• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

Supreme courts ruling on gay marriage

What about the children who are now coming forward testifying to the harm they suffered from growing up with gay parents? Do their feelings matter, or do only the feelings of gay people matter?

I'd like for you to show me a single legitimate, proven case of where the children of a gay couple came forward, and said they have "suffered" due to to their parents' being gay. Turns out, those kids don't turn out "gay". Turns out, what matters is caring and love... what they can't get from many heterosexual parents. If there is any "suffering" for them, it is the suffering they experience when their parents are consistently discriminated against, looked down on, mistreated, threatened, sometimes beaten and at times killed.

Can you cite a legitimate example for me? Because honestly I think "children who are *now* coming forward" is BS. There is no lack of shitty heterosexual parents either.
 
Last edited:
I'm a Canadian father of a three sons, one of whom is gay.
While this thread is about the US, I can comment that in Canada and most other western societies, gay marriage today is just not a big deal.
There was the usual opinions pro and con during the time of the legislation but it quickly went away.
Today I think most Canadians today feel pretty good about the formal acceptance of gay marriage.
And looking at the bigger it's really saying it's okay to be gay in Canada.
Get a job, work, get married, adopt children, and make the best of things like the rest of the non-gay people try to do.
 
He can't cite to anything legitimate, Dave. Blind faith doesn't require proof of factual bases for making any statements especially those that are aimed at discriminating against the LGBT community.

But using his analysis we should ban Catholic priests since as a group they harbor higher than average numbers of homosexuals and pedophiles, they don't engage in marriage and they don't procreate.

At least that is what I read in at least one study.....

image.jpg
 
Last edited:
While it's true that democracy is not mob-ocracy, or that the majority does not determine justice or fairness, my question to you is what does determine justice or fairness?

If you say "the Supreme Court", on what basis should the Court determine justice or fairness? And fairness for whom? Fairness only for gay couples? What about fairness for business owners who don't want to facilitate gay weddings? What about the children who are now coming forward testifying to the harm they suffered from growing up with gay parents? Do their feelings matter, or do only the feelings of gay people matter?

Secondly, where in the Constitution is the Court given the role of arbiter of justice and fairness? Since the Court's exclusive purpose is to interpret the Constitution the justices cannot use extra Constitutional reasoning to make their case. Just as there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution there is also no federal definition of marriage. Remember that conservatives were not asking the Court to mandate heterosexual marriage or impose a uniform definition of marriage on all 50 states. But this is exactly what the Court did. Rather than allowing states to decide the issue and leaving room for people with diverse opinions to peacefully coexist in the broader society the Court instead forced a one-size-fits-all policy on the entire nation. This is why people on both sides should be equally concerned about the problem of judicial activism. Imagine if the Court had decreed that heterosexual marriage, while not mentioned in the Constitution, must be the law of the land in all 50 states. Imagine the outcry. This is exactly what the Court did, in reverse. They did not simply allow gay marriage, they mandated it. I often hear liberals claim that conservatives and Christians want to impose their values on everyone else, but this is exactly what the Court is doing -- imposing liberal east & west coast values on a broader American population that does not embrace them. They have rights, too.

- - - Updated - - -


I have news for you, only religious people are devout.

Ask, and ye shall receive:
Gay Marriage--Secular Reasons Against It

Here are 20 reasons which may help communicate to our secular friends that Gay Marriage is not only a moral issue for Christians, but a societal ill. All but a few of these reasons are secular rather than religious:


1. The whole fabric of gay rights disappears with this fact: There is no scientific evidence that people are born gay, and much evidence exists that proves the opposite. People leave the homosexual lifestyle and desire all the time. (See http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights#born.)

2. Marriage is the fundamental building block of all human civilization, and has been across cultural and religious lines for 5000+ years. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society. Society as a whole, not merely any given set of spouses, benefits from marriage. This is because traditional marriage helps to channel procreative love into a stable institution that provides for the orderly bearing and rearing of the next generation.

3. Contrary to the liberal and libertarian viewpoint, marriage is not merely an institution for the convenience of adults. It is about the rights of children. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. Every child has the right to a mom and a dad whenever possible. Numerous studies show that children do best with two biological parents. Here is just one study: Two Biological Parents.

4. Marriage benefits everyone because separating the bearing and rearing of children from marriage burdens innocent bystanders: not just children, but the whole community. History shows that no society long survives after a change that hurts the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman.

5. Law cannot be divorced from reality—from nature. The two sexes are complementary, not undifferentiated. This is a fact of nature, thus given by God. No government has the right to alter what is true by nature. (See America’s Declaration of Independence.)

6. Redefining marriage would diminish the social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and BIOLOGICAL children, and for men and women to marry before having children.

7. The results of redefining marriage—parenting by single parents, divorced parents, remarried parents, cohabiting couples, and fragmented families of any kind—are demonstrably worse for children. According to the best available sociological evidence, children fare best on virtually every examined indicator when reared by their wedded biological parents. Studies that control for other factors, including poverty and even genetics, suggest that children reared in intact homes do best on educational achievement, emotional health, familial and sexual development, and delinquency and incarceration. In short, marriage unites a man and a woman holistically—emotionally and bodily, in acts of conjugal love and in the children such love brings forth—for the whole of life.

8. Studies show domestic violence is three times higher among homosexual partnerships, compared to heterosexual marriages. A large portion of murders, assaults, other crimes and various harms to children occur along with, or as a consequence of, domestic violence. Half of pedophilia attacks are homosexual, for example. Normalizing homosexual marriage also encourages non-marital homosexual activity, and thus the social pathologies associated with it.

9. Promiscuity is rampant among homosexuals, including those who are married. Various studies indicate that gays average somewhere between 10 and 110 different sex partners per year. The New York Times, among many other sources, reported the finding that exclusivity was not the norm among gay partners: “With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations. ‘Openness’ and ‘flexibility’ of gay relationships are euphemisms for sexual infidelity.” One study showed that only 4.5% of homosexual males said they were faithful to their current partner, compared to 85% of heterosexual married women and 75.5% of heterosexual married men. Promiscuity is a destabilizing influence on society.

10. The confusion resulting from further delinking childbearing from marriage would force the state to intervene more often in family life and expand welfare programs. If marriage has no form and serves no social purpose, how will society protect the needs of children—the prime victim of our non-marital sexual culture—without government growing more intrusive and more expensive? Without healthy marriages, the community often must step in to provide (more or less directly) for their well-being and upbringing. Thus, by encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. (Libertarians, do you see the importance of this? If you want the state to be less intrusive, get off the gay marriage idea!)

11. Promoting marriage does not ban any type of relationship: Adults are free to make choices about their relationships, and they do not need government sanction or license to do so. People are free to have contracts with each other. All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose, but no one has a right to redefine marriage for everyone else.

12. Law is a teacher. Just as many people, even some Christians, thought that slavery was okay when it was legal, will think that gay marriage is OK when it is legal.

13. Gay marriage is undeniably a step into other deviances. What will result are such things as plural marriages and polygamy. These things could not logically be turned back, and will initiate a further plunge of societal stability.

14. Only a small percentage of gays who are given the right to marry do so anyway (4% by one study). This proves that the gay marriage movement is not about marriage, but about affirmation.

15. Anal intercourse leads to numerous pathologies, obviously because the parts do not fit! Among items in a long list of problems listed by researcher and physician James Holsinger are these: enteric diseases (infections from a variety of viruses and bacteria including a very high incidence of amoebiasis, giardiasis, and hepatitis, etc.), trauma (fecal incontinence, anal fissure, rectosigmoid tears, chemical sinusitis, etc.), sexually transmitted diseases (AIDS, gonorrhea, simplex infections, genital warts, scabies, etc.). Anal cancer is only one of other medical problems higher in gay men that heterosexual men, especially monogamous heterosexual men. Society at large pays for these diseases. (Speaking to “Christian Libertarians,” unlike certain activities that also contribute to national health problems, such as obesity, homosexuality is morally wrong. Poor eating habits are not a moral issue; gluttony is not a sin.)

16. The ravages of the gay lifestyle are severe upon the gay community itself but also for society at large. The best available evidence shows that those practicing homosexual behavior have a 20% to 30% shorter life span. A much higher rate of alcoholism, drug abuse, sexually transmitted disease, domestic violence, child molestation and more occur in homosexual populations. (See http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/gay-rights#ravages.)

17. It is okay to discriminate. We discriminate all the time in our rules and laws. It is illegal to marry your parent. It is illegal to be a pedophile or a sociopath, no matter how strong the innate tendency might be.

18. Gay marriage and religious freedom are incompatible because it will marginalize those who affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The First Amendment is at stake! This is already evident in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., among other locations. After Massachusetts redefined marriage to include same-sex relationships, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to discontinue its adoption services rather than place children with same-sex couples against its principles. Massachusetts public schools began teaching grade-school students about same-sex marriage, defending their decision because they are “committed to teaching about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same-sex marriage is legal.” A Massachusetts appellate court ruled that parents have no right to exempt their children from these classes. Businesses that refuse to accept gay marriage as a legitimate institution will be penalized. It is a certainty that the church will at some point, be unable to preach the full council of God. It will be considered hate speech to speak of traditional marriage as right. Churches will begin losing their tax exempt status. Individuals who speak out against gay marriage will be penalized. This is only the tip of the iceberg. (Speaking again to "Christian Libertarians” who are OK with gay marriage: Do you see the issue here? This is important! Legalizing gay marriage nationally will lead to an assault on religion.)

19. Homosexual practioners cost more than they contribute via disproportionate diseases and disasters such as HIV, hepatitis, herpes, mental illness, substance abuse, suicide, assault, etc. The Center for Disease Control estimates that each HIV infection ALONE generates $700,000 in direct and indirect costs. (Source: Family Research Report, April 2014)

20. Homosexual activity and marriage robs our future by: having fewer children, poorly socializing the children they raise, commit about half of all child molestations recorded in the news. (Source: Family Research Report, April 2014)

The question is asked, why shouldn't two people who love each other be allowed to get married? ANSWER: Marriage is not about love. In many countries around the world, marriages are arranged. Marriage is about the rights of children and thus is about supporting the next generation. Anything that weakens the institution of marriage is an injustice to children and a travesty to the culture.
That is just bat shit crazy man! They still make people like you???

- - - Updated - - -

I do not even know where to begin here on how misinformed you are.

- - - Updated - - -

But go ahead and take another 24 hours to try and gather fictitious facts to post here tomorrow so I can get another laugh.

- - - Updated - - -

Furthermore, what you are trying to do here is religious recruiting. Gay people ARE born gay. Your churches can nor hide that. Its been around since the dawn of mankind.
But just continue to believe in talking snakes and forbidden fruits.
 
Last edited:
I'd like for you to show me a single legitimate, proven case of where the children of a gay couple came forward, and said they have "suffered" due to to their parents' being gay. Turns out, those kids don't turn out "gay". Turns out, what matters is caring and love... what they can't get from many heterosexual parents. If there is any "suffering" for them, it is the suffering they experience when their parents are consistently discriminated against, looked down on, mistreated, threatened, sometimes beaten and at times killed.
Feel free to cite the cases/names.
Can you cite a legitimate example for me? Because honestly I think "children who are *now* coming forward" is BS. There is no lack of shitty heterosexual parents either.
Here's five names (for starters):

1. Robert Oscar Lopez
2. Dawn Stefanowicz
3. Heather Barwick
4. Denise Schick
5. Katy Faust

All of them happened to have submitted briefs to the Supreme Court, along with having to go through psychotherapy due to issues from their upbringing.

- - - Updated - - -

That is just bat shit crazy man! They still make people like you???

- - - Updated - - -

I do not even know where to begin here on how misinformed you are.

- - - Updated - - -

But go ahead and take another 24 hours to try and gather fictitious facts to post here tomorrow so I can get another laugh.

- - - Updated - - -

Furthermore, what you are trying to do here is religious recruiting. Gay people ARE born gay. Your churches can nor hide that. Its been around since the dawn of mankind.
But just continue to believe in talking snakes and forbidden fruits.
Neither you, nor any of the others in this thread, have shown any evidence for any of the claims you've made!
You've continually dismissed/laughed-off my points without specificaly refuting a single one!

By the way, I don't attend church nor practice the religion you claim I do.

What other issue-obfuscating insults are you going to respond with tomorrow? Enquiring minds want to know!
 
DAMN IT! Why couldn't they have legalized this back when I was still in the military!?!
I could have gotten a contract marriage to one of my buddies AND not have to deal with the drama of being married to a woman!
We could sleep sleep with all sorts of women and our "significant other" would not mind at all, heck we'd both be doing the same thing! lol


2013-06-28-Strip_DOMA_web.jpg
 
MoreRPMs is definitely steadfast in his view of the Supreme Court ruling, I applaud him for it. A lot of headstones in Arlington Cemetery so he can voice his opinion as is his right. Others have an equally valid right to disagree and have done so rationally and mostly civilly . Of course this is too emotional charged an issue to be reconciled easily and in the end the debate may end with a simple agreement to "disagree": But here's another opinion I believe a lot of folks share:

I resent the hell out of any minority segment of society that for some reason feels compelled to relentlessly drive the majority into changing its basic "meaning" of a word as old and fundamental as "marriage". If you can completely redefine a word as rooted in human society as that then anythings fair game given enough time, money and media exposure.
 
I resent the hell out of any minority segment of society that for some reason feels compelled to relentlessly drive the majority into changing its basic "meaning" of a word as old and fundamental as "marriage". If you can completely redefine a word as rooted in human society as that then anythings fair game given enough time, money and media exposure.

Less than 50 years ago a couple was convicted and sentenced to a year in jail. Their "crime":

For being married.

The definition of marriage in 1967 prohibited a "white person" from marrying a "colored person". The Racial Integrity Act was still the will of the majority.

Fortunately our U.S. Supreme Court listened to the minority and abolished such unfair treatment in Loving v. Virginia. Ironic name for the plaintiffs, don't you think? "Loving".

I don't understand why people try to justify prejudice by arguing that the "definition" of a word has always had one meaning. The earth used to be defined as being the center of the universe. The Catholic Church espoused that definition so vehemently that they jailed Galileo and made him recant his beliefs that the sun was the center of the universe.

When a definition of a word results in prejudice, ignorance and closed mindedness it needs to be redefined. And if a vocal minority is needed to accomplish that progressive thinking then they deserve the applause for having the temerity to try to stop the kool aid drinking lemmings from marching off the proverbial cliff.
 
Last edited:
Feel free to cite the cases/names.

Here's five names (for starters):

1. Robert Oscar Lopez
2. Dawn Stefanowicz
3. Heather Barwick
4. Denise Schick
5. Katy Faust

All of them happened to have submitted briefs to the Supreme Court, along with having to go through psychotherapy due to issues from their upbringing

I'm sorry but I think you're googling and making shit up to fit your argument. I asked for something legitimate and these names and a made up story about their supposed psychotherapy is what you came up with.

Obviously you have your views. I disagree with you. I don't wish to carry one what I consider is somewhat useless argument anymore that will simply go nowhere. I'm not here to change your view. Anyway thanks for the civil discussion, I'm out.

- - - Updated - - -

BTW I did actually spend time trying to research every single one of those names.
 
I'd like for you to show me a single legitimate, proven case of where the children of a gay couple came forward, and said they have "suffered" due to to their parents' being gay. Turns out, those kids don't turn out "gay". Turns out, what matters is caring and love... what they can't get from many heterosexual parents. If there is any "suffering" for them, it is the suffering they experience when their parents are consistently discriminated against, looked down on, mistreated, threatened, sometimes beaten and at times killed.

Can you cite a legitimate example for me? Because honestly I think "children who are *now* coming forward" is BS. There is no lack of shitty heterosexual parents either.
Well said Dave!!!
 
Feel free to cite the cases/names.

Here's five names (for starters):

5. Katy Faust

All of them happened to have submitted briefs to the Supreme Court, along with having to go through psychotherapy due to issues from their upbringing.

Let's just start with one of your five.

She is using her religious beliefs to deny equal rights to the gay community despite her praise for her lesbian mother and her mother's partner. Her "traumatic event" was the divorce of her heterosexual parents - not her life as the child of a same sex couple. Of course divorce is difficult for the children in any marriage. But her life trauma was not being raised by a lesbian couple - in fact, she continues to praise the gay parents she now has.

From her amicus brief:

"My parents’ divorce has been the most traumatic event in my thirty-eight years of life. While I did love my mother’s partner and friends, I would have traded every one of them to have my mom and my dad loving me under the same roof. This should come as no surprise to anyone who is willing to remove the politically correct lens that we all seem to have over our eyes. "

Here is her most recent blog post 6 days ago (and her blog is just another religious right attempt to deny equal rights to the LGBT community):

"A savvy blogger would have had two post’s written for BOTH possible rulings in the hopper today but, well, nope. Instead I’ve been spending my week at the beach with my kids, my mom, and her partner enjoying lazy mornings, tracking sand EVERYWHERE and damaging our locks with seawater. Heaven really.

I have spent a great amount of time this week reflecting on how blessed I am to have two such quality women in my life. My mom’s partner came into our lives when I was ten and brought with her a tender heart, a passion for new passions and an affinity for good music. I truly love and respect her. I also cannot not repeat enough that most of what I do well as a mother, I do because that’s how my mother parented me. She is an exceptional mother. If her partner would have had children, she would have totally rocked motherhood; it’s evident in every fiber of her being."


She is just another hypocrite. She praises her mother and her lesbian partner as great parents and grieves over the divorce of her natural parents but uses her religious beliefs to deny same sex couples the opportunity to be the same types of parents her own mother and partner are to her.
 
Last edited:
Nice examples of children "now coming forward". If that's the best that can be done, I'd like to show you the kids of some heterosexual parents who have real trauma. Being a gay parent impedes your ability to parent as much as being white or Asian or short or blonde would. The irony is the trauma most of the children in a gay household suffer is caused by the very people making these baseless arguments. No offense, but I feel those children's problem isn't the gay parent, it's you and others who have all this prejudice against gay people yet try to be PC about it and mask it with "facts" like "their children are NOW coming forward". While I'm certain you can have parents that are gay and bad parents, them being a bad parent has nothing to do with their being gay. Thousand of children sit in strange foster homes with no love... Many suffer overseas in horrific conditions. Now we are telling perfectly good loving couples that they can't adopt and give love to a kid because they have a vagina or penis between their legs instead of the other.

Some of these terrific parents who lovingly adopt and care their whole life to help raise a child that wasn't even wanted by their own heterosexual parents don't have basic rights because they are not a legal "couple". They suffer as do their children because of this vast and prevalent discrimination. Finally in 2015 the Supreme Court says that individual states whose politicians pander to their majority of voters don't have the right to pass discriminatory laws. That's a win for humanity.
 
Last edited:
That is just bat shit crazy man! They still make people like you???

- - - Updated - - -

I do not even know where to begin here on how misinformed you are.

- - - Updated - - -

But go ahead and take another 24 hours to try and gather fictitious facts to post here tomorrow so I can get another laugh.

- - - Updated - - -

This discussion started out pretty civil and I'd like to see it stay that way. I'd like to ask that everyone please stick to discussion of the issue and avoid personal attacks.
 
Boy this thread went downhill, it was civil, started off with the Chief Justice dissenting intelligently even though, imo he's in favor of gay marriage, then someone pointed out the country was moving in the direction of gay marriage, which is pbly a fact that can be proven, still a good discussion, but then the relig-acists showed up and the athei-cist showed up and then the perfunctory personal attacks from the left, then accusations of prejudice, and oh boy Judge Roberts words are long gone and no intelligent discussion of this issue can continue..

Here's my take:

To the left: Congratulations it's a victory enjoy the celebration, after years of conservative advantage in politics you have made progress.

To the right: In an attempt to keep people divided you end up divided yourselves. Don't forget it's judges appointed by right wing presidents that did this. Be smarter.
 
backing away further to me the issue is ...as presently configured, is the supreme court the optimal way to interpret the original bill of rights and tenants of the founding fathers and apply those rules to our modern day society....btw this thread is more proof that to have a free society you need separation of church and state .
 
I agree that Roberts' dissent shows he is in favor of same sex marriage but he is content to let the states drag their feet on the issue and let this continue to fester in some parts of the country. Due to the evangelicals in certain areas the politicians feel pressured to reject same sex marriage because of the voting bloc and that is unequal justice.

Imagine inviting 8 of your friends out for dinner and voting on where you go. 5 want sushi and 4 want pizza.

So the decision is made.

5 go out for sushi and 4 don't get to eat anything.

Sometimes you need to allow for the option even though not everyone agrees with it. You can't allow regional demographics to cause unequal rights.
 
I agree that Roberts' dissent shows he is in favor of same sex marriage but he is content to let the states drag their feet on the issue and let this continue to fester in some parts of the country. Due to the evangelicals in certain areas the politicians feel pressured to reject same sex marriage because of the voting bloc and that is unequal justice.

Imagine inviting 8 of your friends out for dinner and voting on where you go. 5 want sushi and 4 want pizza.

So the decision is made.

5 go out for sushi and 4 don't get to eat anything.

Sometimes you need to allow for the option even though not everyone agrees with it. You can't allow regional demographics to cause unequal rights.

I see it differently, some states would have it other's wouldn't.. That's a good thing, people can relocate where they can do what they want. Everybody wins. Don't see the logic of having it one way or the other. One size fits all is a stupid concept for most social issues. It's always better when the people have spoken, not one robe that wants to ink his place in history so he's immortal. This goes back to docjohn's point that our system may be flawed.. it is after all still the 'American Experiment', we're a young country.
 
I see it differently, some states would have it other's wouldn't.. That's a good thing, people can relocate where they can do what they want. Everybody wins.

Using your logic, you can always move to a Muslim country if you don't like the fact that the U.S. tries to emerge from the dark ages.

And southern states can go back to slavery. After all, the majority wanted it until the north decided to change things.
 
Last edited:
Reading all of Bob's posts I have to say how impressed I am. RSO34 rocks!
 
Using your logic, you can always move to a Muslim country if you don't like the fact that the U.S. tries to emerge from the dark ages.

And southern states can go back to slavery. After all, the majority wanted it until the north decided to change things.

oh baloney.. I said 'most'.. Call Justice Roberts and tell him his logic is wrong based on your post LOL.
 
Y'all know what happened last time 2 men raised a child....


imrs.php
 
Y'all have made some good arguments. Now we're going round and round, but thanks for the input.
 
In 1542, one of the earliest Spanish explorers in Florida, Cabeza de Vaca, reported on his previous five years among the Timucua Indians: "During the time I was thus among these people I saw a devilish thing, and it is that I saw one man married to another."

Text above is from p.110 of Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian Culture by Walter L. Williams. The book documents that many native American cultures respected same-sex relations and recognized same-sex marriages. When Justice Scalia said in his dissent that permitting only male-female marriage was "until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies", he was mistaken.
 
Back
Top