Victory - Same-Sex Power to Marry


Guyau

Recommended Posts

Do you seriously expect anyone to believe your only concern in this is linguistic?

No... because what I am calling attention to is linguistic deceit.

All evil begins not with the willingness to tell a lie... but with the willingness to believe a lie.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My second link in post #14 referred to income taxes for same-sex married couples. Here is more on the subject. Excerpt:

For tax year 2013 and going forward, same-sex spouses generally must file using a married filing separately or jointly filing status.

That appears to preclude filing single. Married filing separately versus filing as singles result in about the same total tax, so no big deal. Married filing jointly versus filing as singles may make a significant difference in total tax paid. Per my calculations, married filing jointly results in a lower total tax in most cases but a higher total tax in others (the latter for quite high income amounts).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found some interesting quotes from a few years ago, but no one was interested in the topic then. Has America's opinion changed? I guess that is not important now. What is important is other than taxation and hospital visiting rights, will this SCOTUS ruling affect long term survival of the species?

Quotes: The breakdown of marriage in America has already had devastating effects on society, especially on children, without delivering yet another blow to this most fundamental structure of society by eliminating it entirely. If heterosexual marriage is protected, children will at least have the benefits of its stabilizing influence in their surrounding familial relationships. This is why Satinover stresses that society's compelling interest is to ensure not only the mere propagation of the species but humankind's well-being too, which is the whole purpose of heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage is a societal structure and without it, society crumbles. And yet this is precisely what the courts are about to do. "And they're going to do it without any impact studies," Satinover said . . . . The second point against homosexual marriage is that it doesn't just create a second societal structure, it actually "smuggles into existence ... two radically different social structures," Satinover explained . . . . We would have heterosexual marriage, female gay marriage and male gay marriage. This new set of marital structures will, in turn, produce three new classes of children . . . "This third point ties the first two together," Satinover said. "We know that motherlessness has a different impact on children than fatherlessness does. Therefore, we have every reason to expect that children raised in female unions will turn out to have a different set of problems than those raised in motherless unions. These children will be different from children raised in heterosexual unions. So we will create three different classes of children."

end quotes

The few studies I could find said no or few bad affects. But oddly, someone or group had rigged the internet so that you could not find any studies discussing bad affects on same sex raised kids. I always thought that was a form of censorship. PC raises its head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found some interesting quotes from a few years ago, but no one was interested in the topic then. Has America's opinion changed? I guess that is not important now. What is important is other than taxation and hospital visiting rights, will this SCOTUS ruling affect long term survival of the species?

Quotes: The breakdown of marriage in America has already had devastating effects on society, especially on children, without delivering yet another blow to this most fundamental structure of society by eliminating it entirely. If heterosexual marriage is protected, children will at least have the benefits of its stabilizing influence in their surrounding familial relationships. This is why Satinover stresses that society's compelling interest is to ensure not only the mere propagation of the species but humankind's well-being too, which is the whole purpose of heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage is a societal structure and without it, society crumbles. And yet this is precisely what the courts are about to do. "And they're going to do it without any impact studies," Satinover said . . . . The second point against homosexual marriage is that it doesn't just create a second societal structure, it actually "smuggles into existence ... two radically different social structures," Satinover explained . . . . We would have heterosexual marriage, female gay marriage and male gay marriage. This new set of marital structures will, in turn, produce three new classes of children . . . "This third point ties the first two together," Satinover said. "We know that motherlessness has a different impact on children than fatherlessness does. Therefore, we have every reason to expect that children raised in female unions will turn out to have a different set of problems than those raised in motherless unions. These children will be different from children raised in heterosexual unions. So we will create three different classes of children."

end quotes

The few studies I could find said no or few bad affects. But oddly, someone or group had rigged the internet so that you could not find any studies discussing bad affects on same sex raised kids. I always thought that was a form of censorship. PC raises its head.

Motherless children and fatherless children already exist. This will in no way "create" these "classes"of children.

The same argument could be made for nearly anything: Children with loving parents as a class seperate from children of detached and aloof parents, for example. (I have seen people arguing for some form of affirmative action against the former group already.)

Should we change our society because of alleged "class" differences? Sounds vaguely Marxist to my ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The few studies I could find said no or few bad affects. But oddly, someone or group had rigged the internet so that you could not find any studies discussing bad affects on same sex raised kids. I always thought that was a form of censorship. PC raises its head.

This is the left's control of, as Michael would say, "the story". They created political correctness to serve their goals.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Childhood is a succession of bad and other effects from this and from that. It's the child's job to sort everything out and make sense of it all.

--Brant

Spot on, Brant.

You've been hitting the bullseye quite a bit lately even shooting off-handed. :wink:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would take getting stoned to come into contact with someone else's fecal matter!

545b7104f364284c6bc468bae7f91177.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see, it has been intimated that Ayn and her coterie were really smart and some have maintained that it was because they were Jewish.

It is interesting that this conciliatory statement by the leadership of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America raises a significant issue for freedom of the individual to practice their 1st Amendment protections:

“In response to the decisions announced today by the United States Supreme Court with reference to the issue of legal recognition of same sex marriage, we reiterate the historical position of the Jewish faith, enunciated unequivocally in our Bible, Talmud and Codes, which forbids homosexual relationships and condemns the institutionalization of such relationships as marriages. Our religion is emphatic in defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. Our beliefs in this regard are unalterable. At the same time, we note that Judaism teaches respect for others and we condemn discrimination against individuals.

We are grateful that we live in a democratic society, in which all religions are free to express their opinions about social issues and to advocate vigorously for those opinions. The reason we opt to express our viewpoint in a public forum is because we believe that our Divine system of law not only dictates our beliefs and behaviors, but also represents a system of universal morality, and therefore can stake a claim in the national discourse. That morality, expressed in what has broadly been labeled Judeo-Christian ethics, has long had a place in American law and jurisprudence.

We also recognize that no religion has the right to dictate its beliefs to the entire body politic and we do not expect that secular law will always align with our viewpoint. Ultimately, decisions on social policy remain with the democratic process, and today the process has spoken and we accord the process and its result the utmost respect.

In the wake of today’s ruling, we now turn to the next critical question for our community, and other traditional faith communities – will American law continue to uphold and embody principles of religious liberty and diversity, and will the laws implementing today’s ruling and other expansions of civil rights for LGBT Americans contain appropriate accommodations and exemptions for institutions and individuals who abide by religious teachings that limit their ability to support same-sex relationships?

Already, several states have struck a balance by incorporating religious liberty protections into their same sex marriage statutes. This approach must continue, for the expansions of civil rights for some Americans must not come at the cost of the civil rights of other Americans.

The Orthodox Union is proud to assert its beliefs and principles in the public forum, and will continue to do so in a manner that is tolerant and respectful of all of our nation’s citizens, but which is also authentically based upon our sacred ancient texts and time-honored traditions.

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/322380/orthodox-union-statement-on-supreme-courts-same-gender-marriage-ruling.html#sthash.YxMu2LLT.dpuf

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is someone who virtually represents my position on this issue perfectly.

Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether

First, Rand was wise enough to wait some 60 hours before putting this op ed out:

While I disagree with Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage, I believe that all Americans have the right to contract.

The Constitution is silent on the question of marriage because marriage has always been a local issue. Our founding fathers went to the local courthouse to be married, not to Washington, D.C.

I’ve often said I don’t want my guns or my marriage registered in Washington.

As Rand points out:

Justice Clarence Thomas is correct in his dissent when he says: “In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.”

The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage.

Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.

Since government has been involved in marriage, they have done what they always do — taxed it, regulated it, and now redefined it. It is hard to argue that government’s involvement in marriage has made it better, a fact also not surprising to those who believe government does little right.

http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch out, the gay rights/pride movement has been infiltrated by Islamic terrorists. Behold the evidence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y6qTLf0AI4&feature=youtu.be

Hat tip:

http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/29/cnn-cant-tell-the-difference-between-ara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the Orthodox Jewish response to gay marriage was evenly measured. But from a scientific, reality based philosophy a person must acknowledge that homosexuality is a condition / mental state / and a reality. It continues to manifest itself in human evolution without homosexuals DIRECTLY passing on their genes. Therefor it must not hamper and may HELP evolution.

Now what was Chris Jenner thinking with that Caitlin female cover shot on Vanity Fair? Now, people will be expecting him to be that pretty and feminine in person for the rest of his life. Instead, he/she may be seen as, well . . . he/she . . . kids may stare . . . everyone will stare at the person and wonder how come she looks like Goofy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Adam (#65), concerning legal power to form same-sex marriages (or unions---my state Virginia prohibited both by popular demand), what has been at stake for gay and lesbian persons is the right to devise their own lives and realize the value of that occasion, with equal protection under laws conferring legal powers. Individual rights are protected not only by laws that prohibit or enjoin, but by laws that confer legal powers, in such things as powers of property transfer, of entering into contracts or a legal state of corporation, and of entering a legal state of marriage. Such powers are not government “entitlements” (the sliming language of Thomas). Whether by the legal state of marriage or by innovative designs of contracts recognized in the future, government will have a proper nonzero role. That equal protection under the law, as in our US Constitution, applies not only to laws that prohibit or enjoin, but to laws that confer legal powers has been recognized explicitly by the Court for decades now, rightly so.

Delighted to see the prevailing opinion of the court appealing to individual autonomy as one of the bases for its decision. That is the right basis for individual rights (not the decree of a supernatural governor of the cosmos [or of the attendant delusional megalomaniacs claiming to be its messenger] or the will of the collective, as the elder Rand observed). Such had been the basis appealed to in such cases as Griswold v. CT (“God bless the inventor of the pill”) back in the day, as I recall. That the Founders would have been executing homosexuals, not marrying them is no fine argument against this change. When the Founders drafted the Amendment against Congress making no law abridging freedom of the press, they most certainly did not envision the expanse of freedom of press that was finally attained in mid-twentieth century under NYT v. Sullivan (Leonard Levy's EMERGENCE OF A FREE PRESS). Those abridging my rightful equal power to legally marry, as those who had criminalized my making love to the man I loved (traditionally an issue for the states, set right for all by the Court in 2003), have been rightly set the hell out of my way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is someone who virtually represents my position on this issue perfectly.

Rand Paul: Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether

I agree.

Of the 33 states that have homosexual "marriage", only three were decided by an actual vote of the people. The rest were implemented by liberal government judges... now they all are by liberal government judges.

This is an absolutely brilliant bloodless coup pulled off by the left. The capacity for cunning runs deep in their nature and they know exactly how to use it.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jules Verne wrote: Greg you can be such a Tard at times . . . end quote

Well at least he didnt say Turd. A few years ago my only objection to gay marriage was that it was not the definition of marriage and the chance that consistent thinking and the application of legal precedence would lead to the acceptance of plural spouses and marriage with other species and I dont mean the Bajoran species. Wasnt that what Ensign Ro was on Star Trek TNG? She was more than adequate as Commander Riker commented.

No pun on Jules last name is intended in the following. Betazoids also looked enticing. Some more dialogue.

Baby, you just read my mind.

Troi: No, Peter. I read the bulge in your pants.

Now, if my worries dont come to pass, I understand what proponents meant by equal under the law. And why it IS a constitutional issue. I know, I know gays are not mentioned explicitly in the preamble, only all men (which also meant women) are created equal. No one need like it. It simply must be for justice to prevail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg you can be such a Tard at times..

I'll take that as a compliment, Jules.

"The ways of man are right in his own eyes."

--Proverbs

This is why it's a mistake to make up your own subjective moral standards of behavior... and that's what homosexual "marriage" is: Made up.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"An actual vote of the people"--most of whom aren't Americans, Greg. Remember?

Many religious Americans don't vote. In that case they turned out in droves because it was a direct assault by the left on the thousands of years old moral standard of marriage. This isn't new, Brant. This isn't the first time sexual perversion became pervasive in a society. It is directly linked to the rise of the fastest growing religion in the world... secular leftism.

The last time the secular leftists had their way... things did not go well.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg wrote: This is why it's a mistake to make up your own subjective moral standards of behavior... and that's what homosexual "marriage" is: Made up. end quote

All human institutions are made up. No rational human can declare that the Koran, bible, or the Zoroastrian Tablets are actually the word of Zor, Ahha, Zeus, jahovamoka, Budlite, Gawd, Elrod Hubbard, or Joe Smith. Here is an interesting oldie on the subject. Does anywhere know how Bill Dwyer is doing?

From: "Bill Dwyer" Subject: ATL: To my Christian Brothers and Sisters Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 00:46:37 -0700

To my Christian Brothers and Sisters,

As a new Christian, thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal here, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

b) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

c) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and ag

e, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

d) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

e) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

f) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

g) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Added by Mike M. 2011. The Old Testament says that we must not suffer a witch to live. (Exodus 22:18 )

So, Greg, if you superstitiously claim The Bible is the word of God you cannot pick and choose which parts are true and which should be acted upon. And then you would join the mass murderers who shoot up churches, schools, go on jihads and crusades, and go to theatres not to view Batman, the movie. Yet every Christian hypocrite I know does pick and choose as evidence by the FACT that there are a thousand or more Christian sects all claiming they know the others are wrong because Gawd told them so, starting with the Episcopalian minister I knew when I was studying for my Confirmation at age 12 and 13. My questions about original sin applying to newborn babies made him question what he was taught at Seminary School, and he needed to go to the Bishop for clarification.

Religion is irrational by definition. If I went to an insane asylum to see my cousin Moe who thought aliens were controlling his brain I would fear that he would have an episode and harm me, because he is not sane some of the time. Now, you may consider me harsh but you have knowingly brought in religion to an Objectivist site. Any ideas on howcome I agree with you so much of the time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now