(June 27, 2015 at 7:47 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: .Bitch, you don't get to vote on rights.  That's why they're called 'rights'.

Sadly most people want to vote on rights.

You don't get to vote on rights is exactly the point. The South would not have voted to integrate. The assholes like Governor Faubus in Arkansas (they are a rare breed in that state) cried state's rights when the SCOTUS ruled that 'separate but equal' was a bullshit policy, half of which wasn't being practiced. So he exercised his state's rights by pulling the state militia to keep the 9 students out of Central High in Little Rock and incited riots and blamed them on the blacks in the state. But then Ike bitchslapped him with the 101st. My favorite example of exercising executive power.

(June 27, 2015 at 7:58 pm)Lek Wrote: I'm of two minds on the supreme court ruling.  For one, I've long thought that it's wrong to provide certain civil rights to some and not to others.  So in that regard I'm okay with the ruling.  On the other hand, I hate to see so many Americans supporting homosexual relationships as moral.  I know we're a pluralistic society and we should provide rights to all citizens regardless of religion, but in order to do it we changed the definition of what we believe marriage is, and we could do the same thing by just allowing exactly the same civil rights for all without doing that.  I've brought up this example before, and I believe it's equally acceptable.  A man in college can be barred from joining a sorority, but he may join a fraternity and have equal status.  I see no reason to redefine what a sorority is because they discriminate against men.  Is there any difference between that situation and the government just granting equal benefits to any qualifying civil union without redefining an institution as it existed at the time the constitution was written?  The writers of the constitution and those who ratified it never envisioned marriage as a union between two people of the same sex. I guess christians will now have to come up with a new word to call what they now call marriage.

Your humanity is struggling with your institutionalised bigotry. It's a common side effect of addiction to Christcrack.

(June 27, 2015 at 7:58 pm)Lek Wrote: I'm of two minds on the supreme court ruling.  For one, I've long thought that it's wrong to provide certain civil rights to some and not to others.  So in that regard I'm okay with the ruling.  On the other hand, I hate to see so many Americans supporting homosexual relationships as moral.  I know we're a pluralistic society and we should provide rights to all citizens regardless of religion, but in order to do it we changed the definition of what we believe marriage is, and we could do the same thing by just allowing exactly the same civil rights for all without doing that.  I've brought up this example before, and I believe it's equally acceptable.  A man in college can be barred from joining a sorority, but he may join a fraternity and have equal status.  I see no reason to redefine what a sorority is because they discriminate against men.  Is there any difference between that situation and the government just granting equal benefits to any qualifying civil union without redefining an institution as it existed at the time the constitution was written?  The writers of the constitution and those who ratified it never envisioned marriage as a union between two people of the same sex. I guess christians will now have to come up with a new word to call what they now call marriage.

We shall call it what we always have, Holy Matrimony. The wordly may change their definitions on whim, why not call an apple a pear now, but true marriage will remain above such abasement.

(June 27, 2015 at 8:05 pm)Iroscato Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 7:58 pm)Lek Wrote: I'm of two minds on the supreme court ruling.  For one, I've long thought that it's wrong to provide certain civil rights to some and not to others.  So in that regard I'm okay with the ruling.  On the other hand, I hate to see so many Americans supporting homosexual relationships as moral.  I know we're a pluralistic society and we should provide rights to all citizens regardless of religion, but in order to do it we changed the definition of what we believe marriage is, and we could do the same thing by just allowing exactly the same civil rights for all without doing that.  I've brought up this example before, and I believe it's equally acceptable.  A man in college can be barred from joining a sorority, but he may join a fraternity and have equal status.  I see no reason to redefine what a sorority is because they discriminate against men.  Is there any difference between that situation and the government just granting equal benefits to any qualifying civil union without redefining an institution as it existed at the time the constitution was written?  The writers of the constitution and those who ratified it never envisioned marriage as a union between two people of the same sex. I guess christians will now have to come up with a new word to call what they now call marriage.

Your humanity is struggling with your institutionalised bigotry. It's a common side effect of addiction to Christcrack.

I think rather that it's you who have no concern for the institutions that have a lot of meaning for many. If some guy wants to join a sorority, do you think we should grant him that right and change the definition of a sorority?

Quote: The writers of the constitution and those who ratified it never envisioned marriage as a union between two people of the same sex.

Could you show me where they ever considered the issue at all?

(June 27, 2015 at 7:58 pm)Lek Wrote:  The writers of the constitution and those who ratified it never envisioned marriage as a union between two people of the same sex.

The writers of the constitution probably never envisioned marriage as a union between nonwhites.

(June 27, 2015 at 8:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: The writers of the constitution and those who ratified it never envisioned marriage as a union between two people of the same sex.

Could you show me where they ever considered the issue at all?

I think it was a given.

(June 27, 2015 at 8:16 pm)FriendlyNeighborhoodAtheist Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 7:58 pm)Lek Wrote:  The writers of the constitution and those who ratified it never envisioned marriage as a union between two people of the same sex.

The writers of the constitution probably never envisioned marriage as a union between nonwhites.

I would think that was a situation that they were already familiar with.

(June 27, 2015 at 8:18 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 27, 2015 at 8:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Could you show me where they ever considered the issue at all?

I think it was a given.

Considering their treatment of women in the constitution?  I think you had best brush up on early American history.