(July 16, 2018 at 4:40 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 1:09 pm)SteveII Wrote: What was Obergefell v. Hodges about? A ruling that overturned state-level bans/ballot initiatives/laws on gay marriage. It also struck down portions of DOMA (passed by a veto-proof majority of democratically-elected congressmen/senators). Do we run our country by opinion polls coupled with judicial activists or do we run it according to a democratic process? It's not clear anymore.

What exactly were you hoping for, Steve?  That a minority would end up deciding marriage rights for the majority?  Isn't that the exact sort of thing you've been yammering against in this very thread?  When majority rule is in your favor, it's right as rain, but reverse the positions and suddenly it's hold up, Martha, we've got a problem here! Or perhaps you thought that there was a knife edge wherein the right to marriage was so fundamental as to deserve enshrinement in the very constitution itself, but not sufficiently fundamental to trigger the relevant fourteenth amendment protections?  In the end, a majority of the Supreme Court justices found, contrary to ham-fisted legal opinions otherwise, that no such knife edge where you could comfortably rest your tuckus existed.  So out come the charges of judicial activism.  Do you know what judicial activism is, Steve?  It's code among conservatives for, "opinions that we don't like."  When it comes to Obergefell, it's called judicial activism.  When it comes to Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, why then it's just called "good old fashioned jurisprudence."  It's nothing more than a shibboleth, Steve, plain and simple.

(July 17, 2018 at 12:31 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 17, 2018 at 12:03 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: This is patently false.

Many parts of China have had what is known as "walking marriages", where women have several "husbands" that visit her.

Many tribes in South America have communal marriages, where the entire tribe forms a marriage, and procreates as a group, and shares in raising children.

28 societies in the Himalayas have polyandrous marriages, as do others in India.

Sorry to inform you, but monogamy did not become the norm in the Western world until between the 6th and 9th centuries, CE.



No, it has not. At least, not in the way you falsely believe.

Three points: 1) You do realize you had to use modifiers to distinguish your remote exceptions to the traditional definition of marriage, right? 2) these variations are between men and women. 3) What do you think the % of these outliers are to the billions and billions of traditional marriage? How many decimal points do you think you need?

You have your head in the sand if you don't think marriage is the single most important institution in the history of civilization.

(July 17, 2018 at 12:47 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Seems like we should just call everyone married, and then no one is discriminated against.  I'll be a married bachelor, or someone can marry their toaster.   Whatever floats your boat I suppose.

(July 17, 2018 at 12:49 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(July 17, 2018 at 12:47 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Seems like we should just call everyone married, and then no one is discriminated against.  I'll be a married bachelor, or someone can marry their toaster.   Whatever floats your boat I suppose.

You're better than this.

(July 17, 2018 at 12:51 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 17, 2018 at 12:49 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: You're better than this.

Working with what I’m given.

(July 17, 2018 at 12:52 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote:

(July 17, 2018 at 12:51 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Working with what I’m given.

You're very selectively working with what you're given.

(July 17, 2018 at 12:52 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Funny how the "Christians" have strong opinions regarding marriages of folks not even in their flock, and yet surprising flexibility (regardless of their self-described eternal and unchanging Scriptures) in how their own marriages can be conducted.