BREAKING>>>>Supreme court declares same-sex marriage a right in 5-4 vote

[Luis Gonzalez]

Yes. And I love them. So what?

So are they crazy and that's why they're homosexuals?

[EC]

I want to marry, but I don't have that choice, so your logic is just as full of BS.

What's that got to do with the price of eggs?

You have the right to marry. The fact that you can't, or won't, or whatever in no way invalidates that right.

You have the right to life. No one is obliged to keep you alive.
You have the right to liberty. Unless your own actions remove that for the safety of the rest of the community.
You have the right to pursue happiness. No ones business but yours if you find it.
You have the right to remain silent. No one is making you exercise that right.
You have the right to an attorney. Better call one right now and book him. Exercise that right of yours!

Sheesh, go away for a bit and the world goes crazy over something so inherently stupid I'm shocked it even gets mentioned, never mind creating one of the longest threads I've seen here in a while.

[mountaineer]

So are they crazy and that's why they're homosexuals?

Really, "crazy"? Is that how you refer to people with mental issues?

[GourmetDan]

So are they crazy and that's why they're homosexuals?

           

[GourmetDan]

You have the right to marry. The fact that you can't, or won't, or whatever in no way invalidates that right.

Of course, the exact same point could be made wrt homosexual 'marriage'.  They too have the exact same right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

The fact that they can't, or won't, or whatever in no way invalidates that right...

[Free Vulcan]

What Church has lost their tax exempt status over gay marriage?

As of right now none, it's only been a few days. But there is already clarion calls for it. Since it can be done by executive action, it will be quick when it does.

[jmyrlefuller]

You have the right to marry. The fact that you can't, or won't, or whatever in no way invalidates that right.

OK, I have a right to marry. Let's say I live in a town with one single woman remaining, but she refuses to date or marry anyone. I'll marry her. It's my right, right? Of course not. She has the right to refuse to marry if she wants. This isn't a country where we can force arranged marriages on people.

Now, let's expand that to EVERY WOMAN I'VE EVER MET. Every one says no to even the first step. Obviously, it is their right to do so. Yet what about my right to marry? How is it a right to have a married status if I cannot actually exercise it?

If I cannot marry, then I don't have the right to marry. It's as simple as that.

[alicewonders]

OK, I have a right to marry. Let's say I live in a town with one single woman remaining, but she refuses to date or marry anyone. I'll marry her. It's my right, right?

Now, let's expand that to EVERY WOMAN I'VE EVER MET. Every one says no to even the first step. Obviously, it is their right to do so. Yet what about my right to marry? How is it a right to have a married status if I cannot actually exercise it?

If I cannot marry, then I don't have the right to marry. It's as simple as that.

I think the right to marry includes two consenting adults.  If the other person isn't consenting (I know this isn't always the case in real life) - it invalidates the right (for now anyway).

[DCPatriot]

Translation: you're just going to ignore the first half of the sentence. I've heard of selective hearing, but this is ridiculous.

Marriage is an inherently discriminatory practice. If we accept marriage, we must recognize the purpose of it. It's not just to consummate some form of nebulous concept of "love," but a union between the two sides of the human species. If we cannot do that, then we're treating people with partners differently under the law than those who can't have them, a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

Well then, I suppose your only recourse is to get a wooden club...go out and find a woman you like....whack her on the head and drag her off by the hair.
[/s]

In marriage however, at least in Western culture I believe, the two participants need to be free to choose their respective mates.   

[DCPatriot]

Sheesh, go away for a bit and the world goes crazy over something so inherently stupid I'm shocked it even gets mentioned, never mind creating one of the longest threads I've seen here in a while.

Yeah....it got to be quite the pissing contest, didn't it?  It should have quietly died long ago, but nobody wants to be the one to say, "uncle".

Gives a more recent example of the absurdity in parsing words.

[EC]

OK, I have a right to marry. Let's say I live in a town with one single woman remaining, but she refuses to date or marry anyone. I'll marry her. It's my right, right? Of course not. She has the right to refuse to marry if she wants. This isn't a country where we can force arranged marriages on people.

Correct. She has the right of refusal, just as you would if your case was reversed.

The right to do something is not a guarantee you will do something. I have the right, codified in law and in my property deeds, to allow my pig to graze on the town common. Don't mean I'm going out to buy a pig just for that.
If she indeed has the same rights you have, then you simply can't argue your right takes precedence - you best brush up your persuasion skills instead.
Even where there are arranged marriages and the woman gets little to no say, the husband's "right" to get married doesn't remove the fact it is his responsibility to be considered a good catch. It merely moves the act of persuasion from the woman to her owner.

[jmyrlefuller]

Correct. She has the right of refusal, just as you would if your case was reversed.

The right to do something is not a guarantee you will do something. I have the right, codified in law and in my property deeds, to allow my pig to graze on the town common. Don't mean I'm going out to buy a pig just for that.
If she indeed has the same rights you have, then you simply can't argue your right takes precedence - you best brush up your persuasion skills instead.
Even where there are arranged marriages and the woman gets little to no say, the husband's "right" to get married doesn't remove the fact it is his responsibility to be considered a good catch. It merely moves the act of persuasion from the woman to her owner.

You're missing the point, EC. There is no inherent right to marry. Just as there is no inherent right to someone else's food, clothing or shelter, all of which we may very well consider an important part of living, neither is there a right to marry. It is dependent on receiving something from someone else. There may be a right NOT to marry (right to liberty), but no true right to marry exists. It is a privilege, one that not all of us have. Please recognize that, everyone.

[GourmetDan]

You're missing the point, EC. There is no inherent right to marry. Just as there is no inherent right to someone else's food, clothing or shelter, all of which we may very well consider an important part of living, neither is there a right to marry. It is dependent on receiving something from someone else. There may be a right NOT to marry (right to liberty), but no true right to marry exists. It is a privilege, one that not all of us have. Please recognize that, everyone.

I would say that most everyone understands what you are saying Jimmy.

Some are just willing to say absolutely anything to avoid acknowledging your point...

[Free Vulcan]

You're missing the point, EC. There is no inherent right to marry. Just as there is no inherent right to someone else's food, clothing or shelter, all of which we may very well consider an important part of living, neither is there a right to marry. It is dependent on receiving something from someone else. There may be a right NOT to marry (right to liberty), but no true right to marry exists. It is a privilege, one that not all of us have. Please recognize that, everyone.

Interesting argument. If marriage is indeed a fundamental right, and there must be equality, then it should equally apply to all fundamentals - food, shelter, clothing, etc. Which the socialists will argue is correct, but that also means we would be a communist state. Kind of shoots the idea in the foot.

[Machiavelli]

NSFW for profanity

So You Think That Rainbow Makes You Look Cool?

Christopher Cantwell
christophercantwell.com
June 29, 2015

I have an important public service announcement for everyone who changed their Facebook and other profile photos to a rainbow recently. Absent some massive desire for more color in your life, you probably did this to celebrate the United States Supreme Court magically creating a constitutional "right" to a marriage license for gay people. Didn't you?

I suppose you think this makes you quite tolerant, and forward thinking, but it doesn't. I imagine you think you're advancing freedom, but you're not. You probably feel really good about yourself for helping gay people gain acceptance in society, but that's not even remotely close to what you're actually doing.

By making this display, you have done nothing but tell the world that you are a useful idiot.

More, with reader comments and video

[Luis Gonzalez]

Interesting argument. If marriage is indeed a fundamental right, and there must be equality, then it should equally apply to all fundamentals - food, shelter, clothing, etc. Which the socialists will argue is correct, but that also means we would be a communist state. Kind of shoots the idea in the foot.

You have a fundamental right to food, food, shelter, clothing, etc, but you don't have a right to someone else's property, so you can't "take" any one of those things simply because you need them. That's called theft, and when the government takes them from some to give to others, that's called Socialsm or Communism.

Fundamental rights are rights that a person can exercise without cost to others, or that by their exercise, do not diminish the rights of others.

Marriage is one of the fundamental rights of man.

[jmyrlefuller]

You have a fundamental right to food, food, shelter, clothing, etc, but you don't have a right to someone else's property, so you can't "take" any one of those things simply because you need them. That's called theft, and when the government takes them from some to give to others, that's called Socialsm or Communism.

Fundamental rights are rights that a person can exercise without cost to others, or that by their exercise, do not diminish the rights of others.

Marriage is one of the fundamental rights of man.

Stop. Just stop.

You just contradicted yourself. You agree with me on the point that fundamental rights cannot infringe on others' fundamental rights, then you turn around and try to claim that marriage fits that category, even though it doesn't. To claim my supposedly fundamental right to marry I must diminish the right of the partner I choose. Therefore, it cannot be a fundamental right. I don't have a right to take someone else's liberty, any more than I can take their property.

Thus, as I said before, marriage is not a right, but a privilege.

[DCPatriot]

If this thread was a horse, you'd have to shoot it.   

[240B]

Marriage is a religious thing. Marriage was creating and controlled by humans, all over the the Earth, for 100,000 years. We made this. We built this.

Now we have a Supreme Court who says, You know what? Those last tens of thousands of years were all wrong. We know best.

So, screw your religion. Screw your thousands of years  of success. We don't care. We want marriage to be the way that WE say it is. F**k reality. And screw you!

We will do whatever we want, and you can all go f**k yourself.

Brought to you by, your Supreme Court! Thank you very much.

[Fishrrman]

Luis wrote:
[[ You have a fundamental right to food, food, shelter, clothing, etc ]]

I thought you were a self-proclaimed libertarian?

No one has a "fundamental right" to such things.

Or do you consider "the social safety net", the food stamps, the EBT cards, the obamaphones, the free section 8 housing -- all to be "fundamental rights" ...?

[Lando Lincoln]

[Paladin]

FDR's 4 Freedoms. Please note #3.

1.Freedom of speech

2.Freedom of worship

3.Freedom from want

4.Freedom from fear

1941 speech.

[DCPatriot]

FDR's 4 Freedoms. Please note #3.

1.Freedom of speech

2.Freedom of worship

3.Freedom from want

4.Freedom from fear

1941 speech.

I wasn't even a gleam in my daddy's eye when FDR made that speech, and yet it's a critical point being made here that Barack Obama isn't the first 'Socialist' to reside in the White House.

I'll accept that.  However, Barack Obama isn't merely a Socialist.  He's an anti-American racist bigot toward the white man.  Our own Che', so to speak.  History may judge him as a Revolutionary....if the Left gets to write the history.

Question:  Would Barack Obama have made the "Day of Infamy" Speech?   I think not.

He would have said that our chickens came home to roost.

Furthermore, I feel that I'm an somewhat educated man.  The Millennial today and the generation that is being spawned now can't even point out Joe Biden out of a lineup.       They're too busy with their noses in their...excuse the term..."smart" phones.

[MACVSOG68]

I wasn't even a gleam in my daddy's eye when FDR made that speech, and yet it's a critical point being made here that Barack Obama isn't the first 'Socialist' to reside in the White House.

I'll accept that.  However, Barack Obama isn't merely a Socialist.  He's an anti-American racist bigot toward the white man.  Our own Che', so to speak.  History may judge him as a Revolutionary....if the Left gets to write the history.

Question:  Would Barack Obama have made the "Day of Infamy" Speech?   I think not.

He would have said that our chickens came home to roost.

Furthermore, I feel that I'm an somewhat educated man.  The Millennial today and the generation that is being spawned now can't even point out Joe Biden out of a lineup.       They're too busy with their noses in their...excuse the term..."smart" phones.

Very well said DC.  One of them loved his Country; one doesn't.

[Free Vulcan]

You have a fundamental right to food, food, shelter, clothing, etc, but you don't have a right to someone else's property, so you can't "take" any one of those things simply because you need them. That's called theft, and when the government takes them from some to give to others, that's called Socialsm or Communism.

Fundamental rights are rights that a person can exercise without cost to others, or that by their exercise, do not diminish the rights of others.

Marriage is one of the fundamental rights of man.

As long as it is a right to pursue and not an entitlement, then yes. What it does not mean is that I'm required bake you a cake, make you a dress, plan your wedding, marry you in my church, or not tell you what I think about your homofascist, transsexual, polygamist, or Muslim wedding. Nor should we be required that a 5 year old learn about their anal buggaring in school or endure sex in public simply because they have a new legal status granted to them by the 14th Supremacists.

I was all set to let gays have civil unions so they could get their 'spousal' bennies, but then they went for the throat and demanded it all. Now I don't care if they get anything.