Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years, 10 months ago to Government
Well there you have it folks. Another decision that has the effect of complicating and distorting our language.
I personally have no problems with what the LGBT people do. It is only a matter of definitions and giving new meaning to existing words that bothers me. I believe that a new word should have been created and that equal rights in every way should be granted. Unfortunately now the word marriage will be less descriptive and specific. This has been the case of several decisions lately that only confound our language. The court believes it can re-write Webster's dictionary.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Addendum: Some final thoughts
After contemplating the arguments presented, I wish it understood that since I have no strong religious convictions on this matter, I have no personal problems with this ruling other than a minor irritation with the effective changing of the definition of the word marriage. I will have little difficulty adjusting my language and accepting the outcome. However, others of a contrary nature and the undoubted turmoil that will ensue for our nation will not likely foster comity. After all there are a very large number of people of religious convictions that will not wish to have their rights to practice and live by their beliefs abrogated.
I accept the absolute right of free association that is involved, but free association as a right cannot exist without its corollary of disassociation. One cannot objectively avoid recognition that this ruling will lead to the violation of rights of those that hold a contrary view by forcing them into associations they would otherwise avoid.
The problem’s origin seems to stem from the fact that the government has bestowed upon holders of a “marriage” license, benefits that others were not granted. This is unequal treatment and thus unjust. This is the crux of the problem and should be rectified and could be done easily by eliminating those benefits or granting them to everyone regardless of possession of such a license. It would seem that it is largely the result of government getting into something it should not have in the first place and as usual producing unanticipated consequences.
Is acquisition of this license in and of itself a fundamental right? If this were so, would it not apply to a driver’s license also? It has been understood that such a license is a privilege, which by definition one must qualify for. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, would not this line of reasoning lead one to conclude that any license or even contract that someone else can acquire is equally a right for all regardless of criteria? For instance should one demand that since some have contracts with the NBA that it should be the right of all so desiring? This is of course reductio ad absurdum.
What precedent for our nation and the effects upon states rights and the tenth amendment will this have? The implications are incalculable. The more cases that redefine the meaning of words, the more cases of the past will be in jeopardy. Without unchanging meanings we become a nation not of written laws, but of the whims of men and the political winds of the time. The fact that some words already have ambiguity is not a persuasive argument for acceptance of more of the same done with purpose born of temporary convenience or political correctness.
Some say (as the majority opinion did) that this is necessary to grant dignity and respect for the pro gay marriage crowd. This argument is specious since no government issued paper can grant dignity. Dignity is a reflection/matter of approval and acceptance of one's peers and the community.
Ultimately our nation will likely suffer further division and struggle with this issue just as we still do with Roe v. Wade. This is unfortunate since there were other alternatives. I hope it is not more than our ever more fragile peace between factions can handle. Frankly I hope I am wrong in this matter and we can move past it, but it does seem inevitable that our courts will be needlessly filled with cases where some “rights” are pitted against others. The mark of a legitimate fundamental right is that it does not conflict with others.
In closing, I would like to thank all those that have participated in this conversation and invite the reader to comment further as they desire.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I personally have no problems with what the LGBT people do. It is only a matter of definitions and giving new meaning to existing words that bothers me. I believe that a new word should have been created and that equal rights in every way should be granted. Unfortunately now the word marriage will be less descriptive and specific. This has been the case of several decisions lately that only confound our language. The court believes it can re-write Webster's dictionary.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Addendum: Some final thoughts
After contemplating the arguments presented, I wish it understood that since I have no strong religious convictions on this matter, I have no personal problems with this ruling other than a minor irritation with the effective changing of the definition of the word marriage. I will have little difficulty adjusting my language and accepting the outcome. However, others of a contrary nature and the undoubted turmoil that will ensue for our nation will not likely foster comity. After all there are a very large number of people of religious convictions that will not wish to have their rights to practice and live by their beliefs abrogated.
I accept the absolute right of free association that is involved, but free association as a right cannot exist without its corollary of disassociation. One cannot objectively avoid recognition that this ruling will lead to the violation of rights of those that hold a contrary view by forcing them into associations they would otherwise avoid.
The problem’s origin seems to stem from the fact that the government has bestowed upon holders of a “marriage” license, benefits that others were not granted. This is unequal treatment and thus unjust. This is the crux of the problem and should be rectified and could be done easily by eliminating those benefits or granting them to everyone regardless of possession of such a license. It would seem that it is largely the result of government getting into something it should not have in the first place and as usual producing unanticipated consequences.
Is acquisition of this license in and of itself a fundamental right? If this were so, would it not apply to a driver’s license also? It has been understood that such a license is a privilege, which by definition one must qualify for. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, would not this line of reasoning lead one to conclude that any license or even contract that someone else can acquire is equally a right for all regardless of criteria? For instance should one demand that since some have contracts with the NBA that it should be the right of all so desiring? This is of course reductio ad absurdum.
What precedent for our nation and the effects upon states rights and the tenth amendment will this have? The implications are incalculable. The more cases that redefine the meaning of words, the more cases of the past will be in jeopardy. Without unchanging meanings we become a nation not of written laws, but of the whims of men and the political winds of the time. The fact that some words already have ambiguity is not a persuasive argument for acceptance of more of the same done with purpose born of temporary convenience or political correctness.
Some say (as the majority opinion did) that this is necessary to grant dignity and respect for the pro gay marriage crowd. This argument is specious since no government issued paper can grant dignity. Dignity is a reflection/matter of approval and acceptance of one's peers and the community.
Ultimately our nation will likely suffer further division and struggle with this issue just as we still do with Roe v. Wade. This is unfortunate since there were other alternatives. I hope it is not more than our ever more fragile peace between factions can handle. Frankly I hope I am wrong in this matter and we can move past it, but it does seem inevitable that our courts will be needlessly filled with cases where some “rights” are pitted against others. The mark of a legitimate fundamental right is that it does not conflict with others.
In closing, I would like to thank all those that have participated in this conversation and invite the reader to comment further as they desire.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Previous comments...
It is also wrong for them to believe that their marriages are somehow diminished by this ruling. There is no reason why the gay couple next-door been allowed to legally use the same term as you to refer to their union affects you or your marriage any more than the divorce of the couple across the street or the three-day marriage of Britney Spears affects yours. Perhaps the religious right feels they own the concept and institution of marriage, and therefore such things as a divorce right over 50% or same-sex couples being included in the mix is tarnishing their sacred institution. But this is also fallacious. Just as society does not exist as an entity, it is only a certain number of individuals, marriage as an institution does not exist but only a collection of individual marriages. Religious institutions and individuals cannot logically claim any ownership over the institution, anymore than they can claim ownership over society.
I fail to recognize how this ruling can force any association upon someone. One cannot be forced into a gay marriage anymore than one can be forced into a straight marriage. This ruling also does not force individuals to use the term marriage in common conversation when referring to same-sex unions. The only example I can foresee would be a company like hobby lobby wishing to only provide employer funded health insurance to the spouses of straight marriages and not to gay marriages. We have already seen, though, that this court allows for exceptions to certain laws for companies based on religious conviction. (My use of hobby lobby as an example was intentional)
Also remember that our Constitution is not a sacred religious text either. it was put together in order to make as free of a society as our founders could envision at the time. The 10th amendment, in my opinion, was designed to protect individual rights. It did so by removing from the federal government the majority of powers, and placing them in the hands of the states, Who are closer to the people and more likely to recognize and adapt to the will of the people. This does not mean that states rights are necessarily sacred or infallible, as we saw during the civil rights era, states are just as capable of making improper decisions regarding individual rights as is the federal government. Although it may appears to be a violation of the 10th amendment and letter, to have the federal courts overthrow state laws, it is not a violation of the intent when doing so results in the protection of individual rights.
There is much to be lamented in this decision, especially the dignity argument. It is not the place nor the job of the courts to divvy out dignity among the peasants. But that is an ancillary issue, when compared to the main issue. The issue is that some states were being necessarily discriminatory, and that is in violation of our federal Constitution. The only remedy available to the court was to rule that laws limiting the issuance of marriage licenses only two opposite sex couples were invalid. Arguing, for instance, that the court overstepped its bounds with regards to marriage license reciprocity among the states is a topic worth debating, but it is a secondary issue and not one that would invalidate the main issue. (Part 1)
A sad display. Unfortunately there are those that are militant and intolerant of the views of others. Civilized people can agree to disagree.
Regards,
O.A.
Regarding your current objection, though, there have been antidiscrimination laws on the books for decades. Let's use our put-upon baker as an example again. Can he refuse to make a Jew's kid's bar mitzvah cake? No! Can he refuse to make a black's Kwanzaa cake? No! Can he refuse to make a gay wedding cake? Apparently not! So what changed?! Not bloody much!
Could he refuse to make a straight wedding cake? You betcha! How f'ed up is our country?!
I've been waiting to write about this one, "if one tries to push their beliefs upon me..."
Here goes. If a Muslim threatens to saw your head off unless you convert, THAT is pushing their beliefs on you. But I fail to understand how asking you to make a cake that says "happy marriage John and Steve" involves them pushing any beliefs at all on you! You don't have to believe anything at all to decorate a cake, do you? They aren't inviting you to an all male orgy, they just want a cake!
If a mixed race couple came in, are they pushing their beliefs on you? What about a Jew who wants that bar mitzvah cake or a Muslim asking for an end of Ramadan cake? Are they pushing their beliefs on you?
I swear to Zeus that "pushing their beliefs on me" argument is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. (Here's your sign.)
And I didn't state a single belief. I stated objective facts.
The Gulch isn't somewhere for those who are antisocial and/or confused about individual rights to go skulk until they think it's safe to emerge.
I for one could not care about ones sex, race,religion, or sexual preferences. As Reardon in Atlas Shrugged was told who , when, and how much he was told to sell his product to so am I by our government these are the facts.
I at least respect your opinion even though I don't agree. Don't feel you do that is your individual right so for this reason if a person with that mind set would want to come to my personal Gulch they would be sent on with my best wishes.
In the Marxist–Leninist interpretation of Marxist theory, developed primarily by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, religion is seen as retarding human development, and socialist states that follow a Marxist–Leninist variant are inherently atheistic. Due to this, a number of Marxist–Leninist governments in the twentieth century, such as the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, implemented rules introducing state atheism.
Jan
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stosse...
Stossel was hot in his hippie days. Those eyes!
Jan, likes eye candy
Jan
Somewhat the same as you can't read it if you don't vote for it.
I do believe texting has replaced it as an opiate in a mass sense.
Regardless, SCOTUS has no power to redefine words. To me this ruling was obvious solely under the Constitution's equal protections clause.
When it comes to SCOTUS redefining English, the real atrocity was the ObamaCare decision. In that one they blatantly ignored the crystal clear meaning of the statute and changed law, which is not their job.
The proper ruling, as they've done many times before, would have been to rule for the plaintiff and tell Congress to fix their own mess.
This is not saying what people can think, act, or do you personally. This is saying that the citizens of a state cannot discriminate against same-sex couples. It was the citizens of those states that wished to control and restrict marriage who were actually doing the dictating.
The legislative rights law, the executive enforces it, and the judicial interprets it. While it may be the duty of every government employee to uphold the law, the Supreme Court's law is not those passed by legislatures, but the constitution.
In this case, allowing civil marriage licenses only to opposite sex couples violates the equal protection clause. What invented power is that?
That's an easy one. It's the part where SCOTUS is assigned to resolve conflicting matters of law between the several states.
I knew when I started this blog the subject matter was controversial and sensitive, but I mean no disrespect. We may not come to complete agreement, but I respect that I am not infallible... that opinions vary. I am not unreasonable or immovable, or in any position to say my opinion is the last word. My opinion is but one.
Article III, section 2 does speak of controversies between states, etc... Does Article III, section 2. nullify state's rights and the tenth amendment? Does it grant specifically the right to say that people in one state have the right to everything legal in any other state? Would the corollary right not be that everything illegal in any state could be deemed equally illegal nationwide? I see nothing specific about issuance of licenses in the article. I believe we have a difference of opinion (as do the justices), but if you are correct about this article, then the tenth amendment and federalism could be easily nullified by the whims of the court. I wish to understand your reasoning.
Respectfully,
O.A.
No, incorrect, inheritance cannot be fixed this way. Other tax matters cannot be fixed this way. The power to make medical decisions cannot be fixed this way.
But your argument isn't about rights, it's a tantrum about the word marriage. I wrote about that elsewhere; if you care then you can read those comments.
I read have read all of your words and would not use such derogatory terms regarding your arguments (tantrum is rather rude, condescending and unbecoming). I am sorry you do not share my concern for what I see as a continuing trend of abasement of our language and introduction of unnecessary complication. I am being very courteous and just trying to understand and learn from different perspectives. I could use some colorful epithets regarding your verbiage, and apparent lack of patience but I am bigger than that. Please make your case without unnecessary personal quips.
From what I've seen you write, I would venture to guess that you view referring to a same-sex Union as a marriage as an abasement because it is calling a separate entity by the wrong term. To support this position, you must view the two unions as so distinct and different as to be considered separate concepts. Such as the difference between a couch and a chair.
Those who have not been upset over the language issue (in this case) do not feel that the two unions are so different as to be separate concepts, and so they do not require different words to define them. We view the use of marriage in this context as simply a new use of an existing term as a result of a changing concept of what it means to be married.
We view it as an adaptation of the language to meet a changing reality, rather than as you seem to view it as a forceful and intentional misrepresentation of reality by referring to one concept by the same term as another.
Perhaps the impetus should be on those who wish to draw the distinction to provide compelling evidence as to why we should understand the two as separate concepts, rather than on those of us who state they are the same (or similar enough as to fall under the same umbrella concept).
I believe you are correct and struck upon the essence of the problem regarding definition from my admittedly provincial perspective. I may be too old and set in my ways, but I will adjust. Most people, I believe, as well as my self, have been exposed to the concept of marriage with the traditional definition. My societal influences have been rural and not very progressive. I live in flyover country and do not have much experience with large city societies. The ascribing of what I see as new meaning to a union that is a very foreign concept is just something we will have to adjust to. I am willing.
I would also have preferred this be handled legislatively as I believe that to be the legitimate method as proscribed by the Constitution. It is undoubtedly the fair thing to do ultimately but I believe many people will have difficulty accepting such a decision so rapidly and widespread by what appears to many as an activist political decision by the court. It would have been better received if handled legislatively. I wish for domestic tranquility and the rapidity of such a decision is undoubtedly going to create turmoil. I must live among a large number of religious people, though I do not share their zeal. In order for me to live in tranquility I must practice a great deal of tolerance. Their views and beliefs cause them great anxiety about the implications.
Thank you for your contributions,
O.A.
To clarify, in the absence of marriage or other gov't sanctioned union, no contract can address the *right of inheritance*. My property will not automatically pass to my male partner unless gov't recognizes our relationship. Additionally, property inherited by a spouse, without regard to a will, enjoys tax advantages. Without gov't sanctioned union those advantages won't apply to my partner.
And without regard to taxes, if I have children my property will pass to them in the absence of a will even if those are not my wishes. Everyone should have a will, of course, but people don't always do what they should.
Without gov't sanctioned union a hospital is unlikely to allow one of us to make major, critical decisions regarding the medical care of the other, even with legal documents. Same sex partners are routinely denied access to the ICU, which just adds a layer of cruelty and stress to an already difficult situation.
I choose my verbiage carefully, either to make a point or elicit a particular reaction, or both. I stand by my assessment that people who are OK with same-sex unions that are exactly like marriages but must not be called marriages under any circumstances because if they are it will hurt my feelings and make me feel like you don't respect my religious beliefs ARE having a tantrum. First, I recognize your *right* to be a believer, but I don't RESPECT your belief in god. How can I when I find the very concept to be completely absurd?
I recognize my friend's legal right to declare bankruptcy 3 times and stiff his creditors with no feelings of remorse. I recognize his right to continue to handle his finances in a way that would make 80% of us shake our heads and click our tongues. But I certainly don't RESPECT the way he handles money.
I recognize Bernie Sanders' and Elizabeth Warren's right to advocate for the destruction of American values and the ruin of our way of life by promoting gov't enforced collectivism. But I most certainly don't respect either of them. In fact, there's plenty of prima facie evidence that they violated their oath of office and should be prosecuted.
Most people probably recognize my right to love another man the way that most men love women (although far from all) but I would never demand that they respect my homosexuality. Respect is an expression of values. If you and I have opposing values then we can't possibly respect the other guy's views, even if we recognize his right to have them.
So back to the tantrum... If you're walking along and you see an animal that looks exactly like a duck, will you call it a duck? What if it doesn't perfectly resemble any of the duck species you're familiar with, will you still see that it's other characteristics make it a duck?
If so, then how does it make sense to grant same sex couples 100% of the rights and privileges of a marriage and then refuse to call it a marriage? It's childish. And it's worse that people are arguing that their religion doesn't allow them to call it a marriage as if that prohibition affects the federal and state government.
This ruling doesn't (ok, shouldn't) affect any individual or religious organization. It only serves to make marriage regular between the several states.
At least one person called me naive to think this won't spawn a million lawsuits as people (aka radical gay rights activists) try to force churches to recognize and even perform same sex weddings. Well, I'm not naive and I don't believe those lawsuits won't come. But two things are still true; the ruling only affects gov't AND people who bring these lawsuits are bad people and I disagree with their assertion that any private organization of any kind should be forced to recognize or perform same sex weddings.
And if the lawsuits are successful then it's also true that the courts made incredibly bad rulings. Alas, they do that all the time.
People must realize that this ruling and the ensuing lawsuits are virtually unrelated. It's true that without the ruling these suits probably wouldn't have been filed, but it's infinitely more important to step back and notice that this type of lawsuit began many years ago as a result of laws like the ADA, affirmative action, equal opportunity employment law (very Orwellian because there's no equal opportunity under this law) and all the other anti-discrimination laws.
Those laws are excellent when they apply to whom they were supposed to apply, and that's gov't. The gov't truly has no authority to play favorites or discriminate against anyone. But none of those laws should apply to the private sector. But we live in a world where they do because the courts are insane and rule that they apply to the private sector. So as far as lawsuits attacking religious organizations, this ruling just opens the door for one more group to join the dozens that are out there demanding non-existent rights - and getting them. The proper hue and cry would be to rise up against ALL laws that grant false rights, that give any person (or group) "rights" that supersede the rights of anyone else.
As an aside, I've been a staunch libertarian for nearly 20 years and I'm consistent, because principles are principles even if they can lead to some unpopular conclusions - like that ADA and anti-discrimination laws are bad.
Since the majority of gays are progressives, politically, I don't agree with them most of the time. I get all kinds of emails from LGBT and progressive organizations asking me to support causes that are 180 degrees from my value system. Sometimes I even take the time and trouble to write to them and explain why they're wrong, but not often.
As I'm typing this it has gotten very late and my brain is barely working. I hope I finished making my points because I've finished typing.
JohnConnor352 has expressed my thoughts and reasoning slightly differently, often more clearly. If you read his entries you'll get my thoughts from a slightly different angle. And one sentence where I disagree with him over a minor point.
One clarification. I am not religious, but I must tolerate and live among a majority of religious people. I wish for domestic tranquility. I have no doubt been exposed to a very provincial socialization. I can and will easily adapt, but it won't happen overnight. I will need a week :) and many will find it much more difficult. Some will never make the adjustment. :(
Until now, in my eyes, I have seen enough conceptual differences between a man and woman union and one composed of two of the same sex as to deserve a new word. Because I am learning, tolerant and adaptable, I will adjust.
You must understand from the perspective of many, a demand by those that wish to ascribe new non--traditional meaning to the same word when they see these unions as different as a duck or a goose, will be equally seen by some as a "tantrum" (your word, which I would otherwise avoid) by a militant group of gays that wish the mantle and title of something they see as so conceptually different.
You can make your case and argument without ad-hominem and the terms "childish" and "tantrum." They only serve to diminish the strength of your considerable arguments. I prefer to keep the arguments academic. I will not tolerate ad- hominem on my Blog. This is my house. When directed at me, I see them as an attempt to belittle and condescend on a personal level. I find them to be effrontery and offensive. If one persists in this type of argument I seriously consider whether to use my editing powers to hide one's contributions. This is a shame, sad and painful to me. Especially when one such as yourself brings so much content that otherwise is most deserving of contemplation and consideration.
Please be courteous and patient with me and other contributors on my blogs, as we will all not likely come to the same positions in the same time. Some of us need more exposure to arguments such as yours and time to absorb them.
You may be interested in my reply nearby to JohnConnor352.
With all due respect,
O.A..
I ask in good faith what actions or thoughts are being dictated to you?
It's the very limiting of government that protects the rights of the people, so I think your semantic disagreement is misplaced.
The Bill of Rights very specifically outlines a number of rights that people have inherently. The fact that an individual is a person gives him these rights; they were not granted by man and they cannot be taken away by man. The BoR makes it explicit that government has no power whatsoever to abridge those rights. (Obviously that went out the window many, many years ago - even before 1800.)
I understand your objection to "government defining "rights" to be protected." The obvious problem is that anything left off the list is considered NOT a right and can be abridged by gov't. I don't think I have a solution to that. Absent a list, what kinds of "rights" will people make up that end up denying you some freedom?
I'll tell you what kinds because they're all over the place. The most obvious group would be all of the non-discrimination laws, which I've written about a few times on this thread. How did anyone ever conceive of a person's RIGHT to be able to walk into any business and demand that the business owner must conduct business with him? How did anyone conceive of a RIGHT that you can't refuse to hire me because of race/gender/marital status/health status, etc?
You and I clearly do not believe in discriminating against a person for reasons that aren't specifically germane to the situation. (Examples of acceptable reasons: It makes no sense to hire someone in a wheelchair as a UPS delivery driver. A t-shirt printer should not have to make 100 shirts that say "Kill (insert here).")
But how is it appropriate that the ADA can be used to force me to do a major remodel of my business, regardless of the cost, to make it handicapped accessible? Here's a real-life example that carries the absurdity even further. A restaurant had one section that was raised above the level of the rest of the seating area - raised by one step for an able-bodied person. The entrance to the establishment and the majority of the seating area were fully accessible. Under the authority of the ADA the restaurant was forced to create a ramp to that raised area. Creating that ramp took away seating from main seating area and also cost a lot of money. It didn't matter that nobody had ever complained and it didn't matter that if a chair-bound patron needed to be seated there that they were happy to do whatever it took to get it up that one step. Nope, too bad, do the renovation and lose seating to fix a non-problem.
The question is, does a chair-bound person actually have the RIGHT to sit in the raised area? Does he even have the RIGHT to eat at that restaurant?
Long-winded it may have been, but without an agreed-upon set of inherent rights people will invent all kinds of crazy rights that directly affect the legitimate rights of others. Every Objectivist understands that one person's rights cannot supersede the rights of another person. When such a situation arises it is obvious that one of the rights is not a right at all.
just another statist and destructionist, but how many people unwittingly are supporting her?
Perhaps it's a misinterpretation?
You get minus ten billion credits for being an a-hole. Who defines perversion? The bible? I don't recognize the bible except for the ridiculously poor piece of literature that it is.
But let's play in your world. The bible prohibits sex except for procreation, prohibits sex outside of marriage, prohibits oral and anal sex, prohibits sex with a woman during her period, encourages sex with your slaves and servants and advocates for plural marriage.
Which of these perversions do you enjoy the most? Here's an idea, put your stones down lest your own house be shattered.
My reply that begins "You get credit for being blatantly honest, which I approve of. You get minus ten billion credits for being an a-hole" is in response to Radio_Randy, mister "perversion". It would seem that I wrote that after clicking Reply on your post - which was an error. I apologize profusely!
My reply that begins "(I +1'd you, but I have comments...) It's the very limiting of government that protects the rights of the people, so I think your semantic disagreement is misplaced." is in response to your entry.
Normally I'd don't really pay attention to who I saying what, and it nearly bit me hard here. I usually just read the post and go from there. Quite glad I caught it this time!
As for my comment...homosexual lifestyles ARE a perversion. This is a simple fact of nature. If you don't wish to believe me...research it, yourself.
First, in the animal world, which we are supposedly above, sex between two of the same gender is not instinctive. I know it occurs, from time to time, accidentally, but you never see "gay" pairs of same sex animals in nature.
Secondly (and I dare you to deny this), same sex couples cannot procreate, naturally. Oh, sure, they can adopt, but it's not the same thing. Components from BOTH sexes are necessary to reproduce a human being and THAT's nature at work.
Please...regale me with your logical defense, if you can. Until then, I remain unconvinced of the validity of the entire LGBT movement.
Then you wrote, "homosexual lifestyles ARE a perversion. This is a simple fact of nature." You can't further the argument that homosexuality is perversion simply by restating the claim with capitalized emphasis, nor by claiming that it's a simple fact of nature. You need to back up that claim with evidence, which is hard because perversion carries a connotation of morality which 1) is based on the authority of a higher power and 2) changes radically between cultures. (In Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries it's immoral for a woman to be alone with an unrelated male, but is was NOT immoral for Mohammad to marry Alia at 6 and have sex with her at 9).
Merriam-Webster's web site says this about perversion...
: sexual behavior that people think is not normal or natural
: something that improperly changes something good
: the process of improperly changing something that is good
The actual, formal definition appears below that text but it's a very unhelpful, self-referential definition. I encourage people to view it and decide if my claim is accurate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...).
Back to Merriam-Webster's informal definition - it's a completely secular definition in that it doesn't mention morality or rules imposed upon us by a supernatural power.
"sexual behavior that people think is not normal or natural" is completely subjective, as proven by the phrase "that people think". "Norm" can be calculated (mean and median being the most useful) but the connotation of "normal" implies subjective judgement. You can't deny that homosexuality is natural because you recognized that it happens in the animal world. I deny your description that it occurs "accidentally" (a critter doesn't trip and accidentally have sex with another critter) and there are documented cases of same-sex animal pairs.
I certainly won't deny that same sex couples can't procreate through intercourse. That would deny reality. But the ruling by SCOTUS had nothing to do with breeding so I'll call this point irrelevant to the discussion as it's been held so far.
Merriam-Webster's second bullet point is "something that improperly changes something good." That applies to a billion things other than sex, but also to sex. I'll never accept that sex isn't good, so the only debatable point is whether or not homosexuality improperly changes it. Once again we have a purely subjective value judgement, which is the opposite of a "simple fact."
There's my logical defense to the statements you made. Whether or not you were regaled is out of my control.
However, perhaps you would explain your justification is referring to me as an "a-hole" for expressing my original opinion? I would be curious in hearing what it was, in my post, that really set you off.
Oh...just one other response to your post that "a critter doesn't trip and accidentally have sex with another critter"...I've seen bulls attempt to mount other bulls and it wasn't just because they preferred bulls over cows...believe me. No argument...just a fact.
Your statement means one of two things. First, I am basically, by my very existence, a perversion of nature. LOTS of people believe that about gays. Maybe you can understand my reaction to that possible meaning.
The second option is that you're calling my physical acts of sexual activity with men a perversion. I can, to some extent and with great damage to my mental health, choose not to engage in sexual activities with men. I cannot control that I am attracted to men, that's just part of me. Let's assume someone demanded that you refrain from sexual activities with women. Your only option was no sexual activity at all or activity that requires no other participants? How long could you remain, well, sane?
And regarding my acts being perverted, you never addressed the list of items that the bible bans that today are all common among the entire population, OR those that the bible heartily approves of that our society has deemed absolutely taboo. If my acts are perversions (which they are solely because Leviticus says they are) then your acts are equally perverted. Unless you don't actually believe the bible is the word of god and can discard which ever parts you find inconvenient. At least I'm up-front that I'm a hardcore atheist and am unconstrained by biblical bullying.
No matter how you slice it, referring to the SCOTUS ruling as finally granting Consitutional protection to a perversion is about as offensive as you can get. Thus, a-hole.
Lastly, you wrote, ".I've seen bulls attempt to mount other bulls and it wasn't just because they preferred bulls over cows...believe me. No argument...just a fact." You've now, at least twice, made a statement and then attempted to shut down the discussion by proclaiming that it's "just a fact." That the Earth revolves around the sun is just a fact. That the Statue of Liberty is covered with copper is just a fact. Your assertion that bulls attempting to mount other bulls wasn't because they preferred bulls over cows may be a fact or it may not be a fact. We need evidence. Why were the bulls trying to mount other bulls? And can you be sure that in every case throughout history and in the future it's not because the mounter prefers the mountee over cows?
Assuming you know the answer to at least the first question about why,there still remains the fact (I can point to proof) that you claimed such acts were accidental. I'm trying to see how one bull jumping on the back of another bull is accidental. Was he aiming for a cow and experienced an epic fail? Was he blind, smelled a cow in estrus, and mounted the first bovine organism he encountered? Had someone surreptitiously fitted him with the latest Virtual Reality goggles and made him see a hot little Guernsey when he was actually approaching a hunky piece of Angus stud?
(As for education, I have a 4-year BS in Engineering. Larnin' ain't the issue, logical thought is the issue. Anyone can do that.)
Obviously, neither your existence, nor that of any other homosexual is a perversion of nature. You're all still human...just "wired" differently than most.
I will admit that when a young boy, I "experimented" with other young boys. The difference is that I found that I vastly preferred girls (though, my sisters were off limits). Hence, my inability to comprehend the thinking of a male who prefers other males over women and vice versa. I think I can even understand bisexuals who like to swing both ways, but still prefer the opposite sex, overall.
I wonder what you would consider "perversion", if you're not ready to accept the Merriam Webster view? To me, it seems that a lifestyle that fails to propagate it's followers (like an isolated island populated entirely by homosexual couples) would be a perversion because the entire population would eventually, naturally, disappear from the world. Not exactly Sodom and Gomorrah, but with the same end results. Which brings me to...
In response to your comments, I don't believe The Bible to be the "word of God". I don't believe in God, hence, I don't look forward to going to Heaven, nor dread going to Hell. On the contrary, I believe that book to be written by intelligent men of great wisdom, as a guide for man to live by. Sure, a healthy dose of "morality" was added, but we have the freedom to ignore some of those constraints. My concern is that society should choose to totally abandon the good teachings, along with the bad...simply "because" it's The Bible. Total anarchy and lawlessness would ensue, much to the harm of mankind, overall. That is why I refuse to call myself an Atheist. So, with that out of the way, we can dispense with biblical references and focus on the natural order of things.
As for bulls and cows...aw, I'm willing to abandon that one. It really wasn't going anywhere, anyway.
There was no healthy debate, there was only you making unsupportable claims and eventually admitting that I had successfully refuted everything you said.
I can understand your inability to comprehend the thinking of a male who prefers other males over women because there isn't any thinking at all involved with my attraction to men. It's an emotional and physical reaction just the same as your reaction to women.
Here's what I call a perversion: engaging in any sexual activity without the consent of the other party(ies) involved. I'm surprised to hear that you're an atheist because the concept of perversion is a religious one. Regarding anarchy and lawlessness without the guilt trip of religion to guide us, I know lots of atheists and I can't think of a single one that looks forward to anarchy and lawlessness.
And now that you've abandoned the entire "animals only do it by accident" claim we're back to homosexuality being natural and not accidental. It's late so I'll accept that your original post was ill-considered.