SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: -1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 26 2015, @05:47PM
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
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
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: -1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 26 2015, @06:03PM
Yeah, right - like you never heard of it? This catches you completely by surprise? WTF, Gomer? Don't you read ANYTHING outside of MSM?
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=palemoon&q=adopted+boy+molested+by+gay+parents [duckduckgo.com]
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2013/07/homosexual-couple-adopted-boy-and-molested-him-from-infancy/ [thinkinghousewife.com]
https://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/2013/03/31/boy-molested-by-homosexual-adoptive-parents-social-services-turn-a-blind-eye/ [wordpress.com]
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/gay-conn-couple-accused-rape-face-trial-article-1.1310010 [nydailynews.com]
http://rt.com/news/pedophile-syndicate-russian-boy-481/ [rt.com]
http://news.sky.com/story/1111016/adopted-boy-sexually-abused-by-gay-fathers [sky.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:27PM
only one of your case is in a paywalled news archive services, and it is the one talked about by rt, sky and nydaily.
Search for heterosexual child molester, you will get plenty of result too.... http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/20817 [poundpuplegacy.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:01PM
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
> 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
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
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
That's the definition of conservatism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:25PM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
"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
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
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
Troll Level: Meh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:31PM
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
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
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]