Supreme Court denies gay marriage appeals

[olde north church]

I don't know what the problem with polygamy is.  More natural than homosexuality.  Also has an historical background across many cultures.

[sinkspur]

I think common sense and reason should determine moral boundaries. It shouldn't be legal for one person to victimize another person. I think most people would agree with that.

Most people do agree with that.   

There seems to be difficulty by some to see the difference between morality and legality. One can hold that smoking is immoral because of the harm it does to one's body, but that it shouldn't be illegal.

On the other hand, no one is arguing for the morality or the legality of pedophilia, since a minor child is involved.  Same with incest with a child.

Sodomy was once illegal but, in truth, no state enforced those statutes, since sodomy could also involve heterosexuals.

[Dexter]

And the source of that "common sense" and "reason" would be what?

The people that live in this world.

[musiclady]

I think common sense and reason should determine moral boundaries. It shouldn't be legal for one person to victimize another person. I think most people would agree with that.

Whose common sense?  Who gets to decide?

A very, very small fraction of people (less than 2%) determined that the definition of marriage should be forever changed, and it has been.

Now, there is absolutely no logical nor rational argument against a father's marrying his adult daughter, if she consents, nor two 18 year old brothers' marrying, or a man's having a harem.

Once you change the essence of the definition of what marriage is, you can't control where it goes.  And that's what you're trying to do.

You want to control it with your own values, but it doesn't necessarily happen that way.  You've gotten your way for now with homosexual marriage, but there's no guarantee that it will last throughout your life.  There's no reason for you to have "confidence" based on what you deem to be "common sense."

[musiclady]

The people that live in this world.

The ones who agree with you, that is.

[Dexter]

Whose common sense?  Who gets to decide?

A very, very small fraction of people (less than 2%) determined that the definition of marriage should be forever changed, and it has been.

Now, there is absolutely no logical nor rational argument against a father's marrying his adult daughter, if she consents, nor two 18 year old brothers' marrying, or a man's having a harem.

Once you change the essence of the definition of what marriage is, you can't control where it goes.  And that's what you're trying to do.

You want to control it with your own values, but it doesn't necessarily happen that way.  You've gotten your way for now with homosexual marriage, but there's no guarantee that it will last throughout your life.  There's no reason for you to have "confidence" based on what you deem to be "common sense."

If it ever goes beyond the limits of what I consider to be morally acceptable I will do everything I can to fight against it. I will not limit my morality and reasoning based on what could hypothetically happen, especially when I don't believe that it will happen.

[Dexter]

The ones who agree with you, that is.

I believe what I believe, and I will do my part to fight for what I believe in, just like you. What makes the most sense and what is the most reasonable tends to win out in the end. If I am misguided, surely humanity will prevent my belief system from taking over.

[musiclady]

I believe what I believe, and I will do my part to fight for what I believe in, just like you. What makes the most sense and what is the most reasonable tends to win out in the end. If I am misguided, surely humanity will prevent my belief system from taking over.

That's very idealistic thinking.  Good luck to you with that.

But, my original post stands.

Pandora's box has been opened.  The walls that protected marriage, by its very definition, are now torn down.

And you, no matter how idealistic you are, or Utopian, will not be able to control where the contents of the box are going to go.

[Dexter]

That's very idealistic thinking.  Good luck to you with that.

But, my original post stands.

Pandora's box has been opened.  The walls that protected marriage, by its very definition, are now torn down.

And you, no matter how idealistic you are, or Utopian, will not be able to control where the contents of the box are going to go.

You're right that I have no control over the limits of where this goes, but I believe that the collective reasoning and common sense of the millions of people that live in this country will prevent it from descending into complete absurdity. If it doesn't, and it does indeed break the limits of my own morality, I will do what I can to speak out against it.

[musiclady]

You're right that I have no control over the limits of where this goes, but I believe that the collective reasoning and common sense of the millions of people that live in this country will prevent it from descending into complete absurdity. If it doesn't, and it does indeed break the limits of my own morality, I will do what I can to speak out against it.

That's exactly what I'm doing now. 

For those of us who remember the 1950's and early 60's, and the generally accepted, collective common sense reasoning of the era that stood for social mores that included marital fidelity, abstinence outside of marriage, heterosexual behavior, stood against pregnancy outside of marriage, and to see in the late 60's and 70's that everything that had been commonly believed had 'descended into complete absurdity' thanks to "free" love, we know not to be "confident" of any collective moral thought.

Not only did commonly accepted moral standards disappear in a decade thanks to leftists, but in the 90's Clinton's amoral influence began an epidemic of oral sex and STD's among teens and even children.  Now there are no morals left among most millenials.

So you see, there is no reason for the idealism you feel that things will not get out of hand when it comes to accepting incest, or even pedophilia.  Given the historical perspective that people older than yourself have, there's no reason for confidence that things will not continue plummeting until there is no moral fabric left in this nation.  (Clearly, there is little more than threads left even now).

For those of us with a moral framework, we have already descended below any depth we could have imagined just a few short decades ago.  And there is no reason to believe the descent is over.

[MACVSOG68]

I do believe that pedophilia has no more to do with gays than it does with heterosexuals.  Nor have I found any evidence that children growing up in gay families are any worse off than those in father/mother families.  I prefer a father and a mother because I believe having both forms of guidance is better.  But what is, is.  I can't change it, and I'm not sure I want to.  The main thing in any family relationship is love.

Ten years ago, as a member of TOS, I was against the marriage amendment that was being pushed because I believed it to be a state issue, and didn't seem to be a real social issue.  Yet I didn't believe in same-sex marriages and voted against it where I live.  Over the past ten years though, it has become acceptable to society at large, as polls show. 

During my adulthood many changes have taken place first in growing social acceptance and then through the power of the courts, including birth control availability, early stage abortion, the ability of different races to marry, ability of blacks to attend white schools, privacy in one's home, and other such changes.  It has taken a lot for me to accept some of them, but social acceptance by a majority has caused me to rethink many things.  I'm still leery of opening up marriage too quickly, but in truth it's not going to change my life one bit.  For the very  religious among us I can't speak or offer guidance.  But most of you will ultimately move on and get over it.  Life is too short.

Remember until 1859 even the Catholic Church didn't consider early stage abortion as murder.

[Bigun]

But most of you will ultimately move on and get over it.  Life is too short.

Which is how we got to the point at which we currently find ourselves.  We have lost the republic we were given for that exact reason!

[MACVSOG68]

For those of us who remember the 1950's and early 60's, and the generally accepted, collective common sense reasoning of the era that stood for social mores that included marital fidelity, abstinence outside of marriage, heterosexual behavior, stood against pregnancy outside of marriage, and to see in the late 60's and 70's that everything that had been commonly believed had 'descended into complete absurdity' thanks to "free" love, we know not to be "confident" of any collective moral thought.

I don't disagree with you on this, but isn't it better for two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together than the immoral conduct you have described?  Aids has killed many and has certainly affected the homosexual community.  So if two of them would prefer to stay together rather than moving from partner to partner, wouldn't that be a better thing?  Perhaps we should be encouraging monogamous relationships, and leave the bedrooms to the privacy of the couples.

[MACVSOG68]

Which is how we got to the point at which we currently find ourselves.  We have lost the republic we were given for that exact reason!

Remember that republic we were given did include some accepted behaviors few of us would accept today.  If we do lose the republic, it won't be because of gay marriage.

[Atomic Cow]

Do you honestly believe that this paves the way for legal pedophilia? There is nobody anywhere arguing for legalized pedophilia, and that will not change. The vast majority of people are not pedophiles, and they understand how vile and disgusting it is.

From today in the New York Times:

Pedophilia Deserves Civil Rights, Says New York Times’ Op-Ed

The nation’s tough anti-pedophilia laws are unfair to pedophiles, according to an op-ed published by The New York Times’ editors.

“One can live with pedophilia and not act on it,” says Margo Kaplan, an entrepreneurial assistant law professor at Rutgers University, and a former lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Tragically, the roughly 1 percent of “people who are sexually attracted to children] must hide their disorder from everyone they know — or risk losing educational and job opportunities, and face the prospect of harassment and even violence,” she wrote.

Kaplan is trying to make a legal career in the regulation of expanding sexual diversity, instead of routine and lower-status practice areas, such as torts, probate, crime or copyrights. She’s focused on “legal limitations on intimate decisions, particularly the use of criminal law in areas of health and sexuality,” according to her web page.

Kaplan says civil rights law should be changed so that pedophiles are only stigmatized or denied jobs if law school graduates agree that they pose a “direct threat” to children.

That could be a bonanza for law school graduates, because they’d be paid to argue over whether the hiring of a particular pedophile for a particular job is a direct threat to particular children. “The direct-threat analysis rejects the idea that [prospective] employers can rely on generalizations; they must assess the specific case and rely on evidence, not presuppositions,” Kaplan writes.

But this shift would also be a loss for the 99 percent of non-pedophile American citizens and voters, because it would eliminate their longstanding civil right to simply and cheaply exclude pedophiles from mainstream society or from jobs near children.

That right would be handed over to the hourly-paid law school graduates, including judges, defense lawyers, arbitrators and prosecutors, if Kaplan’s career plan becomes law.

The readers’ comments about the article were generally negative.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/06/pedophilia-deserves-civil-rights-says-new-york-times-op-ed/

[musiclady]

I don't disagree with you on this, but isn't it better for two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together than the immoral conduct you have described?  Aids has killed many and has certainly affected the homosexual community.  So if two of them would prefer to stay together rather than moving from partner to partner, wouldn't that be a better thing?  Perhaps we should be encouraging monogamous relationships, and leave the bedrooms to the privacy of the couples.

This is a very different discussion than the legalization of 'marriage' between two men or two women.

There is nothing stopping two men from living together and having sex with each other.  Obviously, it's better for them to be monogamous than to be promiscuous and spread disease to multiple partners.

But when you change the very definition of marriage.... a relationship between one man and one woman since this country began...... to include two men or two women, you are tearing even further at the fabric on which this nation was founded (not just by those who were 'religious.')

Once you open the definition of marriage to include same sex relationships, there is no rational argument for denying incest or polygamy.

If some of you are comfortable with accepting a mother/son marriage or two sisters, so be it.  But most of us aren't, and no amount of 'evolution' of culture will make that happen.

Since the sexual revolution in the '60's, this country has been disintegrating at an ever increasing pace.

And some of us mourn what we have lost.

[musiclady]

From today in the New York Times:

Pedophilia Deserves Civil Rights, Says New York Times’ Op-Ed

The nation’s tough anti-pedophilia laws are unfair to pedophiles, according to an op-ed published by The New York Times’ editors.

“One can live with pedophilia and not act on it,” says Margo Kaplan, an entrepreneurial assistant law professor at Rutgers University, and a former lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Tragically, the roughly 1 percent of “people who are sexually attracted to children] must hide their disorder from everyone they know — or risk losing educational and job opportunities, and face the prospect of harassment and even violence,” she wrote.

Kaplan is trying to make a legal career in the regulation of expanding sexual diversity, instead of routine and lower-status practice areas, such as torts, probate, crime or copyrights. She’s focused on “legal limitations on intimate decisions, particularly the use of criminal law in areas of health and sexuality,” according to her web page.

Kaplan says civil rights law should be changed so that pedophiles are only stigmatized or denied jobs if law school graduates agree that they pose a “direct threat” to children.

That could be a bonanza for law school graduates, because they’d be paid to argue over whether the hiring of a particular pedophile for a particular job is a direct threat to particular children. “The direct-threat analysis rejects the idea that [prospective] employers can rely on generalizations; they must assess the specific case and rely on evidence, not presuppositions,” Kaplan writes.

But this shift would also be a loss for the 99 percent of non-pedophile American citizens and voters, because it would eliminate their longstanding civil right to simply and cheaply exclude pedophiles from mainstream society or from jobs near children.

That right would be handed over to the hourly-paid law school graduates, including judges, defense lawyers, arbitrators and prosecutors, if Kaplan’s career plan becomes law.

The readers’ comments about the article were generally negative.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/06/pedophilia-deserves-civil-rights-says-new-york-times-op-ed/

Thanks for posting a specific example of what I was referring to earlier, AC.

People can be naïve, keep their heads in the sand and pretend that it isn't happening, but there is a steady effort to 'normalize' pedophilia, just as there was an effort to 'normalize' homosexuality several decades ago.

It may not ever be widely accepted, but I think many of us would have said that about homosexuality in the 1970's if the subject was raised.

It's remarkable what the left has been able to accomplish via entertainment, media, and other means (like the APA) to have homosexuality become 'normal' in people's eyes.

[musiclady]

I do believe that pedophilia has no more to do with gays than it does with heterosexuals.  Nor have I found any evidence that children growing up in gay families are any worse off than those in father/mother families.  I prefer a father and a mother because I believe having both forms of guidance is better.  But what is, is.  I can't change it, and I'm not sure I want to.  The main thing in any family relationship is love.

Ten years ago, as a member of TOS, I was against the marriage amendment that was being pushed because I believed it to be a state issue, and didn't seem to be a real social issue.  Yet I didn't believe in same-sex marriages and voted against it where I live.  Over the past ten years though, it has become acceptable to society at large, as polls show. 

During my adulthood many changes have taken place first in growing social acceptance and then through the power of the courts, including birth control availability, early stage abortion, the ability of different races to marry, ability of blacks to attend white schools, privacy in one's home, and other such changes.  It has taken a lot for me to accept some of them, but social acceptance by a majority has caused me to rethink many things.  I'm still leery of opening up marriage too quickly, but in truth it's not going to change my life one bit.  For the very  religious among us I can't speak or offer guidance.  But most of you will ultimately move on and get over it.  Life is too short.

Remember until 1859 even the Catholic Church didn't consider early stage abortion as murder.

I'm sorry, but what does life's being short have to do with abandoning one's fundamental principles?

For me (I can't speak for anyone else), it's precisely the opposite.

If life is short, giving up on what's important in this life is the last thing we ought to be doing.

[Bigun]

Remember that republic we were given did include some accepted behaviors few of us would accept today.  If we do lose the republic, it won't be because of gay marriage.

Nope! It will be from thousands of seemingly small cuts that we got over and moved on from because life is to short!

[musiclady]

Nope! It will be from thousands of seemingly small cuts that we got over and moved on from because life is to short!

I'm not 'getting over' these wounds to our nation.   I will always mourn what we have lost.......

[Bigun]

I'm not 'getting over' these wounds to our nation.   I will always mourn what we have lost.......

Yes! I know! But there are FAR to few of us!

[MACVSOG68]

I'm sorry, but what does life's being short have to do with abandoning one's fundamental principles?

For me (I can't speak for anyone else), it's precisely the opposite.

If life is short, giving up on what's important in this life is the last thing we ought to be doing.

If two people who love each other is such a concern to you, then as I said, I can't speak for you nor offer any advice.  But that's really not an issue of such importance to me.  The world may well be moving toward cataclysm, and gay marriage ain't gonna be the cause.

[musiclady]

Yes! I know! But there are FAR to few of us!

Unfortunately, the leftist assault on our nation's morals has been very successful.

That's why, I believe, our number is smaller than it used to be.

Think of several generations of public school/university students inculcated with leftist 'values.'  Think of decades of negative influences in our media, from Hollywood, from all around us.

Frankly, it's amazing that, after this kind of relentless assault, there are ANY of us left! 

[evadR]

Evolution will sort it out....but it will take a long, long time

[MACVSOG68]

Nope! It will be from thousands of seemingly small cuts that we got over and moved on from because life is to short!

Yeah, they've been happening for thousands of years now, and somehow good people seem to survive.  Hopefully we will survive this gay marriage thing too.