Sure, acceptance of gay rights sans same-sex marriage is greater, but I haven’t been conflating them in my claims: polls indicate that most of today’s youth specifically support same-sex marriage, not just gay rights in general. Once they’re the ones in charge, same-sex marriage will be mainstream; it’s as simple as that.
I don’t quite get how this ruling will stop the metamorphosis one way or the other. The actual court ruling is pretty unlikely to directly change anyone’s view. I don’t see many opponents to SSM saying, “Well, I thought it was an abomination before God, but if the Supreme Court says its okay, I must be wrong.” And, of course, the converse is equally unlikely should the court rule against. Either way, the process of social evolution towards inevitable acceptance of SSM is not retarded: it can only be improved by giving it more attention, as the utter paucity of rational reasons for the opposition to SSM becomes more obvious the longer it is obstructed. Worst case scenario here is that the Supremes rule that there’s nothing wrong with discriminating against gays in marriage. Which is already the case in most of this country. So what do we have to lose by trying?
I did a find and replace of gay with interracial.
Fits nearly perfectly. Seems to be the same sentiment.
[quote=“magellan01, post:73, topic:549433”]
If men were going around masturbating, you would be imposed upon by having to watch them do that, and you would likely be uncomfortable while walking around in public. Same-sex marriage doesn’t force you to see or do anything that you didn’t see before. Same-sex couples already exist, so allowing them to marry is unlikely in to result in you seeing more kissing or hand-holding or whatever it is that makes you unhappy. You are only being imposed upon by just knowing that someone, somewhere entered into a legal agreement that you find icky.
So really, this isn’t like letting men walk around and masturbate. It’s more like you are trying to make masturbation illegal entirely, just because you don’t like to even think that someone might be doing it.
I saw an interesting chart comparing the arguments against interracial marriage to the arguments against gay marriage. It’s pretty interesting in that most of them are incredibly similar. You can see it here.
Most applicable to this particular post is this:
I guess we are still waiting for all that calamity to come down the pipeline.
[quote=“Bearflag70, post:33, topic:549433”]
Here’s the sequence of events:
[ul]
[li]…[/li][li]The American People adopt the US 14th Amendment, applying due process and equal protection to feds and states. At this point, SSM is a federal right, enshrined in the US Constitution.[/li][li]…[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
Well, I gotta figure if the various state legislatures in 1868 knew what was coming, they’d’ve added an exception saying it didn’t apply to “Acts against nature” or some such thing. Heck, the passing of the 14th wasn’t even assumed to give women the vote, though it seems obvious to us now that it should have.
I also figure if “the people” want to add an exception at this late date, they need to pass another amendment that amends the 14th, undergoing the same laborious nation-wide process. I don’t see that “the people” have any other legal option.
It is interesting, although one item has me scratching my head: “When people of the same race marry, they cannot possibly have any progeny” 
Having looked it up here, it appears this was Eric Zorn’s alteration of an original quote which was presumably along the lines of “When people of different races marry, they cannot possibly have any progeny”.
(It’d be nice if Eric Zorn more explicitly named the Boston University law review article and the Supreme Court brief he refers to. Better yet would be if everyone actually listed these quotes with reference to the original source, so I wouldn’t have to go backtracing through these cite chains)
Bookmarked, thanks!
So why is it that it’s “the people” if you agree with it and “the government” if you don’t? Who passed gun control in Chicago: the people or the the government the people elected? Who created the laws segregating drinking fountains in the south? Who put a man on the moon, or fought WWII, or tortured detainees, or let OJ go free, or passed prohibition, or allowed women to vote, or created child labor laws? It’s all the same.
We had a fair election, your guy lost, get over it.
Fuck you, you nitwit.
Oooooooh. So it’s enlightened, compassionate bigotry. It’s all for the good of society, huh?
Jesus, man.
Well, when your head melts the day after SSM is legal all across the U.S., I certainly hope you’ll donate all your now-unneeded hats to Goodwill.
No probs. And I agree with you, Indistinguishable, that the quotes could be attributed better, but they all seem to be legit if you track them back. I also noticed that quoting error. Still, it makes some damn good points.
Dan, saying “Fuck you” to another poster is a violation of the Pit Rules. Please refrain from making sexual-based insults aimed at other posters.
No warning issued.
And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that whatsoever and you & all the other anti-SSM’ers have absolutely no coherent, rational reason for believing otherwise. There is not a single argument against allowing SSM which can’t be immediately obliterated with an off the cuff rebuttal from anyone with half a brain and a sense of fair play.
And nobody’s forcing anybody to live in a particular society. either. If our friend finds himself unable to adjust to the society Americans are deciding they want to have in the 21st century, he can always go find somewhere else to live. I hear Afghanistan is nice this time of year, for instance. Some side effects, sure, but if not being allowed to act on hatred is really that big a deal to him, he’ll love it.
Why - because you got a answer?
:shrugs:
I sort of half suspected that I had posted all that before, to you or in a thread in which you were participating, and you ignored it then.
OK, so you are trolling. My bad for expecting any better.
Regards,
Shodan
He is not saying that the Ninth Amendment creates rights, as he says clearly earlier -
He is saying that the Ninth Amendment shows that when once other rights are defined, they also will be protected from state and federal interference. If you see the distinction.
Regards,
Shodan
No, because he got a Shodananswer. It’s kinda like an answer in the same way a bic lighter is a sun.
You have. Which is why I linked to those other times you’ve posted it to, once again, emphasize what a poor argument it is and what a dishonest debator you are. You’re simply doing the exact same thing here. I would say “my bad for expecting any better”, but, to be honest, I expect nothing but this kind of crap from you.