Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Friday June 26 2015, @05:30PM   Printer-friendly
from the love-and-divorce dept.

In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that states can not prevent same-sex couples from marrying and must recognize their marriages from other states. In the majority opinion by Justice Kennedy it is stated:

The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.

...and:

It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 26 2015, @05:32PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 26 2015, @05:32PM (#201602) Journal

    Nuff said.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -2  
       Flamebait=4, Funny=1, Underrated=1, Total=6
    Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 26 2015, @05:33PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday June 26 2015, @05:33PM (#201603) Journal

    To queer for me
     
    Then don't get gay married.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @05:38PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @05:38PM (#201607)

      I think you are confused. This ruling makes gay marriage mandatory.

      This is tyranny!!! [mikehuckabee.com] We must fight it like we fought the british and kick all gays out of the country just like we kicked out the red coats! FREEEEEDOM!!!!

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday June 26 2015, @05:59PM

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Friday June 26 2015, @05:59PM (#201622) Homepage

        This is TRANNY?

        Go Wild! GO WILD! Frisco or BUST!!!

        • (Score: 2) by Hartree on Friday June 26 2015, @06:21PM

          by Hartree (195) on Friday June 26 2015, @06:21PM (#201655)

          Tranny? I still like the 1960s vintage manual 3 speed Muncie that was in Chevys.

          Runner up: The two speed (slip and slide) Powerglide which could be set up with servo valves to control the shifting for drag racing.

          • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday June 26 2015, @10:58PM

            by LoRdTAW (3755) on Friday June 26 2015, @10:58PM (#201854) Journal

            Muncie 4 speed 465 in a GMC truck was a fav of mine.

      • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday June 26 2015, @06:15PM

        by davester666 (155) on Friday June 26 2015, @06:15PM (#201644)

        Didn't we get rid of all the gays by kicking out all the men wearing red coats? Have they taken to hiding by wearing other colors?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @07:37PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @07:37PM (#201716)

        "The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do-redefine marriage."

        Right... because adding new definitions to words is completely unheard of; it requires an all-powerful creator! That's why language doesn't change over time, right?

        "I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat."

        Not oppressing people is tyranny!

        • (Score: 2) by DECbot on Friday June 26 2015, @08:29PM

          by DECbot (832) on Friday June 26 2015, @08:29PM (#201750) Journal

          You need the SCOTUS to oppress the views of the bigoted conservative churches who do not wish to have their values changed. From their perspective, this isn't a matter of unequal rights but a matter of the government condoning perverse activities that their community forbids. They believe that practicing homosexuality is self-destructive and community-destructive behavior that the individual chooses to practice. Much like theft, murder, adultery, rape, and not keeping the sabbath (golf, home maintenance, yard work, and cooking is naturally excluded from the list of prohibited activities on the sabbath). You need the SCOTUS to either rule that married gays remain married no matter what state they are in or that homosexual marriages are null and void when entering into a state that has prohibited gay marriage (preserving the rights of the state).

          --
          cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @08:34PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @08:34PM (#201756)

            preserving the rights of the state

            No, the ruling is preserving the rights of US citizens. The states are not allowed to violate the Fourteenth Amendment even if there is a majority vote.

            • (Score: 2) by DECbot on Friday June 26 2015, @09:02PM

              by DECbot (832) on Friday June 26 2015, @09:02PM (#201779) Journal

              I agree with you. If homosexuality is to be a right protected by the Federal government, then the States cannot bar its practice.

              --
              cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
          • (Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:13PM

            by tathra (3367) on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:13PM (#202202)

            They believe that practicing homosexuality is self-destructive and community-destructive behavior that the individual chooses to practice.

            they can believe whatever they want, but once their actions start impacting others, like by trying to use the force of law to force their beliefs and/or values on everyone else, we have a problem. "freedom of religion" means freedom from religion too, you do not have the right to force your religion or its values on anyone - such tyranny is expressly forbidden by the constitution.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Friday June 26 2015, @08:37PM

          by edIII (791) on Friday June 26 2015, @08:37PM (#201759)

          It's worth noting that the AC is quoting Mike Huckabee, who is running for President.

          If accepted by Congress and this President, this decision will be a serious blow to religious liberty, which is the heart of the First Amendment

          Wow. So this guy thinks he is Presidential material? He needs a civics class to understand that the heart of the 1st Amendment wasn't religious freedom, as much as it was the right to freely speak, especially in dissent. Without religious freedom, more often than not, you found censorship. What a shocker that the powerful and influential of the day would use God as a backdrop for their tyranny. It's not a coincidence that they're in the same amendment, but it also clearly wasn't because they were favoring one religion over another. Just as it has always been, Freedom of Speech is about the right to *speak*, not to be *heard*.

          How this mental midget can think that granting the exact same rights to two citizens, that the government already granted to two other citizens, is a form of a censorship against one pair is utterly beyond me. They were never, at any point, Constitutionally entitled to freely express their religion by exacting control over other citizen's behavior in accordance with their religion. Mike can go suck a dick if he thinks the Constitution put in a legal loop hole that allows a preferred religion to exercise power through it.

          I don't personally care much about what people are doing with their hoohahs. My common sense, intelligence, and education leads me to believe:

          1) Not my business what those two, three, four or more people are doing to each other. My genitalia isn't involved, they aren't trying to make it involved, and if I was just minding my own business I would never notice. Only when somebody grabs my genitalia and forces my involvement do I need to get concerned. Or excited. Or both.
          2) Government is supposed to be without religion by design, as by being without religion it extends religious freedom to all. Simple stuff.
          3) Censorship is about removing the ability to speak, not guaranteeing a reaction to the speech either way.

          Mike Huckabee is a cock juggling thunder cunt and a bigot, as well as being way to mentally deficient to be put in a place of power. Unless we want a clearly religious President who can conflate the Constitution, Nature's will, and God's law with such fluidity.

          There is an old adage that can serve us well here: An angry man's words are a quiet man's thoughts.

          You elect Mike Huckabee for President, and you will find yourself being bent to his version of God's will whether you like or not, and then reminded of how it is actually freedom. It may not feel like it, but it's Freedom under God, and that's apparently mandatory in Mike's version of the Constitution.

          --
          Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
          • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday June 26 2015, @10:23PM

            by jmorris (4844) on Friday June 26 2015, @10:23PM (#201835)

            He needs a civics class to understand that the heart of the 1st Amendment wasn't religious freedom, as much as it was the right to freely speak, especially in dissent.

            As usual, one side in this argument is not so much wrong as just plain ignorant. Lets see who, shall we?

            The 1st Amendment:

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

            Care to revise and extend your remarks?

            • (Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:08AM

              by edIII (791) on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:08AM (#201888)

              Care to revise and extend your remarks?

              Sure. No Problem. No revision necessary, or required. I will further explain as requested, and then we can see where ignorance is. Although, it's possible that neither of us is that ignorant at all ;) Be nice.

              The central tenet of the 1st amendment is not religious expression, but freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and basically your freedom to express yourself. Religion is part of it, because religious freedom is often found alongside with strong freedoms of expression. As I already stated, these are my feelings and opinions on why the 1st Amendment was created in the first place. As religious views and positions were historically used as arguments-that-cannot-be-argued-with, they were intellectually disingenuous appeals to a non-existent authority. Hence, why it made absolute sense to speak about one when speaking of the other. That was just the reality of the day in a world not too far removed from on-going witch trials, and where the church was well known for getting involved politically with governments and the power structures of society. It was the church that was the greatest oppressor historically, and religion was often hijacked for political purposes. Our founding fathers correctly recognized it as the greatest contemporary threat to the very first amendment they were discussing. In your opinion, why are they grouped together, and not separate amendments? If religious expression was so important, and a non-secular government that critical, why wasn't it with it's own language and number?

              In truth, freedom of religious expression is simply redundant. The freedom of speech and peaceful assembly already guarantees we can get together and talk about the Bible, or any other religious concept we want as a group. Churches are allowed implicitly, along with entire categories of other behaviors some might find objectionable (nudist camps). Furthermore, the freedom to express religion is protected through other amendments (14th), and various laws already on the books preventing the 1st Amendment rights from being abridged. If somebody tried to enter the church and start hitting people with a shovel (or shooting them) because they didn't like the church, they would've been dragged away and charged with crimes. We even take it further today, and would charge him with a hate crime. Just about any instance of religious oppression you can come up with, I can show an amendment, or law, that would prohibit the acts oppression, and that in many cases these offenses are not tried as violations of the 1st Amendment, but felony laws. In short, the freedom of expression *is* the freedom of religious expression as well.

              Why do we need to specifically say that religious freedom is granted at all? IMHO, it's strongly implied and already protected by other language. When government says it will not establish laws respecting an establishment of religion, what is saying is that it *cannot* support *any* religion to *any* extent. Our founding fathers literally cemented the example of the need for the 1st, directly inside the 1st. That's how much bullshit is caused by secular governments, and that's literally it's only meaning. The Constitution is mandating a non-secular government because it directly aids in the execution, implementation, and enforcement of the 1st Amendment. Governments dedication to it's non-secular status is never grounds for the claim that the religious are being oppressed as a result. Why? Government didn't come to their aid and start beating the crap out of the person who is undesirable purely based on religious views?. This is correct, government should never be enforcing any aspects of what are purely religious debates. As an example, murder and theft are *not* religious debates. For Mike to complain that government is violating the 1st, by not violating the 1st is incredible.

              Also, pay attention to the grammar where I said, "as much as it was". What I'm saying is that the religious freedom aspect of the 1st Amendment was the minutia at best, or an inline example of why freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to petition government for redresses, etc. were so important. Granted, it's an opinion, but not one I would label as ignorant.

              In any case, the freedom of speech granted in the 1st Amendment, and the religious freedoms it guarantees were never meant to make sure that undesirable activities from a religious perspective would not be allowed to continue. Our founding fathers expressly wished that activities that pissed the church off could continue, as most of what pisses off the church has nothing to do with equality for all, reasoned positions, science, ethics, or morality. The church may have figuratively represented the King Of England to them, and they recognized that ALL kings needed to be kicked out of the country. That includes Mike, and his king, the great Jesus. Regardless of how both of them feel, allowing the homosexuals the same rights as us, is not an unconscionable abridgment of Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:22AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:22AM (#201899)

                TL;DR - freedom of religion is a subset of freedom of expression.

              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:53AM

                by jmorris (4844) on Saturday June 27 2015, @12:53AM (#201918)

                Ok, I now know where your malfunction is, vocabulary. The phrase "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" seems to be your problem, go look up the meaning of exercise that applies to this usage. It doesn't mean you have the right to believe, it doesn't mean you have the right to speak your beliefs; It means you have the right to EXERCISE the commandments laid down by your religious teachings.

                It means a man may not even be ordered to bear arms in defense of the country if his religion forbids it; this is settled law. If the State can't order a man to war it damned sure can't order him to write words he finds to be an abomination upon a cake. Except of course the Supreme Court just made a law that says exactly that.

                the religious freedoms it guarantees were never meant to make sure that undesirable activities from a religious perspective would not be allowed to continue

                Um, actually it means exactly that, that within as broad a limit as possible, all men were free to live their life according to the teachings of their religion. It was the way a nation that already had a metric pantload of different religions was expected to co-exist.

                In your opinion, why are they grouped together, and not separate amendments?

                Being knowledgeable and wise men, The Founders realized that all the clauses were aspects of one idea, that men were to be free to believe, to act upon those beliefs, discuss them openly in the public square and in print and to petition the State based on those beliefs. That only in this way, through both vigorous, unrestricted debate AND the example of deeds as people lived their lives according to those beliefs would we slowly grow towards whatever ultimate Truth the Universe holds. All political beliefs btw derive from religious ones; yes, all of them. Not all religions are theistic, example Buddhism, Marxism or Secular Humanism. "Separation of Church and State" is just some "Shit Jefferson Said" and not part of the Constitution.

                Jefferson was a great man but his Word is not Holy Writ and he was certainly not infallible. For example he totally failed to realize how fundamentally different the French Revolution was and almost lost his head over it. Another of the Founders also said the Constitution they gave us was "intended for a Religious and moral people and would serve no other." Of course that too is just something some guy said and likewise not Holy Writ or even part of the Constitution.

                When government says it will not establish laws respecting an establishment of religion, what is saying is that it *cannot* support *any* religion to *any* extent.

                No, it means exactly what it says. The State may not establish a Church. See The Church of England. And when that was ratified several of the States in point of fact established Churches, the 1st Amendment only says that the Federal government may not... although questionable interpretations of later amendments muddle that.

                • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:09AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:09AM (#201924)

                  >> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
                  >
                  > It means exactly what it says. The State may not establish a Church.

                  It is weird that someone calling for the "exact" reading would leave out a key word. It does not say "not establish" a church it says "no law respecting" a church. Exactly what Ed said.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:20PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:20PM (#202203)

                  When government says it will not establish laws respecting an establishment of religion, what is saying is that it *cannot* support *any* religion to *any* extent.

                  No, it means exactly what it says. The State may not establish a Church. See The Church of England. And when that was ratified several of the States in point of fact established Churches, the 1st Amendment only says that the Federal government may not... although questionable interpretations of later amendments muddle that.

                  The 1st and 14th Amendments clearly establish that The State cannot give preferential treatment to any one religion. Supporting the transition of the US into a Christian theocracy, like you are, is supporting the overthrow of our constitutional form of government.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @10:53PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @10:53PM (#201850)

            Mike Huckabee is a cock juggling thunder cunt

            Oooh, do they have a matinee showing or do I need to leave the house at night for this?

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 26 2015, @05:47PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 26 2015, @05:47PM (#201613) Journal

      That bit is easy enough. Now, let's wait 50 to 100 years, and see what the societal results of this crazy shit will be.

      Oh - wait - you're not one of those who are going to pretend that there won't be any results? There are plenty of those bat-shit crazy people who believe that fucking with societal institutions won't change society. Plenty more bat-shit crazies expect all the changes to be for the good.

      We've already had at least one "married" pair of homos adopt a little male child, just so they could kiddie-diddle him.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Friday June 26 2015, @05:53PM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday June 26 2015, @05:53PM (#201615) Journal

        Straight parents have never molested children. Ever.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by maxwell demon on Friday June 26 2015, @05:57PM

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Friday June 26 2015, @05:57PM (#201619) Journal

        just so they could kiddie-diddle him.

        You've been spying on them? If not, from where did do you get that?

        Ah right, from pulling it right out of your ass.

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:01PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:01PM (#201625)

        > We've already had at least one "married" pair of homos adopt a little male child, just so they could kiddie-diddle him.

        Ugh, the same old shit conflating homosexuality with pedophilia.

        After a post like that who could possibly ever give runaway the benefit of the doubt in anything he says? The dude lives down to the absolute worst stereotypes.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:31PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:31PM (#201668)
          Runaway has the balls to speak the truth. In contrast , I hide by AC cover.

          Sexual deviancy leads to worse sexual deviancy, therefore homo leads to pedo. NAMBLA exists to get this kind of stuff legalized. Their unending drive for greater deviancy will do great untold damage.

          What is tolerated now will be accepted then legal then normal. Seems fine except mankind just never moves forward on its own. Therefore what ever is becoming normal is almost always worst than what was previously normal. The times we do move forward is a miracle with most men kicking and screaming along the way.
          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday June 26 2015, @07:17PM

            by aristarchus (2645) on Friday June 26 2015, @07:17PM (#201701) Journal

            Sexual deviancy leads to worse sexual deviancy,

            Great theory you have there! Yup, give 'em an inch, and it's santorum all the way! Next thing you know, . . . But, it's wrong. Psychology says that perversion (literally, turning aside) is the result of frustration or some other trauma. So it is not the deviancy that is a cause, it is a symptom.

            And secondly, since you bring up Runaway's Pacu-bait, you have begged the question by assuming that same-sex attraction is deviant. Now what usually demarks sexual behavior as immoral in the religious traditions is that it is hedonistic, and egoistic, and in extreme cases results in the exploitation of others to that end. So it seems that the opposition to gay marriage wants to keep homosexuality like that, that it not be a shared relationship between equals. No wonder they will immediately go to sexual abuse of children, because at root that is what their conception of sex is, no matter what its object is. In other words, opponents of of gay marriage are in favor of deviancy.

            I have often wondered if the fear of gay marriage is not that we will all have to get gay married, but if we allow gay marrying, the number of sexual targets for sexual predators, and the ease which which they can be coerced, controlled, and silenced (Hi! Congressman Hastert!), can be increased, for the abuse by closeted egoistic hedonists. Ultimately, the issue is about power over others, or what in more general terms is called "evil".

            (Resistance: psychological principle: the more opposed a person is to something, the more they are admitting their attraction to it. If someone is worried about deviancy that much, they already are one.)

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @08:42PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @08:42PM (#201764)

              Holy crap! There still are people out there who actually know what begging the question actually means and how to use it properly in a sentence!!!

              • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 26 2015, @09:04PM

                by aristarchus (2645) on Friday June 26 2015, @09:04PM (#201782) Journal

                Too queer, eh? But I am a philosopher, and am 2400 years old, so I should know such things.

            • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday June 26 2015, @09:01PM

              by edIII (791) on Friday June 26 2015, @09:01PM (#201777)

              Now what usually demarks sexual behavior as immoral in the religious traditions is that it is hedonistic, and egoistic, and in extreme cases results in the exploitation of others to that end.

              You nailed it. It's the "Bad" sex that is usually accompanied by plenty of other bad behavior. The choice of "target" is irrelevant when it's the egoistic activities that cause all of the harm. I'm not sure about hedonistic as an explicit negative, but it can be as well.

              To say that gay people are completely incapable of normal loving relationships with healthy sex lives has always been nonsensical to me, and purely an emotional conflation of the negative religious messages with assumed negative character traits. As you can see with Runaway, and his run away bigotry, the conflation has worked itself up to very upsetting and emotional acts of pedophilia. Isn't that what the devil did when he was bored? Rape his children?

              Just like you said, as long as the gay men and women are ostracized, terrified, marginalized, effectively invisible, how can we see them as possessing the same healthy relationships straight people do? The longer they keep showing Neil Patrick Harris in the news with his husband, and children, looking well adjusted and happy, the more ridiculous their arguments become.

              --
              Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by RedBear on Friday June 26 2015, @06:34PM

        by RedBear (1734) on Friday June 26 2015, @06:34PM (#201673)

        That bit is easy enough. Now, let's wait 50 to 100 years, and see what the societal results of this crazy shit will be.
        Oh - wait - you're not one of those who are going to pretend that there won't be any results? There are plenty of those bat-shit crazy people who believe that fucking with societal institutions won't change society. Plenty more bat-shit crazies expect all the changes to be for the good.
        We've already had at least one "married" pair of homos adopt a little male child, just so they could kiddie-diddle him.

        Uh, huh. Wow. At least one. And how many hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of opposite-sex couples have "kiddie-diddled" their own biological offspring and/or adopted or foster children? The statistics say quite a few, sadly. Looks like we should be banning traditional marriage. Won't somebody think of the childrens!!!ONE!!!

        There should be a light bulb going off in your hate-filled hypocritical little bigoted brain right now, but of course that's not how hate-filled hypocritical little bigoted brains work.

        The societal results will be the following: In 50 years approximately 6% of all marriages will probably be same-sex marriages, reflecting the approximately 6% of the population who have always been and always will be same-sex oriented. That seems to be a pretty stable statistical inference that can be made from recorded human history. About 66% of same-sex marriages will be fairly stable marriages that will last decades, just like with traditional marriage. Some percentage will end in divorce and acrimony, just like with traditional marriage. Like an increasing number of opposite-sex couples, the ones who can't have children naturally will adopt or use artificial insemination or surrogacy. And life will generally go on. Unless you teach them to be hate-filled hypocritical bigots, your grandchildren won't waste a single moment of their lives worrying about same-sex marriage destroying the world, because there will be no observable evidence of it destroying the world. Your grandchildren will probably be much more preoccupied with trying to fix the global climate we destroyed for them.

        In 100 years: The same. In 200 years: The same.

        Oh no, it's the end of civilization as we know it. Run for your lives. *yawn*

        No, seriously, run. Go live in a cave in the hills or something. You'll feel a lot safer.

        --
        ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
        ... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
        • (Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 26 2015, @06:40PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 26 2015, @06:40PM (#201677) Journal

          Or, you could take the time to get a glimpse of things to come. The studies have been done, and are continuing, in Europe.

          None of the studies really support my views - but they don't support the idea that things won't change, either.

          But, the denizens who feed on the muck spewed by MSM aren't going to look for facts. Just go ahead and parrot what you've been told by MSM talking heads.

          But, you can believe that things are going to change. You may not like the changes, either. You've heard of the "unintended consequences" thing before, I hope.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:48PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:48PM (#201683)

            > None of the studies really support my views

            Lol, do you hear yourself?

            • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:24AM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:24AM (#201931) Journal

              Yes, I do hear myself. I disagree with the majority opinion. I don't set myself up as a god, I haven't even cited God in my arguments. I look rationally at all the evidence. I understand that the scholars don't agree with me - but I also see that the scholars are concerned enough to study the issue. The scholars are proving themselves to be much smarter than the jingoistic masses who have permitted themselves to be brainwashed by a vocal minority.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:32AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:32AM (#201937)

                > I understand that the scholars don't agree with me - but I also see that the scholars are concerned enough to study the issue.

                Apparently you don't hear yourself. You are trying to co-opt the authority of the people who disagree with you by saying you are vindicated by the fact that they are even studying the issue. Its heads you win, tails you win sophistry.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @07:46PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @07:46PM (#201723)

            but they don't support the idea that things won't change, either.

            So what? You never want anything to change, or what?

            You've heard of the "unintended consequences" thing before, I hope.

            I'm not quite sure what unintended consequences will follow from allowing people of the same sex to marry one another. Do you have evidence that anything bad will happen, or are you just opposed to changing anything because it might somehow lead to something bad?

            Can't get rid of mass surveillance. Something bad might happen. Can't get rid of big government. Something bad might happen. Can't get rid of slavery. Something bad might happen. This logic is ridiculous.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @03:12AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @03:12AM (#201969)

              I wouldn't spend too much time or effort deconstructing Runaway's arguments. He hates faggots. It's that simple.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:28PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:28PM (#202205)

              You never want anything to change, or what?

              That's the definition of conservatism.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:25PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:25PM (#202204)

            None of the studies really support my views

            That should be the first hint that you're delusional and have lost touch with reality.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Tork on Friday June 26 2015, @07:07PM

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 26 2015, @07:07PM (#201695)

        We've already had at least one "married" pair of homos adopt a little male child, just so they could kiddie-diddle him.

        You're an asshole.

        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Friday June 26 2015, @07:36PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 26 2015, @07:36PM (#201715) Journal

        That bit is easy enough. Now, let's wait 50 to 100 years, and see what the societal results of this crazy shit will be.

        It'll be a society that has moved on and found something new to get weirded out by. There will be changes just as there have been with allowing women and African Americans to vote - mostly good. Really, it shouldn't be any of government's business who or how many people decide to shack up.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @09:13PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @09:13PM (#201789)

          Are you kidding? Society is heading for a disaster of Biblical proportions! Old Testament, real wrath of God type of stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday June 26 2015, @07:41PM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday June 26 2015, @07:41PM (#201720)

        That bit is easy enough. Now, let's wait 50 to 100 years, and see what the societal results of this crazy shit will be.

        There will be gay marriages; that will be the result. Wow, that's terrible.

        There are plenty of those bat-shit crazy people who believe that fucking with societal institutions won't change society.

        Of course it will change society. People will have more rights.

        We've already had at least one "married" pair of homos adopt a little male child, just so they could kiddie-diddle him.

        What does this have to do with homosexuality? Heterosexuals molest people too.

        What do this even prove? That some people who happen to be homosexuals are bad, so therefore they all are? That could be applied to any group in existence.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Friday June 26 2015, @08:46PM

        by edIII (791) on Friday June 26 2015, @08:46PM (#201767)

        Wow. I didn't know you were such a bigot. All of those insightful comments you've made, and you decide to bring us your fear, racism, and bigotry today?

        You really have that much of a problem? Just what is it? The thought of a dick sliding up an ass? It's not your dick, and it's not your ass. So calm down buddy and try not living with such hatred in your heart. It doesn't appeal much to me either, but I don't go around bashing people's character just because they like Brussels sprouts, or beets. Your problem is really on the same level of silliness; being obsessed on what is happening with all the fruits.

        Let it go. It's not good for you :)

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @09:04PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @09:04PM (#201781)

          Wow. I didn't know you were such a bigot. All of those insightful comments you've made, and you decide to bring us your fear, racism, and bigotry today?

          I seriously can not tell if you are joking or not. You be poeing. [wikipedia.org]

          Let it go. It's not good for you :)

          You know that's not possible. Hate for others is the central tenet of the guy's life. Without it his entire world will fall apart. He's too old to start over and get a new personality.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @10:02PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @10:02PM (#201819)

            I seriously can not tell if you are joking or not. You be poeing.

            He has agreeable views about the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA, and a number of other issues relating to the security state and government overreach.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @10:50PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @10:50PM (#201846)

              Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
              The right to privacy protects a bigot from being public opprobrium as much as it protects the protester from government oppression.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:26AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:26AM (#201933) Journal

          And Samuel Alito wrote: "The decision will also have other important consequences. It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women.

          "Today's decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court's abuse of its authority have failed."

          Separately, http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/16/granderson.obama.gays/index.html?_s=PM:POLITICS [cnn.com]

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:34AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:34AM (#201938)

            Dude, you vilify yourself.
            The whole "criticism of my speech is censorship" theory of you and your extremist cohorts is just butthurt.

          • (Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday June 27 2015, @11:36PM

            by edIII (791) on Saturday June 27 2015, @11:36PM (#202263)

            Are you saying that your claims that gay men only adopt children for sodomy is legitimate dissent based on logic and reason, and that we should quietly respect your reasoned beliefs? If it's not all gay men by default, and only a percentage thereof, are you still saying they must be removed from child rearing duties while straight couples are ignored?

            Hardly.

            It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy

            You mean that in about 20 years we will regard you just as we currently regard KKK members? They're still unwilling to submit to aspects of the new orthodoxy after more than a hundred years too. Additionally, at the time there was "empirical" evidence that the Negro brain was inferior providing the so-called scientific support for their positions. Your claims of pervasive motives to sodomize children suffer from even less alleged evidence than they had, and is regarded with even less respect in the scientific and medical community. You were already well lambasted by Soylentils that possess medical and psychiatric knowledge and expertise. As you cannot got toe-to-toe on a scientific basis for more than a few weak sentences, your positions supporting your homophobia are weak indeed.

            That's really all you have. Your weak and pathetic attempt to defend your bigotry as our intellectual failures to argue with you properly. I believe you know this is true, but will attempt to raise reason and logic as your shield nonetheless passionately proclaiming your victim-hood.

            You have no scientific claims to make that same-sex relationships, much less marriages, are harmful. That extends to same-sex relationships where children are involved. I can't help but notice that most of the stresses incurred by these families come from the direction of *you* and *your* supporters in their life. Nothing inherently is stressful about a same-sex marriage more so than a traditional marriage, but having to listen and contend with bigotry everywhere *is*.

            So if we remove your assholishness from the equation, I can't find *any* logical or reasoned positions that show inherent social failures in same-sex relationships. As your assholishness is abating, and the gay community is more included, all we see is yet more evidence of how you are full of shit in regards to your positions.

            Just like how we stopped listening to the KKK members complaining about their interrupted lynchings to preserve white america, we are going to stop listening to you and your fear mongering about how two men loving each other will bring about the downfall of straight america, and then the world.

             

            --
            Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 28 2015, @01:11AM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 28 2015, @01:11AM (#202281) Journal

              "You have no scientific claims to make that same-sex relationships, much less marriages, are harmful."

              And, you have no scientific basis upon which to make claims that it is NOT harmful. I've pointed out that even the ancient Greeks rejected the idea. There were legitimate reasons for doing so.

              Oh, the pedophilia thing - you really should research NAMBLA better - except, a lot of the LGBT and NAMBLA relationship has been "sanitized" to the best of the gay community's ability. You can still find photos of NAMBLA officials hugging and kissing LBGT officials on the same stage, but they get harder to find every day.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2015, @02:18AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2015, @02:18AM (#202303)

                And, you have no scientific basis upon which to make claims that it is NOT harmful.

                Your fallacies are argument from ignorance [logicallyfallacious.com] and burden of proof [yourlogicalfallacyis.com].

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @08:46PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @08:46PM (#201768)

        There are not many "societal norms" that stay constant over 50 to 100 years. It's been 50 years of hell since we let all those inter-racial couples marry, hasn't it?

      • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday June 26 2015, @10:59PM

        by LoRdTAW (3755) on Friday June 26 2015, @10:59PM (#201855) Journal

        Troll Level: Meh

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:31PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:31PM (#202209)

        See khallow's [soylentnews.org] post? Even your fellow conservatives are telling you to get a grip, you're embarrassing yourself.

      • (Score: 2) by cykros on Sunday June 28 2015, @04:44AM

        by cykros (989) on Sunday June 28 2015, @04:44AM (#202341)

        There are plenty of those bat-shit crazy people who believe that fucking with societal institutions won't change society. Plenty more bat-shit crazies expect all the changes to be for the good./quote

        Err...ending slavery was "fucking with societal institutions." Did it have some unforeseen consequences? Of course. Hell, the founding of any country ever involves with fucking with societal institutions, as seats of power being recognized in a particular way is a societal institution. Do we see everything that will happen in the future? No. But it simply doesn't follow that we should therefore just strive to meet the status quo, and frankly, as a species, we never have, so even doing so would be the exact same thing: more fucking with societal institutions. Change happens. It is the nature of all observable existence. Fighting it on the grounds that change is scary and something *MIGHT* go wrong if we change things is illogical and frankly, cowardly.

        I suggest you look into making a bit more flexibility into your life, and will happily leave it to you to determine how. Stagnancy and rigidity have a way of taking their toll on one's health. All that worrying about what people who aren't you decide to call their relationship, and who simply are asking for the same legal arrangement as hetero folks have really is a lot of wasted energy on your part. Perhaps it'd be better spent helping with other means of helping prevent the harm done to children by practical means, rather than merely spewing forth the insane notion that you should determine how other people live their lives.

        I doubt you'll heed my advice, but it seemed selfish not to at least do you the favor of letting you decide that for yourself in light of it. There are plenty of valid ways to help society...if that is truly your goal, I'd suggest finding a path that is a little more efficient.

        93 93/93

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 28 2015, @08:23AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 28 2015, @08:23AM (#202373) Journal

          First, we didnt't "end slavery" here in the states. We ended a particularly virulent strain of slavery. Most of the civilized world had already ended slavery. They did it without a war, or even much fuss. Slavery was widespread throughout the Americas, and no one fought a war over slavery. Only the US fought a war over reasons that were related to slavery - we did NOT fight over slavery, exactly.

          However, there are uncivilized parts of the world where slavery still exists. So, we didn't "end slavery", now did we?

          BTW - gay is not the new black. I'll bet you had no idea that gays are prejudiced bigots, huh?

          http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/16/granderson.obama.gays/index.html?_s=PM:POLITICS [cnn.com]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:07PM (#201633)

      Get Garried.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday June 26 2015, @06:01PM

    by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Friday June 26 2015, @06:01PM (#201626) Journal

    This only way this can be good is if it gets the government out of the marriage business.

    Otherwise it looks to me like a serious roflstomp on states' rights.

    What will be interesting is watching the fireworks from states like Michigan who stipulate in their state constitution that marriage is one men and one woman only. Who knows? Perhaps this could be a roundabout victory for Wolf-PAC. I took a look here [wikipedia.org] and was surprised by the number of states calling for a constitutional convention.

    I'll get the popcorn.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 26 2015, @06:13PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 26 2015, @06:13PM (#201642) Journal

      Support for a convention is growing - but I'm afraid of what the convention might do. I foresee any constitutional convention being hijacked by a federation of special interest groups. And, of course, the ruling parties behind that confederation would be corporate actors.

      I really am afraid to see what might happen if the convention is called.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday June 26 2015, @09:15PM

        by frojack (1554) on Friday June 26 2015, @09:15PM (#201791) Journal

        but I'm afraid of what the convention might do.

        Then you should look into Article 5 Conventions [conventionofstates.com].

        They can not be hijacked. Because the reasons and issues are approved ahead of time by the states, and any off-the-wall proposals that were not pre-approved by the state legislatures can not be voted on by that state's delegates, nor could they legally continue their attendance.

        Read the Faq on the page above.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday June 26 2015, @11:17PM

          by jmorris (4844) on Friday June 26 2015, @11:17PM (#201864)

          They can not be hijacked.

          And the Articles of Confederation were perpetual... right up until they weren't. In point of fact a Convention can do whatever it likes. The protection is that all they can do is produce proposed Amendments which still require the same supermajority of the States to ratify. And really, it takes a really large majority; if any proposal passes that muster it probably should become law even if it is replacing the whole thing with a dictator for life or outright Communism. If you can get that many State legislatures to sign off (and not get strung up by outraged Citizens) then just do it and be damned by the consequences. Stupidity needs to hurt and if We the People are really hellbent on being stupid we should get it, good and hard.

          So I'm all in favor of a Convention. We are already on the Highway to Hell and Washington just keeps stomping the accelerator harder so it is time to try things even if they are risky.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:35PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:35PM (#202211)

        At the very least you'll have to repeal the 1st and 14th Amendments before you can make a constitutional amendment allowing for your bigotry and oppression to be codified into law based on one specific religion's beliefs.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:19PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:19PM (#201652)

      This only way this can be good is if it gets the government out of the marriage business.

      That would be great.

      it looks to me like a serious roflstomp on states' rights.

      The ruling is that the states can't stomp on a US citizen's constitutional rights to equal protection under the law, which is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment (Collect the whole set!).

      • (Score: 2) by SubiculumHammer on Friday June 26 2015, @06:30PM

        by SubiculumHammer (5191) on Friday June 26 2015, @06:30PM (#201667)

        If a state passes a law that business partnerships can be formed only between individuals of opposite sex, I think people from both sides of the aisle would stand up and say that law is unconstitutional.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:39PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:39PM (#202213)

        "States rights" is just a euphemism [wikipedia.org]. Its short for "States rights to trample on their citizen's basic rights".

        Slavery was the 1860s' Gamergate.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Friday June 26 2015, @07:14PM

      by M. Baranczak (1673) on Friday June 26 2015, @07:14PM (#201699)

      What will be interesting is watching the fireworks from states like Michigan who stipulate in their state constitution that marriage is one men and one woman only.

      The fireworks will be disappointing. The money men of the Republican Party don't give a fuck, because it doesn't affect their money flow. The rabid anti-gay Christians will make a lot of noise, but they have little power on their own. And most regular people just don't care one way or the other.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @10:25PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @10:25PM (#202246)

        That doesn't even matter. The parts of those states' constitutions that stipulate marriage can only be between a man and a woman were just ruled unconstitutional and are now void. "Enforcing" them is illegal because they no longer have the States' authority behind them. Anyone trying to point to them to shield themselves is illegally discriminating.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:18PM (#201651)

    To queer for me

    You are becoming queer just because of this ruling?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:47PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:47PM (#201681)

      His Freudian slip is showing.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by M. Baranczak on Friday June 26 2015, @06:47PM

      by M. Baranczak (1673) on Friday June 26 2015, @06:47PM (#201682)
      Runaway tried to warn us, but we wouldn't listen!
    • (Score: 2) by Kell on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:45AM

      by Kell (292) on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:45AM (#201944)

      To queer - and beyond!

      --
      Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
  • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday June 27 2015, @06:07AM

    by isostatic (365) on Saturday June 27 2015, @06:07AM (#201999) Journal

    To queer or not to queer, that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of marriage, or to take arms against a sea of bigotry?

  • (Score: 2) by jbWolf on Saturday June 27 2015, @06:30AM

    by jbWolf (2774) <jbNO@SPAMjb-wolf.com> on Saturday June 27 2015, @06:30AM (#202001) Homepage

    Hey Runaway1956,

    I friended you on Soylent News and I won't change that, but (after reading some of your other comments on here) I disagree with you on this subject. If I recall correctly, I believe you were (are?) a soldier and have defended our freedoms. You continue to be outspoken when it comes to stupid things the government says. For being a soldier and speaking against stupid government things, I thank you.

    I think you should be against this ruling because it limits the freedoms that our military have fought for. There needs to be even more freedom. Hear me out.

    I am in favor of the government getting out of the marriage business entirely. By doing so, it allows us, the people, to choose what we want to define as marriage on a personal level. By getting out of the marriage business, it gives all of us more freedoms. (In my opinion, all three branches have screwed up.)

    Sometimes, freedom is a scary thing. Your concerns over sexual abuse are already covered by other laws that basically say "my rights end where yours begin" and "purposely hurting another person is illegal". And even in this thread, you acknowledge that science doesn't necessarily support your views. Sexual abuse happens no matter the orientation. (On a personal note and without getting into any details, I'll simply say I know it happens on a heterosexual level.)

    I'm not a big fan of seeing guy-on-guy action. Watching two guys kiss is not enjoyable to me, but I do know people who are gay and I fully support them to happily live together. As a matter of fact, the couple I'm thinking of are very sweet and (if they ever come and visit the country I live in) I would happily welcome them into my house and allow them to smooch and cuddle. I would extend to them the same freedoms that I allow any other heterosexual couple.

    I believe in the freedom of personal choice so much, that it doesn't stop there. If I had friends of who were in transsexual relationship or even polygamous relationships, they would be welcome to cuddle and smooch too. Love is a personal thing. It should not be discouraged and it should not be outlawed.

    --
    www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
    • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 27 2015, @02:12PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 27 2015, @02:12PM (#202066) Journal

      "I think you should be against this ruling because it limits the freedoms that our military have fought for."

      Yes, but not for precisely the reasons you put forth. The military is being changed today, because the politicos don't like the military. Good officers have been kicked out, because they could not and would not give their unquestioning support to homosexuality and political agendas. Likewise, good officers have been booted for religious reasons - some of those reasons related to homosexuality. Gubbermint always has ruled the military with an iron totalitarian fist - and they are outdoing themselves today. Yes, this ruling does limit the freedoms that our military has fought for - and they are limiting the freedoms that the military itself has always enjoyed. Soldiers and sailors have always had the right to bitch and moan, and to disagree with leadership. Today, they no longer have such freedoms.

      Your views on marriage? I disagree, but I've read enough to know that what you say makes sense. Go back to any culture in history, and the people defined marriage. Almost invariably, it was one man, one woman, sometimes one man, multiple women. Even the Greeks refused to marry two men, or two women. They had different terms, and different legal obligations for same-sex relationships. Because we are so much less sophisticated than the ancients, we aren't smart enough to understand that different relationships require different terms, different expectations, and different obligations. In short, we're fucking STUPID!

      People and/or religious institutions should indeed define "marriage" - and people with or without the cooperation of religious institutions should have defined other relationships in some sensible manner. Gubbermint has no authority with which to ram this crap down our throats. Power, yes, authority, no. So, you see, I agree in essence, although I disagree in detail.

      Aside from people just being queer - these laws are so queer they couldn't pass muster with the best known homosexual culture in history. The Greeks would just shake their heads, and write us off as idiots. They understood that marriage is about procreation, and everything else is for fun. "Stick your thing anywhere you want to stick it, just don't expect us to treat you the same as a procreating couple" would sum up their discussions on the subject.

      LOL - I went searching for a citation or two, found this guy who gets it quite wrong - the Greeks DID discuss gay marriage, and rejected it -
      http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/what_would_the_greeks_have_thought_of_gay_marriage [mercatornet.com] Some of his other observations seem to be off, as well . . .

      http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/scalia-why-no-ancient-greek-gay-marriages/ [wnd.com]

      This one is more to the point, although I'm not finding the discussions I once read between some fairly famous Greeks - http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2009/09/ancient_greek_lessons_about_gay_marriage.html [slate.com]

      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday June 27 2015, @04:39PM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Saturday June 27 2015, @04:39PM (#202114)

        Go back to any culture in history, and the people defined marriage. Almost invariably, it was one man, one woman, sometimes one man, multiple women.

        And slavery and other heinous garbage was quite popular in the past as well. Primitive cultures were filled with bigots and people who hated freedom, and we've made a lot of progress since then. Are you attempting some sort of bandwagon fallacy? Why appeal to primitive cultures?

        Because we are so much less sophisticated than the ancients

        What?

        People and/or religious institutions should indeed define "marriage"

        Words can have multiple definitions. The government is just using a different definition than a lot of people who believe in magical sky daddies.

        and people with or without the cooperation of religious institutions should have defined other relationships in some sensible manner.

        But "marriage" is just a label to describe something, and now new definitions have been added, as has been the case for so many other words. I don't see the big deal with the word itself.

        Gubbermint has no authority with which to ram this crap down our throats.

        If you don't want to get married to someone of the same sex, then don't. I don't see how not denying someone a right is the same as ramming something down people's throats.

        They understood that marriage is about procreation, and everything else is for fun.

        Plenty of people who don't want kids/can't have kids disagree with you. On the legal side, marriage provides some legal benefits that people can take advantage of. It is certainly not just about procreation, and a lot of people don't see it that way. I don't see how you can decide what marriage is "about" for other people when we already know plenty of people don't marry for that reason. Some people might, but it's their choice what to make of their own marriage.

        And procreation is easily done without marriage. No need for some silly social convention with lots of magical thinking attached to it.

        I would, however, like to see some of these legal benefits not require marriage at all; that's just garbage.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:45PM (#202217)

        They understood that marriage is about procreation, and everything else is for fun.

        So you're saying fertility tests need to be required before a marriage license can be issued? That post-menopausal women can't be married, that getting a vasectomy or a tubal ligation should immediately nullify marriages? That barren women or sterile men should be banned from marriage? Please, go tell my grandparents that you think their marriage is void and has no right to exist since they can no longer procreate. Tell my mom that she can't marry again since she's past child-bearing age. I mean, marriage is purely for procreation, right?

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 28 2015, @01:13AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 28 2015, @01:13AM (#202282) Journal

          I said no such thing - but the ancients would have said so. Infertility was a legitimate reason for divorce.

          The PURPOSE of marriage is procreation. If children didn't happen, mankind would never have bothered to invent marriage.

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2015, @02:05AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2015, @02:05AM (#202302)

            If children didn't happen, mankind would never have bothered to invent marriage.

            Marriage was invented as a property contract, its only recently that women have had the audacity to demand they be declared people instead of property. Procreation was one of the things you could do with your property, but it was never the sole purpose. Besides, what the ancients said or thought has no bearing on today's definitions, traditions, or practices, unless you want to go the Taliban route and force everyone to live in the times your "holy book" was written instead of modern times.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @02:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @02:49PM (#202078)

      You should take runaway's response to you as instructive. It is a demonstration of how bigotry works - the only logic to it is rationalization. The fact that he agrees with you on some things doesn't mean he came to those conclusions in the same way you did. His motivations for criticizing the government are not the same as yours and while you can make common cause with him on some policy questions, the fact that his underlying motivations are not the same as yours means his goals are not the same and may even contradict your goals.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jbWolf on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:45PM

        by jbWolf (2774) <jbNO@SPAMjb-wolf.com> on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:45PM (#202216) Homepage

        One thing I've learned over the years is that everyone contradicts my logic and my goals. No one agrees with me 100%. There are over 7 billion people on this planet and I'm willing to place money that no two people agree 100% across the board on everything. I know that because I don't even agree with myself from day to day. My opinions on small and big things change over time. Different cultures and different ways people grow up even in the same community help underscore that no one will agree on everything.

        With that said, Runaway1956 and I agree on a lot of things and disagree on a lot of things, but over the years (even on Slashdot) I've seen him make some good arguments on a number of key issues. On this issue, he and I will continue to disagree, but I felt that everyone was slamming him. Not that slamming him is a problem as he has a thick skin. (And, as a friendly rib to him, a thick head.) I still like him, though, and I thought a softer touch from a friend who won't slam him and will proudly stand by him even when we disagree might help him come around in the long run on this issue.

        You see, I used to be like him. I used to think homosexuality was wrong. I used to be more bigoted towards certain groups like homosexuals. I used to think that closing off people's freedoms was good. (Not that I thought of it that way at the time.) My mind has been changed. In time, he might change his mind too. Not today. Not tomorrow, but in time. And if he doesn't? Well, no one is perfect. But at least I tried in my own way.

        --
        www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 28 2015, @01:18AM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 28 2015, @01:18AM (#202286) Journal

          You know - you've pretty much defined 'respect' in this post. We can disagree one day, we can agree the next, and disagree again the next - but we can respect each other all through it.

          Some of the other folk here lack that ability. Ehhh - some of them will mature, given time.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jbWolf on Sunday June 28 2015, @04:44AM

            by jbWolf (2774) <jbNO@SPAMjb-wolf.com> on Sunday June 28 2015, @04:44AM (#202342) Homepage

            I have to admit, it took me a while to figure you out, but one day it finally clicked. One of the reasons you argue as passionately as you do is because you want people to think about their beliefs instead of repeating what others say or blindly following. People don't have to agree with you, but they have to think for themselves. That I highly respect.

            It took time, though. I saw you posting something "trollish" one day and highly insightful the next. Back and forth, back and forth. I had the ah-ha moment a while back and then watched your post a while to verify that you don't normally troll. Yeah, on occasion, you do post trollish comments. (Like the one that started this thread.) But normally, you're pretty insightful and pretty well reasoned. Your abrasive personality is what gets people really riled up. You say what you think and you have a thick skin -- neither of which is a bad quality. Sometimes, softies like me need people like you to speak up on my behalf. (I'm working on getting a thicker skin myself and I am getting better by watching people like you. I'm learning when to be abrasive and when not to. Learning to turn on my compassion in one instance, but in another flip the bird then walk away.)

            We'll still strongly disagree on this issue, but I'm glad we can respect each other.

            And for those who read this and think "WTF?" I'd be willing to bet that Runaway1956, despite his distaste for homosexuality, would much rather sit down and have a beer with someone gay than a person who won't think for themselves. Despite my distaste for some of his opinions, it is Runaway's capacity to challenge and enjoy being challenged that I find a great quality in him. I'd much rather have a beer with him than someone who won't think for themselves. And that is why I like him.

            --
            www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
            • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday June 28 2015, @10:04AM

              by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Sunday June 28 2015, @10:04AM (#202385) Homepage
              You two - get a room!!!

              But seriously. Upthread I foed him, as his bigotry came over as pure ignorance (and reinforced such views I'd accumulated over many months of noticing his name on posts). However, reading this little coda to the thread, I just put him back to neutral again, for the reasons you state. He's still on the cusp though, obviously.
              --
              Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
              • (Score: 2) by jbWolf on Sunday June 28 2015, @11:21AM

                by jbWolf (2774) <jbNO@SPAMjb-wolf.com> on Sunday June 28 2015, @11:21AM (#202399) Homepage

                You two - get a room!!!

                I had a good laugh over that one. Good twist. Very funny!

                Yeah, not everyone will like Runaway1956. The gay couple I'm thinking of would definitely not like him for obvious reasons and I wouldn't hold it against anyone who does "foe" him on SN. Everyone's got their opinions and that's what keeps the world an interesting place.

                --
                www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
                • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday June 28 2015, @12:06PM

                  by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Sunday June 28 2015, @12:06PM (#202408) Homepage
                  Exactly. There's never point in making any sound in an echo chamber - I do like to be challenged, to be forced to question, or at least publically rationalise, why I hold the beliefs that I do. But sometimes people are just idiots, and there really is nothing for anyone (apart from those armed with marshmallows in the peanut gallery) to gain from engaging with them.
                  --
                  Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves