the power to grant a legally binding agreement between "one man and one woman." You down with that Stevie? Or, are you going to ignore me again?

What are you rambling about? Marriage IS NOT a religious concept. That is terribly evident by 10,000+ years of history and billion upon billions of marriages across all times and all cultures. You are erecting straw men.

If marriage is not a christer concept, then what the fuck are you on about?!? Words get redefined all the fucking tim, you ass-hat. Yet you've got your panties in a wad over this one in particular. Care to better explain why, if it's not because of your christer sesibilities? Is it just bigotry against gays motivating you? Serioisly, without you defending it as a sacred part of your foolish beliefs, I can't imagine any other reason for you to be so adamantly against gay marriage.

(July 17, 2018 at 10:24 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:

(July 17, 2018 at 8:58 am)SteveII Wrote: What are you rambling about? Marriage IS NOT a religious concept. That is terribly evident by 10,000+ years of history and billion upon billions of marriages across all times and all cultures. You are erecting straw men.

If marriage is not a christer concept, then what the fuck are you on about?!? Words get redefined all the fucking tim, you ass-hat. Yet you've got your panties in a wad over this one in particular. Care to better explain why, if it's not because of your christer sesibilities? Is it just bigotry against gays motivating you? Serioisly, without you defending it as a sacred part of your foolish beliefs, I can't imagine any other reason for you to be so adamantly against gay marriage.

I can't help it if yo are too lazy to read all of my posts. I'm an not the one late to the party but it seems that I have to repeat everything I said for the third time.

Of course I care because I think the marriage was ordained by God to be a central part of the human experience and has been well defined for more the 10,000 years. And it has been one of the most important parts of the human experience since the beginning of humans. Marriage is not itself a religious concept. I have been clear that I don't care what your view is--I am correcting the pages and pages of mischaracterizations, demonization, straw men, and red herrings of a Christian's perspective on the issue. It is not hatred of bigotry for the vase majority and I have proved that point over and over.

(July 17, 2018 at 10:50 am)SteveII Wrote: Of course I care because I think the marriage was ordained by God to be a central part of the human experience and has been well defined for more the 10,000 years. And it has been one of the most important parts of the human experience since the beginning of humans. Marriage is not itself a religious concept. I have been clear that I don't care what your view is--I am correcting the pages and pages of mischaracterizations, demonization, straw men, and red herrings of a Christian's perspective on the issue. It is not hatred of bigotry for the vase majority and I have proved that point over and over.

Sorry, but Marriage was ordained by the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the year 12000 BC.  His supreme Noddliness had this to say:  "Men shall marry men or women, and women shall marry women or men.  But Christians should not be allowed to marry.  For they are guilty of the sin of believing in a false, cruel, and capricious god.  So they shall be denied being wed in Holy Macaroni."

That is my personally held belief.  And you, sir, are infringing upon it.