Can you be anti-gay marriage

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I don't look to the norms of thousands of years ago, I prefer to live in the now. Believe as you wish.

The here and now doesn't need gay marriage nor knuckle dragging creaton liberals. Both are regressive and from a time when there was no law or order.

[Dan J 277]

The here and now doesn't need gay marriage nor knuckle dragging creaton liberals. Both are regressive and from a time when there was no law or order.

Why do you hate freedom?

[Danno 1,228]

Danno you do seem to be saying allowing gay marriage is wrong because you can't produce children via them. First of all, if you are not gay you will not be forced to enter into a gay marriage. Traditional marriages will remain the most common. Second of all, scientifically, it is possible for lesbians to procreate without the need for male sexual contact, so even if everyone decided hetero marriages are out, lets all marry gay, the species can and would survive.

Let me slow the ball down, with you it is at least possible to converse.

Someone pointed out all the countries which Gay marriage has worked out so well, to that I made several points.

1. Homosexual marriage is fairly new in these countries only a few decades old at the most, hardly what anyone could call the -test of time.

2. Most of these same countries, have a double wammy going on. A. they are in a birth-rate nose dive which means their numbers are in decline and before long their voice and vote will be but a minority in these same countries. B. These same countries which have embraced Gay marriage are also importing lots of people from parts of the world which do not, I repeat DO NOT embrace all things Gay.

These same people are very fertile, soon they will out number the Republican Guard of Gay rights across Europe.

In other words, if this were a publicly held Stock... would you buy long-term?

[Dan J 277]

Let me slow the ball down, with you it is at least possible to converse.

Someone pointed out all the countries which Gay marriage has worked out so well, to that I made several points.

1. Homosexual marriage is fairly new in these countries only a few decades old at the most, hardly what anyone could call the -test of time.

2. Most of these same countries, have a double wammy going on. A. they are in a birth-rate nose dive which means their numbers are in decline and before long their voice and vote will be but a minority in these same countries. B. These same countries which have embraced Gay marriage are also importing lots of people from parts of the world which do not, I repeat DO NOT embrace all things Gay.

These same people are very fertile, soon they will out number the Republican Guard of Gay rights across Europe.

In other words, if this were a publicly held Stock... would you buy long-term?

There was a time when it wasn't acceptable to be gay anywhere in the world. ###### changes, live with it.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

There was a time when it wasn't acceptable to be gay anywhere in the world. ###### changes, live with it.

There are still few places where it is acceptable. The world is wider than the West.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Noone said that society is static, Danno. The fact that people are talking about allows gays to marry kinda speaks to that.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

REPOST

U.S. Supreme Court

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)

Bowers v. Hardwick

No. 85-140

Argued March 31, 1986

Decided June 30, 1986

478 U.S. 186

Syllabus

After being charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing that act with another adult male in the bedroom of his home, respondent Hardwick (respondent) brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute insofar as it criminalized consensual sodomy. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the Georgia statute violated respondent's fundamental rights.

Held: The Georgia statute is constitutional. Pp. 478 U. S. 190-196.

(a) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. Pp. 478 U. S. 190-191.

(b) Against a background in which many States have criminalized sodomy and still do, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious. Pp. 478 U. S. 191-194.

© There should be great resistance to expand the reach of the Due Process Clauses to cover new fundamental rights. Otherwise, the Judiciary necessarily would take upon itself further authority to govern the country without constitutional authority. The claimed right in this case falls far short of overcoming this resistance. Pp. 478 U. S. 194-195.

(d) The fact that homosexual conduct occurs in the privacy of the home does not affect the result. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, distinguished. Pp. 478 U. S. 195-196.

(e) Sodomy laws should not be invalidated on the asserted basis that majority belief that sodomy is immoral is an inadequate rationale to support the laws. P. 478 U. S. 196.

760 F.2d 1202, reversed.

Page 478 U. S. 187

Source: http://supreme.justia.com/us/478/186/index.html

This is currently legal precedent.

Sodomy laws should not be invalidated on the asserted basis that majority belief that sodomy is immoral is an inadequate rationale to support the laws

This statement refers to morality, and that morality asserted against sodomy is from religion. Claims that law is apart from religion in the US are false.

[Dan J 277]

REPOST

U.S. Supreme Court

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)

Bowers v. Hardwick

No. 85-140

Argued March 31, 1986

Decided June 30, 1986

478 U.S. 186

Syllabus

After being charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing that act with another adult male in the bedroom of his home, respondent Hardwick (respondent) brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute insofar as it criminalized consensual sodomy. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the Georgia statute violated respondent's fundamental rights.

Held: The Georgia statute is constitutional. Pp. 478 U. S. 190-196.

(a) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. Pp. 478 U. S. 190-191.

(b) Against a background in which many States have criminalized sodomy and still do, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious. Pp. 478 U. S. 191-194.

© There should be great resistance to expand the reach of the Due Process Clauses to cover new fundamental rights. Otherwise, the Judiciary necessarily would take upon itself further authority to govern the country without constitutional authority. The claimed right in this case falls far short of overcoming this resistance. Pp. 478 U. S. 194-195.

(d) The fact that homosexual conduct occurs in the privacy of the home does not affect the result. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, distinguished. Pp. 478 U. S. 195-196.

(e) Sodomy laws should not be invalidated on the asserted basis that majority belief that sodomy is immoral is an inadequate rationale to support the laws. P. 478 U. S. 196.

760 F.2d 1202, reversed.

Page 478 U. S. 187

Source: http://supreme.justia.com/us/478/186/index.html

This is currently legal precedent.

This statement refers to morality, and that morality asserted against sodomy is from religion. Claims that law is apart from religion in the US are false.

And in time, these kinds of precedence and laws are repealed. Why do you think religious groups have pushed to define marriage in state/federal constitutions, its harder to repeal.They know that they will eventually fall out of favor, and want to hang on imposing their morality as long as possible.

[Danno 1,228]

There was a time when it wasn't acceptable to be gay anywhere in the world. ###### changes, live with it.

At certain times and places not only was/is homosexuality acceptable but pedaphilia was/is as well.

Even in the most "civilized" places.

And you get there one step at a time.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If I read correctly, that decision was essentially invalidated in 2003

U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas (2003) invalidated sodomy laws in the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. At that time, the laws stood as follows:

Alabama — All sodomy acts illegal - affects only unmarried couples.[25][26] Penalty = (1 year/$1,000)

Alaska (repealed through legislative action 1980)

Arizona (repealed through legislative action 2001)

Arkansas — struck down by Jegley v. Picado, 80 S.W.3d 332 (Ark. 2001)

California (repealed through legislative action 1976)

Colorado (repealed through legislative action 1972)

Connecticut (repealed through legislative action 1971)

Delaware (repealed through legislative action 1973)

Florida — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (60 days/$500)

Georgia — struck down by Powell v. Georgia, 510 S.E.2d 18 (1998)

Hawaii (repealed through legislative action 1973)

Idaho — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (5 years to life)

Illinois (repealed through legislative action 1962)

Indiana (repealed through legislative action 1976)

Iowa (repealed through legislative action 1978)

Kansas — Same-Sex sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (6 months/$1,000)

Kentucky — struck down by Commonwealth v. Wasson, 842 S.W.2d 487 (Ky. 1992)

Louisiana — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (5 years/$2,000)[27]

Maine (repealed through legislative action 1976)

Maryland — struck down by Williams v. State, 1998 Extra LEXIS 260, Baltimore City Circuit Court, January 14, 1999

Massachusetts — struck down by GLAD v. Attorney General, SJC-08539 (Mass. Supreme Judicial Ct. 2002)

Michigan - In Michigan Organization for Human Rights v. Kelley 1990, a trial court ruled Michigan's sodomy law unconstitutional under the state constitution. This ruling is believed to apply to all state prosecutors; however, due to the fact that the judge's decision has not yet been appealed, the current status of the law is unclear.[25][28] (all sexes; felony punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment, repeat offenders get life)

Minnesota — struck down by Doe v. Ventura, No. MC 01-489, 2001 WL 543734 (Minn. Dist. Ct 2001)

Mississippi — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (10 years)

Missouri — Same-Sex sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (1 year/$1,000), then repealed through legislative action in 2006[29]

Montana — struck down by Gryczan v. Montana, 942 P.2d 112 (1997)

Nebraska (repealed through legislative action 1978)

Nevada (repealed through legislative action 1993)

New Hampshire (repealed through legislative action 1975)

New Jersey (repealed through legislative action 1979)

New Mexico (repealed through legislative action 1975)

New York — struck down by People v. Onofre, 415 N.E.2d 936 (N.Y. 1980) and repealed by the legislature in 2000.

North Carolina — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (10 years/discretionary fine)

North Dakota (repealed through legislative action 1973)

Ohio (repealed through legislative action 1974)

Oklahoma — Same-Sex sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (10 years)

Oregon (repealed through legislative action 1972)

Pennsylvania — struck down by Commonwealth v. Bonadio, 415 A.2d 47 (Pa. 1980) and repealed by the legislature in 1995.

Rhode Island (repealed through legislative action 1998)

South Carolina — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (5 years/$500)

South Dakota (repealed through legislative action 1977)

Tennessee — Struck down in Campbell v. Sundquist, 926 S.W.2d 250 (1996)

Texas — Same-Sex sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = ($500)

Utah — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (6 months/$1,000)[30]

Vermont (repealed through legislative action 1977)

Virginia — All sodomy acts illegal. Penalty = (1–5 years)

Washington (repealed through legislative action 1976)

West Virginia (repealed through legislative action 1976)

Wisconsin (repealed through legislative action 1983)

Wyoming (repealed through legislative action 1977)

District of Columbia (City Council repealed law in 1995; Congress did not veto repeal as it did the first time in 1981)[31]

Puerto Rico (repealed through legislative action 2005)[32]

"repealed" - means abolished from the law books (statutes)

"law invalidated" (by Lawrence vs Texas) - means still in the law books, but not enforced (statutes)

And in time, these kinds of precedence and laws are repealed. Why do you think religious groups have pushed to define marriage in state/federal constitutions, its harder to repeal.They know that they will eventually fall out of favor, and want to hang on imposing their morality as long as possible.

They are already repealed, with the special exception of the military.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

And in time, these kinds of precedence and laws are repealed. Why do you think religious groups have pushed to define marriage in state/federal constitutions, its harder to repeal.They know that they will eventually fall out of favor, and want to hang on imposing their morality as long as possible.

It can also change back. Imposing morality works BOTH ways.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

At certain times and places not only was/is homosexuality acceptable but pedaphilia was/is as well.

Even in the most "civilized" places.

And you get there one step at a time.

One day, you're going to fall down your own slippery slope Danno.

Seriously, what a load of old ####### you just wrote. So we're back to "if gays are given legal recognition, the pedos will take over! OMG the pedos!!!"

Get a grip, dude

[Sofiyya 1,687]

If I read correctly, that decision was essentially invalidated in 2003

They are already repealed, with the special exception of the military.

http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/usa.htm

The thing that most do not understand is how the SCOTUS could, in 1986, regard sodomy as unconstitutional, then, in 2003, determine it to be constitutional. States have and do resist such rulings, even now, without penalty, due to the capricious nature of the Court. The military, a fundamental branch of government, ironically charged with aggressive defending our interests and values, defies the Court and is not challenged in any substantive way for doing so.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Dan J 277]

At certain times and places not only was/is homosexuality acceptable but pedaphilia was/is as well.

Even in the most "civilized" places.

And you get there one step at a time.

When you talk about pedophila are you talking about women getting married when they were young (12-13) which had al ot to do with life expectancy. Or adults preying on children, which usually involves an unwilling participant (A violation of human rights), something homosexuality does not have.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

One day, you're going to fall down your own slippery slope Danno.

Seriously, what a load of old ####### you just wrote. So we're back to "if gays are given legal recognition, the pedos will take over! OMG the pedos!!!"

Get a grip, dude

The slippery slope is a legitimate concern, because, whether you are aware of it or not, there are arguments before the courts demanding marriage rights for other groups, and, in time, the barriers that gays are trying to break will also break for them too.

Incestuous and Polygamous Marriages

As I read this opinion, I kept wondering when I’d run into the inevitable discussion about incest and polygamy. Those of us who oppose homosexual “marriage” often argue, with good reason, that allowing two men to “marry” opens the floodgate to allowing just about anyone to marry. I never found that discussion because there wasn’t one. Instead, there’s a footnote. A footnote. From page 79 (emphasis added):

“We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships. Past judicial decisions explain why our nation’s culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry.”

Wait a second. Our nation’s culture has also considered homosexual relationships “inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry,” has it not? The footnote continues (emphasis added):

“Although the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay individuals and gay couples clearly is no longer constitutionally permissible, the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment.”

So, a cousin marriage, for instance, or one between a man and three women is “potentially detrimental” to a family, but the “marriage” between two men is not? How did the court reach this conclusion? Anyone’s guess. How does the court justify upholding discrimination against people who wish to enter into incestuous and polygamous marriages?

Implied argument: Well, because we say so.

As the minority noted, the bans against incestuous and polygamous marriages are “ancient and deeprooted,” and so is the ban against homosexual marriage. Why did the California Supreme Court overturn this prohibition but uphold the prohibition against incestuous and polygamous marriages? If the court overturned “the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex” with this decision, as the minority contends, it can just as easily and without sound reasoning extend the “right to marry” to incestuous and polygamous couples, can’t it? Of course it can!

Talk about a protected class! Not only may homosexuals enter into legally recognized and protected partnerships in California, the California Supreme Court just said that calling these unions anything other than marriages may be unconstitutional!

Additionally, if a court can conclude that sexual orientation is a classification on the level of skin color, can’t it conclude that consanguinity, same-sex or otherwise, also is a suspect classification on the level of skin color and subject to strict scrutiny? Of course it can! How does the California Supreme Court justify upholding discrimination against people who wish to enter into incestuous and polygamous marriages?

Implied argument: Well, because we say so.

I hope you see the point I’m trying to make. Slopes can be slippery stuff.

The minority contends – and I agree – that the four judges simply inserted their own value systems into this decision and expanded the “right to marry” to homosexuals, against the will of the people. Nothing to see here but the same old unconstitutionally decided case.