View Full Version : Supreme Court Puts Gay Marriage On Hold In Utah
accadacca
01-06-2014, 07:50 AM
WASHINGTON (AP)
Sombeech
01-06-2014, 10:01 AM
Omg the entire supreme court is composed of bigots
...Don't mind me, I'm just making a stereotypical closed minded statement
rockgremlin
01-06-2014, 10:05 AM
Omg the entire supreme court is composed of bigots
X2
...Don't mind me, I'm just making a stereotypical closed minded statement
No worries, we expect them from you
Sad that they ruled this way, but it really is a temporary thing until the appeals court rules anyhow... things will go back to they way they should be with people marrying whoever they want.
Sombeech
01-06-2014, 11:29 AM
No worries, we expect them from you
Sad that they ruled this way, but it really is a temporary thing until the appeals court rules anyhow... things will go back to they way they should be with people marrying whoever they want.
I noticed you haven't accused the supreme court of bigotry, you must hate gays.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
I noticed you haven't accused the supreme court of bigotry, you must hate gays.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
Well since I actually understand that they have ruled on a point of law and procedure not on the idea of marriage being open to all people I don't think that the supreme court is full of bigots. I do as a matter of course find that you are full of inability to read and comprehend things of a legal nature that your bishop didn't tell you about.
Sombeech
01-06-2014, 11:37 AM
Oh i didn't know my bishop had spoken to me at all concerning gay marriage. Please tell me what other stereotypical anti Mormon bigoted fantasies you've dreamt up.
Interesting how you're mentioning your knowledge of law and procedure now, and not last week.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
Iceaxe
01-06-2014, 12:05 PM
The supreme court has made NO decision regarding gay marriage so it is hard to fault them.... the only thing the supreme court has done to date is their job.... which is interrupt the constitution and laws of the land.
I'm willing to let this play out in a timely manner and make sure it is done correctly and not on wild emotions. We need to give the court's the time to do their job right, after all, that is what we pay them for.
I suspect gay rights will prevail in the end.
Tap'n on my Galaxy G3
Sombeech
01-06-2014, 02:35 PM
I'm willing to let this play out in a timely manner and make sure it is done correctly and not on wild emotions. We need to give the court's the time to do their job right, after all, that is what we pay them for.
This is what should have happened in the first place rather than dividing the people on emotional lines
Look at the confusion now, caused by a judge that acted out of emotion and not due process.
I don't care what side anybody is on, this was a mess. Lets quit the bigotry name calling towards us who aren't anti gay, open your minds a little more and realize that if somebody disagrees with the political process that has happened it doesn't mean they are a freaking bigot.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
rockgremlin
01-06-2014, 02:45 PM
I suspect gay rights will prevail in the end.
As they should.
You know, I think I've figured it out....Mormons believe in upholding "the laws of the land."
D&C 98:6 - Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the aconstitutional (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/98.5-6?lang=eng#) law of the land.
If the constitutional law upholds gay rights, it also means that Mormons must also uphold gay rights -- which is akin to asking Nancy Pelosi to uphold the right to bear arms.
Look at the confusion now, caused by a judge that acted out of emotion and not due process.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
FYI Shelby's job was to make that ruling.. you may want to look at how the court system works again if you think otherwise... sigh.. please take a civics class
Sombeech
01-06-2014, 03:27 PM
Interesting how the same people claiming to have religion shoved down their throats are the same people who bring it up all the time.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
Interesting how the same people claiming to have religion shoved down their throats are the same people who bring it up all the time.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
What can't respond to the "fact" that it was Shelby's job to rule on this.. you have to go back to how bad you feel about the fact that Religion in Utah is a large part of why this is even an issue... Have you taken that civics class yet?
Sombeech
01-06-2014, 04:41 PM
you have to go back to how bad you feel about the fact that Religion in Utah is a large part of why this is even an issue...
Oh so Utah is the last state to allow gay marriage? Another interesting statement, my friend.
Unless there are other states with a Mormon majority that don't allow gay marriage yet. I'll be back, gotta run to the internet to see what other Mormon dominated states haven't allowed this yet, and in turn how your reasoning would blame mormonism for the delay.
Or, if the Mormon state is the first of the religious majority states to allow gay marriage, that would make us the most tolerant religious state in the union.
And yet if there are other states that have no dedicated religious majority, could you blame the state religion for holding them back?
That's quite the pickle to debate. This should be good.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
Sombeech
01-06-2014, 04:49 PM
Here I'll save you the trouble. All of the pink states....
How many voters do you think are being influenced by their "bishops"?
71435
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
Absolute Gravity
01-06-2014, 07:32 PM
This is what should have happened in the first place rather than dividing the people on emotional lines
Look at the confusion now, caused by a judge that acted out of emotion and not due process.
I don't care what side anybody is on, this was a mess.
Man, I think so far as controversial issues go, this whole 'mess' has been pretty tame, especially compared to the rest of the ridiculousness of the past few years. I also think that being upset with the political process, especially since in this case it is a legal process, is a pretty lame excuse.
So what exactly are your emotional attachments to this and what consequences have there been to you as a result of this division?
Do you think those emotional hardships have been anywhere near those of the LGBT community?
I've never thought of you as a bigot, still don't, but as most people get on with their lives the pot of remaining holdouts is starting to boil down to a nasty bigot concentrate. Not a pot I would want to be in, regardless of the process used to heat it.
stefan
01-06-2014, 09:03 PM
two articles with further thought
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-halts-same-sex-marriages-in-utah-pending-appeal/2014/01/06/b1af9794-76e9-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_story.html?tid=HP_politics
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/court-stops-utah-gay-marriages/
Oh so Utah is the last state to allow gay marriage? Another interesting statement, my friend.
Unless there are other states with a Mormon majority that don't allow gay marriage yet. I'll be back, gotta run to the internet to see what other Mormon dominated states haven't allowed this yet, and in turn how your reasoning would blame mormonism for the delay.
Or, if the Mormon state is the first of the religious majority states to allow gay marriage, that would make us the most tolerant religious state in the union.
And yet if there are other states that have no dedicated religious majority, could you blame the state religion for holding them back?
That's quite the pickle to debate. This should be good.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
Yet again you did not acknowledge that the legal issues have been handled correctly or that judge Shelby did what was supposed to be done...
Nobody said utah is the last state to allow gay marriage (but it is the one with a very weak argument for its constitutional amendment and that made it easy for lawyers to get it overturned).
I Said nothing about a Mormon majority causing the anti gay marriage.. Religion does not equal Mormon though as I understand it the Mormons think that all other religions are beneigth them based on the way you are arguing this.
No-one said that it was necessary to have a dedicated religious majority for the state to be filled with people who use religion to argue their anti gay adgenda..
This is not a big deal to debate.. there is nothing in your arguments... When the first gay person got married in Utah did your marriage suddenly fail? did your children suddenly sprout horns and become gay.. what is your issue with gay marriage that does not have a religious connotation?
Byron
01-07-2014, 06:07 AM
This thread officially sucks.
Sombeech
01-07-2014, 06:51 AM
When the first gay person got married in Utah did your marriage suddenly fail?
Who said anything about my marriage failing if Gay Marriage becomes legal? I've said nothing of the sort. If that civics class you're raving about teaches how to blindly stereotype, we must have had different instructors.
Open your mind a little and quit assuming anybody who is on the other side of this political issue is a bigot fearing for his family's unity.
I'm merely debating your philosophy that Utah's religious majority is the main culprit, by pointing out all of the other states in direct contrast to Utah's demographic. Debunking this concept belongs on either side of the political debate, but understandably can lead to personal accusations and name calling when you get flustered. Religion has not been a part of this topic until you've brought it up.
Maybe it's time we have an adult conversation exploring all sides of the issue, even if we don't agree with them. Let's not accuse the other side of hate just because we disagree with their point of view.
rockgremlin
01-07-2014, 07:20 AM
Who said anything about my marriage failing if Gay Marriage becomes legal?
Because it has always been a widely held belief by Mormons (and I've heard this preached over the pulpit) that gay marriage threatens the sanctity of traditional marriage. There is this irrational mindset that marriage should only be an institution reserved for heterosexuals...like homosexuals are incapable of having emotions of love and affection. That somehow love amongst homosexuals isn't valid because it doesn't conform to the traditional definition set forth by society.
Remember Prop 8? The Mormon church threw thousands of dollars at that -- in an effort to "protect the sanctity of marriage" in California. Unbelievable....:roll:
Sombeech
01-07-2014, 07:58 AM
Because it has always been a widely held belief by Mormons (and I've heard this preached over the pulpit)
Then go talk to those who have said it. Don't link me in with all this bullshit just because you guys can't find anybody else to talk to. :cool2:
Scott P
01-07-2014, 08:07 AM
Why does accadacca keep starting these threads? The conversation is always the same.
rockgremlin
01-07-2014, 08:14 AM
Why does accadacca keep starting these threads? The conversation is always the same.
Cuz Acca's trollin'
Who said anything about my marriage failing if Gay Marriage becomes legal? I've said nothing of the sort. If that civics class you're raving about teaches how to blindly stereotype, we must have had different instructors.
Open your mind a little and quit assuming anybody who is on the other side of this political issue is a bigot fearing for his family's unity.
I'm merely debating your philosophy that Utah's religious majority is the main culprit, by pointing out all of the other states in direct contrast to Utah's demographic. Debunking this concept belongs on either side of the political debate, but understandably can lead to personal accusations and name calling when you get flustered. Religion has not been a part of this topic until you've brought it up.
Maybe it's time we have an adult conversation exploring all sides of the issue, even if we don't agree with them. Let's not accuse the other side of hate just because we disagree with their point of view.
The civics class I am talking about would help you understand how our political system works and how to actually read and respond to direct questions
The problem is that you are not arguing anything.. only putting out strawman arguments to change the direction.. how about giving some backing to why you think that it was not Judge Shelby's job to make a ruling? you have stated a number of times that it was a bad thing for him to do his job I would like to know why you think that he should not have actually made a ruling on a case brought to him?
You have also not debated my philosophy that Utah's religious majority is the main culprit to anything.. only pointed out that other states are full of people who fear homosexuality and use religion as an argument.
In the end answer only one question.. how without using your religion or God (since the laws of our land are supposed to be secular) with proofs does homosexual marriage cause you to fear for your familys unity. How can a man and a man getting married damage your family specifically?
Sombeech
01-07-2014, 08:37 AM
71437
Then go talk to those who have said it. Don't link me in with all this bullshit just because you guys can't find anybody else to talk to. :cool2:
When it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck.........
rockgremlin
01-07-2014, 10:40 AM
When it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck.........
And by the way, I HAVE confronted those types on several occasions and it always ends the same way. I ask them how gay marriage threatens traditional marriage, and I get a lot of stuttering and backpedaling, and then a lot about how tolerant they are, and how they love the person, not the "sin" blah blah blah. Uh huh, right. They'll claim that openly, and then turn around and out of the other side of their mouth whisper about how they can't understand how a man would choose another man's bum over a woman. And some don't even whisper <cough, cough, duck dynasty, cough cough>
Some folks have even gone so far as to say this nonsense: "Well if everyone was gay, then the human race would die out because then nobody would procreate." :roflol:Seriously?
It's tough defending discrimination. You have to really scrape the bottom of the barrel. My hat's off to whomever is defending the current discriminatory laws as they stand, because I can't see where they have a leg to stand on.
accadacca
01-08-2014, 03:10 PM
Here's the statement issued by the Attorney General.
Sombeech
01-08-2014, 09:17 PM
71450
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
Sombeech
01-09-2014, 08:22 AM
This is the confusion and emotional roller coaster I'm talking about. It's hard to deny that the procedure and rollout in the last month has caused uncertainty for a lot of people.
On one hand you have nut jobs going on a hunger strike, to massive debates amongst people who should be friends.
Just a little more order and planned out procedure, that would have helped everybody on either side of the political (not religious!) debate. We all know that this will eventually happen for the Gay community, but this was the wrong wrong wrong way to do it. You can talk about how some people were just doing their job and following law, but with discussion that those @1000 marriages might not be legit anymore??? What a mess.
Patience and proper procedure.
Beech, why don't you show what is the proper procedure for allowing a person to have equal rights.... Mind to post some legal backing showing the need to slowly give people their rights just so that other people might not feel poorly about it?
Did you know that Utah is not required to take this to the Supreme Court and could have just accepted the ruling and then allowed all of the people who were married to just be married and to have not been placed into this legal limbo? Yeah it didn't have to continue this way
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Sombeech
01-09-2014, 09:23 AM
Did you know that Utah is not required to take this to the Supreme Court and could have just accepted the ruling and then allowed all of the people who were married to just be married and to have not been placed into this legal limbo? Yeah it didn't have to continue this way
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Sotomayor responsible for taking this to the Court that ultimately denied the overturn in the end?
Whatever it is, however you feel, and whatever you want to incorrectly label people that disagree with you politically, just admit there is a better way to get this law overturned. It was done poorly and now those 1000 couples who were so happy last week are now hearing the shattering news that they've got to fight that battle again. Calling people bigots won't make this fight any easier.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Sotomayor responsible for taking this to the Court that ultimately denied the overturn in the end?
Whatever it is, however you feel, and whatever you want to incorrectly label people that disagree with you politically, just admit there is a better way to get this law overturned. It was done poorly and now those 1000 couples who were so happy last week are now hearing the shattering news that they've got to fight that battle again. Calling people bigots won't make this fight any easier.
Actually Utah's attorney generals office filed to have this ruling stayed so no it wasn't Sotomayor who was responsible for continuing to argue this battle. Again this is how the court system works. (http://www.animallaw.info/articles/dduspleadingsoutline.htm).. Judges like Sotomayor rule on cases brought before them based on their informed interpretation of the laws of the land. Judges do not go out and create cases just to rule on them... that would be silly
I just asked you to show me how there was a better way to get this law overturned. Why would I admit that there is a better way when I don't believe there is one.. I don't see a better way than to follow the legal structure that our nation has so I was hoping you would provide this better method that you continue to say exists that I just do not know about.
Please enlighten me with the "better way to get this law overturned" actually works?
Sombeech
01-09-2014, 09:40 AM
I just asked you to show me how there was a better way to get this law overturned.
You're not even making any legal suggestions about how this could have gone better, so if you think this process was the best way while everybody else thinks it turned into a clusterf&%k then let's agree to disagree.
You're not even making any legal suggestions about how this could have gone better, so if you think this process was the best way while everybody else thinks it turned into a clusterf&%k then let's agree to disagree.
No, lets not agree to disagree.. I don't think it needed to have gone any better.. I have no issues with how the legal system has worked here. and can you prove that "EVERYONE" else thinks that the legal system or the system created a clusterfork or that "EVERYONE" even thinks it is a clusterfork? I know of at least 1 other person who doesn't think so so I can PROVE that your assertions that EVERYONE thinks it is a clusterfork is inaccurate........ you are the one that has repeatedly stated that there is a better way.. PROVE IT..
Sombeech
01-09-2014, 09:51 AM
agree to disagree
rockgremlin
01-09-2014, 11:49 AM
I'm certain that all LDS folks are now gonna refer back to this incident as a classic example of how fasting really works. Bwahahahaha!!! :roflol:
Sombeech
01-09-2014, 12:11 PM
I'm certain that all LDS folks are now gonna refer back to this incident as a classic example of how fasting really works. Bwahahahaha!!! :roflol:
Nah, hardly any of them. But NONE of the people who thought he was an idiot can even crack a smile at how funny this coincidence was.
rockgremlin
01-09-2014, 12:44 PM
Nah, hardly any of them. But NONE of the people who thought he was an idiot can even crack a smile at how funny this coincidence was.
I cracked one out...that dude is the spitting image of my brother-in-law. I had to do a double-take.
Sombeech
01-09-2014, 12:50 PM
I'm just sayin' a lot of facebook statuses went silent about the dude :haha:
reverse_dyno
01-09-2014, 04:37 PM
Conservative political activists gather to 'defend traditional marriage': (http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=28293371&nid=148&title=conservative-political-activists-gather-to-defend-traditional-marriage)
Ruzicka said in addition to speaking out, proponents of traditional marriage must rely on God. "That's how we win this thing, we fast and pray," she said.
------------------------------------
I wonder if there are any atheist arguments against same sex marriage. Seems like all the arguments against SS marriage always have something to do with God in the end. Check out the above article to see what I mean. I am not taking a position on SS marriage! Just pointing out an observation I think is interesting.
Sombeech
01-09-2014, 05:06 PM
------------------------------------
I wonder if there are any atheist arguments against same sex marriage. Seems like all the arguments against SS marriage always have something to do with God in the end. Check out the above article to see what I mean..
I've never opposed gay marriage while citing any religious teaching at all. So atheism nor creationism are not necessary vantage points, it can be completely political opinion.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
Scott P
01-09-2014, 07:11 PM
I wonder if there are any atheist arguments against same sex marriage.
Yes, there are. In my own words from knowing much about human evolution, here are some very summarized reasons for traditional marriage from a strictly scientific standpoint. PS, although science prefers terms like mating, copulation, et al, I just use the term “having sex” because it humanizes everything. If you don’t believe in evolution (I do, but am not an atheist), feel free to replace “evolve” with “created because” when reading though this.
PS, I hope no one finds the below offensive. It is only meant to answer the question asked above. I hope people found it interesting. I will only used scientific principles rather than feelings and opinions.
From a strictly scientific standpoint, generally the most stable conditions to raise a child are in intact relationships between a man and a woman. Using scientific studies, it can be proven that heterosexual marriage is good for society. From a strictly scientific viewpoint, rather than a political one, I don't know of any benefit to society for a gay marriage. If there is one, I haven’t read about it and can’t think of what it would be. If anyone knows what the benefit would be from a strictly evolutionary standpoint. (PS, lest anyone misunderstand, homosexuality is natural and has genetic connections. It is also nothing new).
Don’t misunderstand the above though, because statistics wise, the decline of marriage can be blamed more on heterosexuals than homosexuals. One needs only to look at the figures on the number of broken homes of heterosexual couples to confirm this. If people want to go out there and protest homosexual marriage they should also be out there protesting pre-marital sex and infidelity among heterosexual couples as well. Because children are more likely to be involved with homosexual couples, from a scientific standpoint, this should be much more concerning.
Anyway, continuing on from the scientific viewpoint, most (perhaps all?) non religious historians believe that religion, morals, and marriage evolved from the biological urge to reproduce and to pass along one’s own genes. From an evolutionary standpoint, survival of the fittest or survival of an individual is only partially correct.
The real evolutionary “goal” is not necessarily survive as an individual, but to propagate one’s genes. Survival is only one strategy in accomplishing this. For example, in some species of spiders and praying mantises, the female actually eats the male while they are having sex. Moreover, the male makes no attempt to escape, and in fact with some species the male will actually tilt his head towards the female and invite her to eat him (Google this and search by video for some morbid, but fascinating watching)! Why is this? It is because the urge to propagate one’s genes is greater than the survival of an individual. Letting the female willingly eat the male has several advantages to the survival of the mentioned species. One, the females are typically larger in order to produce many eggs and the male’s body provides nourishment in order to produce more eggs. Two, letting the female much on your head or body while having sex distracts her and allows the male to have sex uninhibited and she is kept completely occupied during the love making session.
The above strategy works for some species such as praying mantises or some spiders because in comparison to their size, the territory of these creatures is huge and the chances of running into a female are fairly slim and the chance of running into a second female (even if the first one didn’t eat him) are even slimmer. So, the best change of propagating ones genes is to let the female eat you, for the reasons above, while having sex. Since the chances of running into a second female are very slim, it’s better for the survival of the species for the male to take advantage of the first encounter with a female and let her eat him. If not, the chances of running into a second female are slim and the rest of the male’s life is wasted because he didn’t pass on his genes.
Anyway, lucky for us human males, that’s not how the propagation of our genes has evolved to where it is now. With the human species, most males have more than a once in a lifetime chance of having sex and luckily for us as well, a female couldn’t consume enough of us in one sitting to insure the survival of offspring.
Our sexuality evolved differently. We are one of the very, very few species where the female hides her fertile times. Even a female human (without technological help) doesn’t know when she is always fertile. We are one of the very few species that will have sex just for fun. Even an advanced species such as a dog will not have sex when the female is not fertile. We are also the only species that goes through menopause. Why is this?
From an evolutionary standpoint, there are reasons for all three and they are all connected. Females (unintentionally) hide their fertility because it gives the species the best chances to propagate. But why? Doesn't this seem counter productive? Actually, it isn't. What if a female was only interested in sex during her fertile times? How likely would the male be stick close by at all times? Females that hide their fertility and instead are ready for sex at anytime have a better chance of having a male close by for a longer period. The more advanced the species, the more helpless the offspring is at birth. Most animals are ready to be out fending for themselves in a much shorter time period than for humans. A second parent, especially before modern societies and cities was almost essential for any offspring to survive. In human terms, to put it in layman’s terms, when the can have sex, daddy stays home. It is theorized that distant ancestors that didn’t hide their fertility cycles died off and only the females that hid their fertility cycles survived, and thus the genes did as well.
The second uniqueness of having sex just for fun is a very rare trait in the animal kingdom. Most species in the animal kingdom can’t afford to have sex for fun or even for long periods. Most animals are in danger when they are having sex because they are vulnerable and distracted. They can easily be preyed upon while distracted. Sex is a waste of valuable energy for most species. Energy wise, the production of sperm is costly. Sex takes time that could be devoted to finding food. For these reasons, sex serves no purposes in most species unless the female is fertile.
So, from a scientific standpoint, love, recreational sex, and the male female parental relationships where a male stays with a female in order to raise a child evolved (or was created if you prefer) in order to allow the most stable conditions to propagate genes and to raise a family. Sex evolved or was created to strengthen bonds between mates.
So, continuing on, why do human females go through menopause rather than remain fertile into an old age like almost all other species do? It is because from a propagation standpoint, and due to the fact that human children are so helpless for several years, it is better for grandparents of the human species to devote energy into assisting in raising offspring of younger and stronger individuals. For the human species, the benefit of doing this is greater than the benefit of reproducing in a weaker state.
Atheist historians believe that religion, marriage, and morals were evolved from the biological urge to reproduce and to pass along one’s own genes for the reasons above and we can see that the human species is very unique when it comes to sexual habits.
From the evolutionary standpoint, morals are still applicable because (although modern technology and customs may mean it less so) it is detrimental to the species that a male stays home in order to raise a children. Infidelity has always remained a scientific problem. On one hand, as an individual, a male has a biological urge to propagate his genes by numbers and to produce as many offspring as possible (just as some males have homosexual tendencies). On the other hand, from a species propagation and survival standpoint, the best environment to raise those offspring is to have the father to stick around and support the mother and children. Infidelity and chances for wandering lessens the chances that the male will be supportive of his mate and their offspring (as mentioned this is the primary reason that females are ready for sex during non-fertile periods). From a strictly evolutionary standpoint, it is believed the morals and marriage developed as a way to counterbalance the two for the survival of the species.
So yes, from a scientific standpoint there are arguments on why supporting traditional marriages and shunning infidelity is important. Using science, it can be proven that traditional marriage and fidelity is important to society. It can be proven scientifically that the human race should encourage traditional marriage.
No matter which angle you look at it, from either science, evolution, religion or even religion/evolution, the purpose of marriage from either an evolutionary, atheist, or religious standpoint is to provide the most stable environment for the raising of offspring. From a strictly scientific standpoint, marriage didn't evolve to be for any other purpose other than this. It wasn't for tax breaks, inheritance, etc., but developed for this sole purpose.
Anyway, there is a whole lot more to the above. This is just a very brief summary. Scientist/anthropologists have written volumes and volumes on the subject for those that want to delve further.
Also, science can’t answer questions as to what the government’s role is in all this. Science also can’t answer the question as to whether or not propagating the human race is even important. Science doesn’t try to answer the question such as “what is the purpose of life” other than to propagate a species. It can answer the question of what rights an individual has. All of those are questions that can’t be answered scientifically.
I try and stay away from most discussions, but since the question was asked if there were any non-religious arguments against it, I answered the question. If anyone knows of any errors, items needing more explaining, or knows a scientific reason for the development of gay marriage, please feel free to point out or discuss.
ratagonia
01-09-2014, 09:07 PM
Yes, there are. In my own words from knowing much about human evolution, here are some very summarized reasons for traditional marriage from a strictly scientific standpoint. PS, although science prefers terms like mating, copulation, et al, I just use the term “having sex” because it humanizes everything. If you don’t believe in evolution (I do, but am not an atheist), feel free to replace “evolve” with “created because” when reading though this.
PS, I hope no one finds the below offensive. It is only meant to answer the question asked above. I hope people found it interesting. I will only used scientific principles rather than feelings and opinions.
From a strictly scientific standpoint, generally the most stable conditions to raise a child are in intact relationships between a man and a woman. Using scientific studies, it can be proven that heterosexual marriage is good for society. From a strictly scientific viewpoint, rather than a political one, I don't know of any benefit to society for a gay marriage. If there is one, I haven’t read about it and can’t think of what it would be. If anyone knows what the benefit would be from a strictly evolutionary standpoint. (PS, lest anyone misunderstand, homosexuality is natural and has genetic connections. It is also nothing new).
Don’t misunderstand the above though, because statistics wise, the decline of marriage can be blamed more on heterosexuals than homosexuals. One needs only to look at the figures on the number of broken homes of heterosexual couples to confirm this. If people want to go out there and protest homosexual marriage they should also be out there protesting pre-marital sex and infidelity among heterosexual couples as well. Because children are more likely to be involved with homosexual couples, from a scientific standpoint, this should be much more concerning.
Anyway, continuing on from the scientific viewpoint, most (perhaps all?) non religious historians believe that religion, morals, and marriage evolved from the biological urge to reproduce and to pass along one’s own genes. From an evolutionary standpoint, survival of the fittest or survival of an individual is only partially correct.
The real evolutionary “goal” is not necessarily survive as an individual, but to propagate one’s genes. Survival is only one strategy in accomplishing this. For example, in some species of spiders and praying mantises, the female actually eats the male while they are having sex. Moreover, the male makes no attempt to escape, and in fact with some species the male will actually tilt his head towards the female and invite her to eat him (Google this and search by video for some morbid, but fascinating watching)! Why is this? It is because the urge to propagate one’s genes is greater than the survival of an individual. Letting the female willingly eat the male has several advantages to the survival of the mentioned species. One, the females are typically larger in order to produce many eggs and the male’s body provides nourishment in order to produce more eggs. Two, letting the female much on your head or body while having sex distracts her and allows the male to have sex uninhibited and she is kept completely occupied during the love making session.
The above strategy works for some species such as praying mantises or some spiders because in comparison to their size, the territory of these creatures is huge and the chances of running into a female are fairly slim and the chance of running into a second female (even if the first one didn’t eat him) are even slimmer. So, the best change of propagating ones genes is to let the female eat you, for the reasons above, while having sex. Since the chances of running into a second female are very slim, it’s better for the survival of the species for the male to take advantage of the first encounter with a female and let her eat him. If not, the chances of running into a second female are slim and the rest of the male’s life is wasted because he didn’t pass on his genes.
Anyway, lucky for us human males, that’s not how the propagation of our genes has evolved to where it is now. With the human species, most males have more than a once in a lifetime chance of having sex and luckily for us as well, a female couldn’t consume enough of us in one sitting to insure the survival of offspring.
Our sexuality evolved differently. We are one of the very, very few species where the female hides her fertile times. Even a female human (without technological help) doesn’t know when she is always fertile. We are one of the very few species that will have sex just for fun. Even an advanced species such as a dog will not have sex when the female is not fertile. We are also the only species that goes through menopause. Why is this?
From an evolutionary standpoint, there are reasons for all three and they are all connected. Females (unintentionally) hide their fertility because it gives the species the best chances to propagate. But why? Doesn't this seem counter productive? Actually, it isn't. What if a female was only interested in sex during her fertile times? How likely would the male be stick close by at all times? Females that hide their fertility and instead are ready for sex at anytime have a better chance of having a male close by for a longer period. The more advanced the species, the more helpless the offspring is at birth. Most animals are ready to be out fending for themselves in a much shorter time period than for humans. A second parent, especially before modern societies and cities was almost essential for any offspring to survive. In human terms, to put it in layman’s terms, when the can have sex, daddy stays home. It is theorized that distant ancestors that didn’t hide their fertility cycles died off and only the females that hid their fertility cycles survived, and thus the genes did as well.
The second uniqueness of having sex just for fun is a very rare trait in the animal kingdom. Most species in the animal kingdom can’t afford to have sex for fun or even for long periods. Most animals are in danger when they are having sex because they are vulnerable and distracted. They can easily be preyed upon while distracted. Sex is a waste of valuable energy for most species. Energy wise, the production of sperm is costly. Sex takes time that could be devoted to finding food. For these reasons, sex serves no purposes in most species unless the female is fertile.
So, from a scientific standpoint, love, recreational sex, and the male female parental relationships where a male stays with a female in order to raise a child evolved (or was created if you prefer) in order to allow the most stable conditions to propagate genes and to raise a family. Sex evolved or was created to strengthen bonds between mates.
So, continuing on, why do human females go through menopause rather than remain fertile into an old age like almost all other species do? It is because from a propagation standpoint, and due to the fact that human children are so helpless for several years, it is better for grandparents of the human species to devote energy into assisting in raising offspring of younger and stronger individuals. For the human species, the benefit of doing this is greater than the benefit of reproducing in a weaker state.
Atheist historians believe that religion, marriage, and morals were evolved from the biological urge to reproduce and to pass along one’s own genes for the reasons above and we can see that the human species is very unique when it comes to sexual habits.
From the evolutionary standpoint, morals are still applicable because (although modern technology and customs may mean it less so) it is detrimental to the species that a male stays home in order to raise a children. Infidelity has always remained a scientific problem. On one hand, as an individual, a male has a biological urge to propagate his genes by numbers and to produce as many offspring as possible (just as some males have homosexual tendencies). On the other hand, from a species propagation and survival standpoint, the best environment to raise those offspring is to have the father to stick around and support the mother and children. Infidelity and chances for wandering lessens the chances that the male will be supportive of his mate and their offspring (as mentioned this is the primary reason that females are ready for sex during non-fertile periods). From a strictly evolutionary standpoint, it is believed the morals and marriage developed as a way to counterbalance the two for the survival of the species.
So yes, from a scientific standpoint there are arguments on why supporting traditional marriages and shunning infidelity is important. Using science, it can be proven that traditional marriage and fidelity is important to society. It can be proven scientifically that the human race should encourage traditional marriage.
No matter which angle you look at it, from either science, evolution, religion or even religion/evolution, the purpose of marriage from either an evolutionary, atheist, or religious standpoint is to provide the most stable environment for the raising of offspring. From a strictly scientific standpoint, marriage didn't evolve to be for any other purpose other than this. It wasn't for tax breaks, inheritance, etc., but developed for this sole purpose.
Anyway, there is a whole lot more to the above. This is just a very brief summary. Scientist/anthropologists have written volumes and volumes on the subject for those that want to delve further.
Also, science can’t answer questions as to what the government’s role is in all this. Science also can’t answer the question as to whether or not propagating the human race is even important. Science doesn’t try to answer the question such as “what is the purpose of life” other than to propagate a species. It can answer the question of what rights an individual has. All of those are questions that can’t be answered scientifically.
I try and stay away from most discussions, but since the question was asked if there were any non-religious arguments against it, I answered the question. If anyone knows of any errors, items needing more explaining, or knows a scientific reason for the development of gay marriage, please feel free to point out or discuss.
Have your read the Prop 8 California Decision, Scott? I would think you have not, as the "studies about children" argument was pretty well shot out of the water and blown to itty bitty pieces. ALL the studies that found that children of gay couples were worse off came from clearly biased sources. While studies carried out by actual (gay muslim socialist kenyan secularist msnbc-related) scientists found the opposite. So yes, your "science" is tainted. Your arguments from an evolutionary viewpoint are just that - conjecture not based in science. Don't call it science, it is just bushido with a confirmation bias big fat thumb on the scale. (Bushido being a euphemism.)
:moses:
Yes, there are. In my own words from knowing much about human evolution, here are some very summarized reasons for traditional marriage from a strictly scientific standpoint. PS, although science prefers terms like mating, copulation, et al, I just use the term “having sex” because it humanizes everything. If you don’t believe in evolution (I do, but am not an atheist), feel free to replace “evolve” with “created because” when reading though this.
PS, I hope no one finds the below offensive. It is only meant to answer the question asked above. I hope people found it interesting. I will only used scientific principles rather than feelings and opinions.
From a strictly scientific standpoint, generally the most stable conditions to raise a child are in intact relationships between a man and a woman. Using scientific studies, it can be proven that heterosexual marriage is good for society. From a strictly scientific viewpoint, rather than a political one, I don't know of any benefit to society for a gay marriage. If there is one, I haven’t read about it and can’t think of what it would be. If anyone knows what the benefit would be from a strictly evolutionary standpoint. (PS, lest anyone misunderstand, homosexuality is natural and has genetic connections. It is also nothing new).
Don’t misunderstand the above though, because statistics wise, the decline of marriage can be blamed more on heterosexuals than homosexuals. One needs only to look at the figures on the number of broken homes of heterosexual couples to confirm this. If people want to go out there and protest homosexual marriage they should also be out there protesting pre-marital sex and infidelity among heterosexual couples as well. Because children are more likely to be involved with homosexual couples, from a scientific standpoint, this should be much more concerning.
Anyway, continuing on from the scientific viewpoint, most (perhaps all?) non religious historians believe that religion, morals, and marriage evolved from the biological urge to reproduce and to pass along one’s own genes. From an evolutionary standpoint, survival of the fittest or survival of an individual is only partially correct.
The real evolutionary “goal” is not necessarily survive as an individual, but to propagate one’s genes. Survival is only one strategy in accomplishing this. For example, in some species of spiders and praying mantises, the female actually eats the male while they are having sex. Moreover, the male makes no attempt to escape, and in fact with some species the male will actually tilt his head towards the female and invite her to eat him (Google this and search by video for some morbid, but fascinating watching)! Why is this? It is because the urge to propagate one’s genes is greater than the survival of an individual. Letting the female willingly eat the male has several advantages to the survival of the mentioned species. One, the females are typically larger in order to produce many eggs and the male’s body provides nourishment in order to produce more eggs. Two, letting the female much on your head or body while having sex distracts her and allows the male to have sex uninhibited and she is kept completely occupied during the love making session.
The above strategy works for some species such as praying mantises or some spiders because in comparison to their size, the territory of these creatures is huge and the chances of running into a female are fairly slim and the chance of running into a second female (even if the first one didn’t eat him) are even slimmer. So, the best change of propagating ones genes is to let the female eat you, for the reasons above, while having sex. Since the chances of running into a second female are very slim, it’s better for the survival of the species for the male to take advantage of the first encounter with a female and let her eat him. If not, the chances of running into a second female are slim and the rest of the male’s life is wasted because he didn’t pass on his genes.
Anyway, lucky for us human males, that’s not how the propagation of our genes has evolved to where it is now. With the human species, most males have more than a once in a lifetime chance of having sex and luckily for us as well, a female couldn’t consume enough of us in one sitting to insure the survival of offspring.
Our sexuality evolved differently. We are one of the very, very few species where the female hides her fertile times. Even a female human (without technological help) doesn’t know when she is always fertile. We are one of the very few species that will have sex just for fun. Even an advanced species such as a dog will not have sex when the female is not fertile. We are also the only species that goes through menopause. Why is this?
From an evolutionary standpoint, there are reasons for all three and they are all connected. Females (unintentionally) hide their fertility because it gives the species the best chances to propagate. But why? Doesn't this seem counter productive? Actually, it isn't. What if a female was only interested in sex during her fertile times? How likely would the male be stick close by at all times? Females that hide their fertility and instead are ready for sex at anytime have a better chance of having a male close by for a longer period. The more advanced the species, the more helpless the offspring is at birth. Most animals are ready to be out fending for themselves in a much shorter time period than for humans. A second parent, especially before modern societies and cities was almost essential for any offspring to survive. In human terms, to put it in layman’s terms, when the can have sex, daddy stays home. It is theorized that distant ancestors that didn’t hide their fertility cycles died off and only the females that hid their fertility cycles survived, and thus the genes did as well.
The second uniqueness of having sex just for fun is a very rare trait in the animal kingdom. Most species in the animal kingdom can’t afford to have sex for fun or even for long periods. Most animals are in danger when they are having sex because they are vulnerable and distracted. They can easily be preyed upon while distracted. Sex is a waste of valuable energy for most species. Energy wise, the production of sperm is costly. Sex takes time that could be devoted to finding food. For these reasons, sex serves no purposes in most species unless the female is fertile.
So, from a scientific standpoint, love, recreational sex, and the male female parental relationships where a male stays with a female in order to raise a child evolved (or was created if you prefer) in order to allow the most stable conditions to propagate genes and to raise a family. Sex evolved or was created to strengthen bonds between mates.
So, continuing on, why do human females go through menopause rather than remain fertile into an old age like almost all other species do? It is because from a propagation standpoint, and due to the fact that human children are so helpless for several years, it is better for grandparents of the human species to devote energy into assisting in raising offspring of younger and stronger individuals. For the human species, the benefit of doing this is greater than the benefit of reproducing in a weaker state.
Atheist historians believe that religion, marriage, and morals were evolved from the biological urge to reproduce and to pass along one’s own genes for the reasons above and we can see that the human species is very unique when it comes to sexual habits.
From the evolutionary standpoint, morals are still applicable because (although modern technology and customs may mean it less so) it is detrimental to the species that a male stays home in order to raise a children. Infidelity has always remained a scientific problem. On one hand, as an individual, a male has a biological urge to propagate his genes by numbers and to produce as many offspring as possible (just as some males have homosexual tendencies). On the other hand, from a species propagation and survival standpoint, the best environment to raise those offspring is to have the father to stick around and support the mother and children. Infidelity and chances for wandering lessens the chances that the male will be supportive of his mate and their offspring (as mentioned this is the primary reason that females are ready for sex during non-fertile periods). From a strictly evolutionary standpoint, it is believed the morals and marriage developed as a way to counterbalance the two for the survival of the species.
So yes, from a scientific standpoint there are arguments on why supporting traditional marriages and shunning infidelity is important. Using science, it can be proven that traditional marriage and fidelity is important to society. It can be proven scientifically that the human race should encourage traditional marriage.
No matter which angle you look at it, from either science, evolution, religion or even religion/evolution, the purpose of marriage from either an evolutionary, atheist, or religious standpoint is to provide the most stable environment for the raising of offspring. From a strictly scientific standpoint, marriage didn't evolve to be for any other purpose other than this. It wasn't for tax breaks, inheritance, etc., but developed for this sole purpose.
Anyway, there is a whole lot more to the above. This is just a very brief summary. Scientist/anthropologists have written volumes and volumes on the subject for those that want to delve further.
Also, science can’t answer questions as to what the government’s role is in all this. Science also can’t answer the question as to whether or not propagating the human race is even important. Science doesn’t try to answer the question such as “what is the purpose of life” other than to propagate a species. It can answer the question of what rights an individual has. All of those are questions that can’t be answered scientifically.
I try and stay away from most discussions, but since the question was asked if there were any non-religious arguments against it, I answered the question. If anyone knows of any errors, items needing more explaining, or knows a scientific reason for the development of gay marriage, please feel free to point out or discuss.
Scott... Are you missing the point that the reason for Gay marriage isn't about procreation but about the legal rights? That Gay people even if they are not married are not going to be procreating so it doesn't change anything if they are or are not married regarding the procreation argument. Did you also know that you don't have to be married to procreate? Did you also know that marriage in the US provides a legal contract between people giving them abilities that non married people don't get unless they create a multitude of legal contracts and even then some of them can not be done such as filing taxes as married... but you would know this since you are a lawyer right?
rockgremlin
01-10-2014, 06:16 AM
Scott...... but you would know this since you are a lawyer right?
Wrong Scott. Scott CARD is the lawyer, Scott P is an engineer I believe. That said, you're going to have to lighten up on Scott P cuz we engineers can be a little dense at times.
Anyways, this discussion has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX! This is all about extending basic human rights to all people...regardless of sexual orientation.
Why is that such a difficult concept for our society to grasp? Equal rights for all citizens. Wasn't that concept what our nation was founded upon?
Scott P
01-10-2014, 06:35 AM
Have your read the Prop 8 California Decision, Scott? I would think you have not, as the "studies about children" argument was pretty well shot out of the water and blown to itty bitty pieces.
Yes Tom, but that's not what I was referring to. Though I see a few of those studies with different conclusions, at this time I don't even think that there are even enough gay couples raising children to provide a meaningful study from an evolutionary standpoint.
I was speaking solely of studies concerning evolutionary differences between males and females, of which pages and pages can be written. There are scientific reasons why females and males are different (and I'm not speaking of just "private parts") and those differences evolved to provide the most stable conditions in which to raise offspring. I was speaking of studies on differences between sexes and their scientific reasons for existing and why each is advantageous. Every single difference has a verifiable scientific reason for existing.
For example, generally males are more aggressive than females. Generally males do better in analytical tests while females do better in verbal communication. Generally, females are more emotional. Overall, females even generally have better night vision while men generally have better far vision. From a scientific standpoint there are very specific reasons while these differences exist between males and females and each has to do with the survival and raising of offspring.
Of course these are all general statements and you can find many exceptions between individuals (all individuals are unique).
Since regardless of sex, a human can't spontaneously choose whether he or she would rather be more analytical or more verbal orientated (for example), overall the most stable conditions into raise offspring will always be from an intact male female relationship unless (choose any one of the following three depending on your beliefs) evolution, God, or both changes this. Whether you believe in evolution, God, both, or none of the above, I don't think it can be successfully argued that these differences don't serve a scientific purpose.
As said though, you can find exceptions. I'm sure you can go out there and find a certain male that is more verbal orientated than another female, but I'm speaking only of scientific generalities.
So yes, your "science" is tainted. Your arguments from an evolutionary viewpoint are just that - conjecture not based in science. Don't call it science, it is just bushido with a confirmation bias big fat thumb on the scale. (Bushido being a euphemism.)
Actually Tom, I intentionally used sources from people having nothing to do with religion. In fact those fundamentally religious will probably disagree with much of what has been said. If you want a list, it's easy to provide. There are plenty of books on the evolution of sexuality.
The final point was not whether or not a child today can be raised by a single parent, two dads, two moms, or whatever, but that from a scientific or anthropological viewpoint marriage evolved for the sole purpose of having and raising children. From a scientific standpoint, there never was any other purpose for marriage. It wasn't about equal rights, taxes, legal contracts, lawyers, or whatever. All of that had nothing to do with evolution.
If you disagree, what is the scientific reason for why marriage exists? What do you think the anthropological reason was and is? Since this (actually all evolution) is a subject I find fascinating, I'm always open to hearing other viewpoints and sources.
PS, I actually agree with you that in modern society that it is possible to raise a child outside a traditional marriage relationship. This hasn’t been anthropologically feasible though. Before modern societies, for children in single parent relationships, for example, the chances of offspring surviving was very low. Although anyone can say that this is just speculation, as no one alive has seen pre-history and nothing was recorded, but theories are based on “educated guesses” even if some speculation is involved.
It is my belief that (from a scientific angle) the reason why morals are changing is that it is easier for children to now survive outside what were prehistoric and historic traditional relationships. Offspring born to a single parent today has a very good chance of survival, but this was not true thousands (probably even millions) of years ago. Still, see the part about differences between males and females and research their scientific reasonings for existing. It could be argued that from a strictly survival standpoint, that they might not be quite as important in the present time as compared to the past, but scientifically they are still applicable.
Are you missing the point that the reason for Gay marriage isn't about procreation but about the legal rights?
No, legal rights and science are completely separate.
So, I ask you both from a scientific viewpoint only. Please use science only, rather than viewpoints, religion, and opinions. Why did marriage evolve and what was the scientific purpose?
Actually, notice that I said science can't answer questions about human rights, government roles, what the future of the human race should be, etc. I didn’t even cover any of that. In fact, from a scientific standpoint, heterosexual infidelity poses a bigger problem.
This is all about extending basic human rights to all people...regardless of sexual orientation.
Someone brought up atheism, so I presented some non-religious arguments for traditional marriage existing. If the question wasn't asked, I wouldn't have responded. I intentionally refrained from discussing politics, religion, and opinions. I also intentionally refrained from saying what and if anything should be done about it and what choices there should be.
Actually Tom, I intentionally used sources from people having nothing to do with religion. In fact those fundamentally religious will probably disagree with much of what has been said. If you want a list, it's easy to provide. There are plenty of books on the evolution of sexuality.
The final point is not whether or not a child today can be raised by a single parent, two dads, two moms, or whatever, but that from a scientific viewpoint marriage evolved for the sole purpose of having and raising children. From a scientific standpoint, there never was any other purpose for marriage. It wasn't about rights, taxes, legal contracts, lawyers, or whatever. All of that had nothing to do with evolution.
If you disagree, what is the scientific reason for why marriage exists? What do you think the anthropological reason was and is?
PS, I actually agree with you that in modern society that it is possible to raise a child outside a traditional marriage relationship. This hasn’t been anthropologically feasible though. Before modern societies, for children in single parent relationships, for example, the chances of offspring surviving was low. Although anyone can say that this is just speculation, as no one alive has seen pre-history or history beyond their lifetime, but theories are based on “educated guesses”.
It is my belief that (from a scientific angle) the reason why morals are changing is that it is easier for children to now survive outside what were prehistoric and historic traditional relationships. Off-spring born to a single parent today has a very good chance of survival, but this was not true thousands (or probably even millions) of years ago.
No, legal rights and science are completely separate.
So, I ask you both from a scientific viewpoint only. Why did marriage evolve and what was the scientific purpose? Use science only, rather than viewpoints, religion, and opinions.
Actually, notice that I said science can't answer questions about human rights, government roles, what the future of the human race should be, etc. I didn’t even cover any of that. In fact, from a scientific standpoint, heterosexual infidelity poses a bigger problem.
Too many Scott's.. sorry engineer Scott... The thing is this isn't a "Science" issue, I don't have an answer for why marriage evolved into a legal contract in the US (and other nations) and I don't see how it hinges on this issue. No matter how hard people want to turn this into a Science or religion issue or procreation issue its not. Its not about what created marriage or why we have morals or evolution. What this is about is a secular legal binding agreement that the State of Utah (and others) have withheld from another group of people based on non secular reasons stripping these people of their rights to equality under the law.
Scott P
01-10-2014, 07:01 AM
The thing is this isn't a "Science" issue
The "thing" you are speaking of isn't a science issue, but the quote below was:
I wonder if there are any atheist arguments against same sex marriage. Seems like all the arguments against SS marriage always have something to do with God in the end.
This is the sole question I was answering and everything said relates to the above question only and nothing else.
It was asked if there were any non-religious arguments, and I answered with affirmative and discussed some of them. If the question was asked if there were any scientific reasons in favor of gay marriage, assuming I knew them, I would have listed those too (and would invite others to do the same).
As to what my personal viewpoint on the subject was, I will not say, partially because it has changed over time and partially because I see hypocrisy among many heterosexuals. That's a whole different topic and one which I cared not to discuss in detail.
Sombeech
01-10-2014, 08:18 AM
I wonder if there are any atheist arguments against same sex marriage. Seems like all the arguments against SS marriage always have something to do with God in the end.
I wonder if there are any atheist arguments for same sex marriage that can take place without the atheist being the FIRST to bring religion into the discussion, this thread being a great example. Of all the people I personally know that complain about religion being pushed on them constantly, they are the first to bring it up in any random situation. Always, just like this thread. It didn't start out as a religious discussion. But some people just can't stop talking about religion, and those are the same people that say they don't want to hear it.
rockgremlin
01-10-2014, 09:16 AM
I wonder if there are any atheist arguments for same sex marriage that can take place without the atheist being the FIRST to bring religion into the discussion, this thread being a great example. Of all the people I personally know that complain about religion being pushed on them constantly, they are the first to bring it up in any random situation. Always, just like this thread. It didn't start out as a religious discussion. But some people just can't stop talking about religion, and those are the same people that say they don't want to hear it.
Because it is a civil issue that is being dictated by the tenets of the religion. It SHOULD be a strictly civil issue, but in reality it is heavily influenced by mainstream Christianity. If you can't see that you're pretty jaded. Hell, the ten commandments were engraved on the steps of numerous courthouses around America until the Supreme Court put a stop to that several years back. Do we still swear on Bibles in court? Do you swear to tell the truth or so help you God? Senate sessions to this day still open with prayer. Helllllo? Still think religion doesn't influence the laws of this land? How could it not?
reverse_dyno
01-10-2014, 09:17 AM
What this is about is a secular legal binding agreement that the State of Utah (and others) have withheld from another group of people based on non secular reasons stripping these people of their rights to equality under the law.
I brought the point regarding atheism and arguments against SS marriage up because I often see people on both sides talking past each other. For example, DOSS seems to say that SS marriage is solely a legal contractual issue, while also arguing that there are no non-secular reasons to not extend the ability for SS couples to enter into this contract. Scott P answered my request for secular reasons to deny marriage to SS couples, DOSS and others, rather than just saying Scott P is wrong, should argue why they believe he is wrong.
If Scott P
accadacca
01-10-2014, 09:25 AM
BREAKING: Attorney General Eric Holder says that the same sex marriages performed in Utah before the say will be recognized by the federal government. Same sex couples that were married in Utah before the stay can file federal taxes, but not state taxes, due to the hold on the recognition in Utah.
KSL 5 TV
rockgremlin
01-10-2014, 10:03 AM
...we should then allow polygamy as it was so common in pre-industrial societies before modern Christianity took over the world.
:thumb: Kody Brown likes this post.
rockgremlin
01-10-2014, 10:08 AM
BREAKING: Attorney General Eric Holder says that the same sex marriages performed in Utah before the say will be recognized by the federal government. Same sex couples that were married in Utah before the stay can file federal taxes, but not state taxes, due to the hold on the recognition in Utah.
KSL 5 TV
UH OH!! Time to start fasting again!!
ratagonia
01-10-2014, 10:21 AM
BREAKING: Attorney General Eric Holder says that the same sex marriages performed in Utah before the say will be recognized by the federal government. Same sex couples that were married in Utah before the stay can file federal taxes, but not state taxes, due to the hold on the recognition in Utah.
KSL 5 TV
Same sex couples married in Utah should also file their Utah state taxes as married, then sue the state if they reject it.
While the Utah Governator sets policy for the executive branch, he has a very limited role in determining what the LAW says. That is up to the courts.
He is, however, really good at spending our state tax dollars to improve his political stature with the conservative voters.
Tom
I brought the point regarding atheism and arguments against SS marriage up because I often see people on both sides talking past each other. For example, DOSS seems to say that SS marriage is solely a legal contractual issue, while also arguing that there are no non-secular reasons to not extend the ability for SS couples to enter into this contract. Scott P answered my request for secular reasons to deny marriage to SS couples, DOSS and others, rather than just saying Scott P is wrong, should argue why they believe he is wrong.
If Scott P’s argues regarding evolution and marriage are correct, he has provided a secular basis for encouraging traditional marriage. Many states and countries do something similar with divorce by forcing a married couple to wait a period of time before they may dissolve their marriage. The theory being that by increasing the cost of divorce, more people will stay married, which benefits society by providing more stability for the couple’s children, which is debatable.
Everyone should also remember that sociology is a very messy science, and many hard scientists do not believe it is a science at all. For example, in a society with a large stigma against gays, children of gays will not do as well as children from traditional couples simply because people will actively discriminate against children from gay couples. There would be no easy way to separate bad parenting by the gay couple from active discrimination by society. Such discrimination would assuredly differ depending on city size and dominate political affiliation. I can easily imagine that being a child of a gay couple in Hurricane, Utah may be at a disadvantage compared to one that grows up in Seattle, Washington. If there was no difference between the success of children from gay or traditional couples, which seems to be the case, then we would know that there is no reason to use child welfare as a reason to deny SS marriages.
One issue with using evolution and cross-cultural studies to argue for not allowing SS marriage is that many pre-industrial societies allowed polygamy. If we use the argument that we humans have evolved to be in heterosexual relationships and therefore we should disallow SS marriage, we should then allow polygamy as it was so common in pre-industrial societies before modern Christianity took over the world.
I will argue that Atheism is Secular.. Science is also a religion for many people.. I am saying this should be looked at from a strictly legal standpoint.
Waiting periods for the dissolution of marriage have been implemented due to a non secular pressures.
ratagonia
01-10-2014, 10:24 AM
One issue with using evolution and cross-cultural studies to argue for not allowing SS marriage is that many pre-industrial societies allowed polygamy. If we use the argument that we humans have evolved to be in heterosexual relationships and therefore we should disallow SS marriage, we should then allow polygamy as it was so common in pre-industrial societies before modern Christianity took over the world.
Why is this a problem?
When it comes right down to it, no one on either side wants a good polygamy case to wind its way through the courts, for the obvious reason that the First Amendment protects firmly-held religious activity (between consenting adults) and the Supremes would have to work really hard to maintain a ban on polygamy. Not that the Supremes aren't up to the task.
Tom
Sombeech
01-10-2014, 11:25 AM
Because it is a civil issue that is being dictated by the tenets of the religion. It SHOULD be a strictly civil issue, but in reality it is heavily influenced by mainstream Christianity. If you can't see that you're pretty jaded.
Want to know what I can see? Atheists being the first to bring religion into the discussion. Period.
Your claim means that you have to be religious to oppose Gay Marriage. This is not true. I'm sorry but if you cannot get past this religious thing, you might be the jaded one. There are people who do not consider themselves to be religious, but still oppose Gay Marriage. The REAL factor is political preference, how you think the government should be involved with personal lives and inside the bedroom.
It's not religion, it's how you think the government should be involved.
It's not religion
It's not religion
It's not religion
It's political opinion.
If it's religion, I would have used religious teachings as a reference but you will find I haven't done it once. You cannot accuse me of using religion as a talking point. Somebody in this thread has a hard time dropping religion from the conversation and it's not me.
For those of you who hate talking about God but cannot control yourselves enough to leave religion out of the discussion, it means your political reasoning holds no water.
rockgremlin
01-10-2014, 12:06 PM
K
I'll drop my stance and pretend the prominent local religion doesn't sway politics here in Utah. :roll:
Hey, these rose colored glasses are pretty cool!
ratagonia
01-10-2014, 12:25 PM
K
I'll drop my stance and pretend the prominent local religion doesn't sway politics here in Utah. :roll:
Hey, these rose colored glasses are pretty cool!
what, you moved to Orem?
T
Sombeech
01-10-2014, 12:35 PM
I'll drop my stance and pretend the prominent local religion doesn't sway politics here in Utah. :roll:
I'm going to need you to explain why I haven't used a single religious reference to oppose Gay Marriage.
I'm going to need you to explain why I haven't used a single religious reference to oppose Gay Marriage.
If you would be so kind to explain it yourself (also how your beliefs are not in response to your religion).. it would be the first time you actually explained yourself even when asked and would be a refreshing change... Please proceed
Sombeech
01-10-2014, 12:43 PM
If you would be so kind.. it would be the first time you actually explained yourself even when asked and would be a refreshing change... Please proceed
And from you, I'll need a sentence that makes sense.
And from you, I'll need a sentence that makes sense.
Read again I hit enter too quick
Sombeech
01-10-2014, 12:54 PM
If you would be so kind to explain it yourself (also how your beliefs are not in response to your religion)..
I understand it's an unfair advantage for you, saying I only think a certain way because my religion has told me to, but then you realize your argument is invalid because I don't use religion as a reference.
So when somebody disagrees with you and it has nothing to do with God, it must be so frustrating that you, despising religious discussion, are forced to introduce religion into the discussion.
I'm sorry but you're going to have to think outside of the box on this one. I'm actually doing you a favor trying to get away from religious discussion, you know, so I'm not ramming it down your throat?
I understand it's an unfair advantage for you, saying I only think a certain way because my religion has told me to, but then you realize your argument is invalid because I don't use religion as a reference.
So when somebody disagrees with you and it has nothing to do with God, it must be so frustrating that you, despising religious discussion, are forced to introduce religion into the discussion.
I'm sorry but you're going to have to think outside of the box on this one. I'm actually doing you a favor trying to get away from religious discussion, you know, so I'm not ramming it down your throat?
I am trying to point out to you that even without stating "religion" you sound like you are spouting the same crap that we hear from the religious majority so I am trying to give you the opportunity to actually explain how your statements that sound the same are not biased due to your religion. Also if you think that the states and nations religious majorities do not have an impact on why homosexuals have been stripped of rights they should not have you may wish to do some more research.
Also I will ask you directly again.... How should the courts have made this decision that you feel should have been handled differently been handled differently.. some specifics please.
Sombeech
01-10-2014, 01:09 PM
Sure, right after you explain how my religion dictates my decisions, but that I haven't made a single religious reference.
You're making a direct claim against me that is bogus. Don't stereotype a group of whomever, I don't care about them.
Right after you defend your claim against me personally, I'll go ahead and share my political opinions.
And go.
Iceaxe
01-10-2014, 01:12 PM
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/7f/7f8d065f0828ddc4f2bb3b40e21e5097bdeba25320e52feffc 95f87e2e956d86.jpg
Sure, right after you explain how my religion dictates my decisions, but that I haven't made a single religious reference.
You're making a direct claim against me that is bogus. Don't stereotype a group of whomever, I don't care about them.
Right after you defend your claim against me personally, I'll go ahead and share my political opinions.
And go.
I think when I said "you sound like you are spouting" that would infer that the words and reasoning you have used to date are the same as the religious groups and I just want to understand better.. since you can't seem to grasp this lets move on... to a strictly legal issue:
How should the courts have made this decision that you feel should have been handled differently been handled differently.. some specifics please.
I know I have asked that before and it has no religious reference at all so I am sure that you will be able to answer it without worry that your belief system could have any impact on your answer. I would just like to know how you would change the legal process to make this so much better as you have said should be done.
Sombeech
01-10-2014, 01:23 PM
uh oh, he's yelling now.
71487
Still haven't answered the question after being asked how many times now... and I didn't start a religious discussion.. the basis of homosexuals in the US being restricted from their rights is one that is inherently filled with religious connotation due to the religious majority in the country putting laws into effect that stripped them of their rights... this is a discussion about homosexual rights in the US so there is going to be some aspect of religion.. but ignoring the religion aspect... Please answer how the courts were to do a better job about this ruling.
FYI, Larger font does not indicate yelling.. CAPS LOCK indicates yelling.
rockgremlin
01-10-2014, 02:19 PM
what, you moved to Orem?
T
Too funny. :roflol:
Beech - the current gay discrimination laws in place in this country are there as a result of the Christian majority, who for hundreds of years have preached that homosexuality is a grave sin. Why else would homosexuality be treated with such disdain and disrespect? I'm not attacking you personally, I'm just making the assertion that the status quo is there because of religious laws set in place years ago...and I am also making the claim that the status quo is f***ed, and needs to be overturned.
Sombeech
01-10-2014, 02:30 PM
Oh no doubt this is a country founded on Christian values, but if there are any atheists who oppose gay marriage, that talking point loses validity.
Unless of course that would mean they aren't true atheists, and then a debate ensues in who should kill themselves.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
Oh no doubt this is a country founded on Christian values, but if there are any atheists who oppose gay marriage, that talking point loses validity.
Unless of course that would mean they aren't true atheists, and then a debate ensues in who should kill themselves.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
any chance you will ever answer the question posed to you?
Sombeech
01-10-2014, 02:40 PM
any chance you will ever answer the question posed to you?
Yes
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
Yes
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
when?
Sombeech
01-10-2014, 02:48 PM
But let me tell you what there's absolutely no chance of... You explaining how I'm not using religion to make my points while you insist that my bishop is telling me what to say.
I'll answer how i think the process could have gone better, but you will only debate that rather than answer my points. So I'm thinking I'll be wasting my time.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
Sombeech
01-10-2014, 03:01 PM
Tell you what, lets see how open you are to accepting other points of view and new information on the political processes besides what you hear from your favored media outlets.
There's something that could have been done that would have helped this process go better and even might have let it stick.
You're the one who took that awesome civics class, so I'll let you do the research and I'll recall my request for an answer, even though we all know why nobody can answer it.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
rockgremlin
01-10-2014, 03:09 PM
Oh no doubt this is a country founded on Christian values, but if there are any atheists who oppose gay marriage, that talking point loses validity.
Unless of course that would mean they aren't true atheists, and then a debate ensues in who should kill themselves.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
I don't give two $hits what Atheists think about this topic....they don't write the rules.
Tell you what, lets see how open you are to accepting other points of view and new information on the political processes besides what you hear from your favored media outlets.
There's something that could have been done that would have helped this process go better and even might have let it stick.
You're the one who took that awesome civics class, so I'll let you do the research and I'll recall my request for an answer, even though we all know why nobody can answer it.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
And you still can't or won't answer the question... Not a surprise as you seem to only spew the party line and have none of your own reasoning... Sigh. I am sorry that you can't seem to see this I wish you well in the wearing of your blinders
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Sombeech
01-10-2014, 03:31 PM
The rules wouldn't dictate what they believe or how they vote. Think there are any atheists in California that voted for prop 8?
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
Sombeech
01-10-2014, 03:34 PM
And you still can't or won't answer the question... Not a surprise as you seem to only spew the party line and have none of your own reasoning... Sigh. I am sorry that you can't seem to see this I wish you well in the wearing of your blinders
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Man that civics class must have sucked if you can't see what would have worked
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
rockgremlin
01-10-2014, 03:41 PM
The rules wouldn't dictate what they believe or how they vote. Think there are any atheists in California that voted for prop 8?
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
Man that atheist card has more mileage than Jenna Jameson...
Sombeech
01-10-2014, 03:44 PM
Man that atheist card has more mileage than Jenna Jameson...
I know! It's amazing how the atheist points can't be accounted for! Not even by atheists! I'm starting to think atheism isn't a true religion.
Wait wait, i just realized something. I'm expected to explain why other Mormons believe a certain way, even though I'm not referencing them at all. But but not atheists, they are exempt from explaining their friends who vote differently.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
ratagonia
01-10-2014, 04:44 PM
Oh no doubt this is a country founded on Christian values, ...
The Deists who founded this country would not be recognized as Christians by the current crop of denominationalists.
Besides which, I have no idea what you mean by "Christian values". That's just a wink wink nudge nudge code phrase for a set of values that are decidedly un-Christian.
:moses:
Sombeech
01-10-2014, 05:00 PM
The Deists who founded this country would not be recognized as Christians by the current crop of denominationalists.
To be correct, i didn't say the men were Christian, i said Christian values.
John Adams:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
And i have no idea what religion he was, nor do i care. It's more important what he helped set in place.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
deagol
01-10-2014, 06:15 PM
.... I'm starting to think atheism isn't a true religion.....
and you would be correct, it's not even a fake one :moses:
Bootboy
01-11-2014, 12:57 AM
While the Utah Governator sets policy for the executive branch, he has a very limited role in determining what the LAW says. That is up to the courts.
He is, however, really good at spending our state tax dollars to improve his political stature with the conservative voters.
Tom
I'm sort of going to join the fray here...
Substitute the following words:
"Utah governor" with "our president"
"State" with "federal"
"conservative" with "liberal"
And then you're making two valid points at the same time!
accadacca
01-11-2014, 11:43 AM
Let It Stand Rally at the Utah Capitol
https://fbcdn-photos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/1511199_10151968008309160_994113015_n.jpg?dl=1
hank moon
01-11-2014, 02:30 PM
This popped up when trying to access Bogley General Discussion from a hotel computer in Atlanta, Ga
71494
accadacca
01-11-2014, 04:08 PM
This popped up when trying to access Bogley General Discussion from a hotel computer in Atlanta, Ga
71494
Do they disagree with gay marriage? :lol8:
Iceaxe
10-06-2014, 06:34 PM
Gay marriage is now legal in the US and I don't see that ever changing... my two cents is it's about frickin' time...
Tap'n on my smart phone.
double moo
10-06-2014, 09:58 PM
Gay marriage is now legal in the US and I don't see that ever changing... my two cents is it's about frickin' time...
Tap'n on my smart phone.
I'm sure we are not done wasting tax payer money to mess with this... Could put the money to much better use. Embrace the inevetable, and extend a hearty congratulations to those who are finally gaining ground on equality.
I haven't really been around Bogley as much as I used to be; I totally missed this thread. Hilarious. Really laugh-out-loud funny stuff here.
Also, this guy announced his new master-plan yet?
76485
Sombeech
10-09-2014, 11:03 PM
Until next time....
Iceaxe
10-18-2014, 03:06 PM
This is just too funny.... it reminds me of how many in Utah think...
Grandma Tries To Understand How Granddaughters Gay Relationship Works
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5VXkfiiNbc
Scott P
10-19-2014, 07:18 PM
In a way it's somewhat interesting (?), but why would anyone film herself trying to explain it to her grandmother and then put it on youtube? Just for attention? To prove her grandmother is intolerant? Entertainment value?
rockgremlin
10-20-2014, 10:03 AM
In a way it's somewhat interesting (?), but why would anyone film herself trying to explain it to her grandmother and then put it on youtube? Just for attention? To prove her grandmother is intolerant? Entertainment value?
Entertainment value...That granny's an internet sensation! Let's get her a section on the Tosh.0 show, right next to "porch time with Memaw"
Scott P
10-20-2014, 10:56 AM
I've never been a lesbian, and don't mean to be inappropriate, but isn't the grandmother actually accurate about what many sexual active lesbians do? :ne_nau:
Sombeech
10-20-2014, 11:29 AM
Since that youtube video is blocked for me, probably from the keyword "sex" somewhere in there, I assume the granny is asking questions about lesbianism.
Would somebody care to narrate for me some of the intolerant - but incorrect things she's saying?
Scott P
10-20-2014, 11:57 AM
Would somebody care to narrate for me some of the intolerant - but incorrect things she's saying?
Basically, the girl was telling her grandmother that she has an intimate relationship (it implied that it is sexual) with a woman whom she is sleeping with and the grandmother was asking her if they kiss each other's "holes". The girl was denying it (saying that "when we're in bed, we don't touch anything"), but wouldn't say what she did while in bed and was also telling the grandmother that she will marry the girl. At least that's what I got out of it.
Sombeech
10-20-2014, 12:01 PM
OK, i finally watched the video of the Grandmother being taunted by her Lesbian granddaughter, saying "I don't want to talk about it Grandma" but let me set up this video to record our continuing conversation hoping to catch some real zingers, and then I'll show my maturity and tolerance of my uneducated bigoted grandmother by uploading this video for the world to see what a stupid idiot my grandmother is.
Unfortunately for the granddaughter, and to her unheard disappointment, the grandmother didn't say anything incorrect.
If I was still a young buck and I set up a video to record my dear beloved grandmother while I explained to her "I do more than kiss my girlfriend on the mouth but I don't want to talk about it" and then continued to hang out and egg the conversation on, I'd be nothing but a disrespectful asshole.
And the grandmother is the rude one??? Yeah, Utah definitely has problems. Good hell if you don't want the "hate" conversation to continue, walk away from the granite countertop that Grandma is sitting at rather than set up a damned video.
rockgremlin
10-20-2014, 03:37 PM
I've never been a lesbian... LOL. Me neither, but I'd be willing to give it a try.
...isn't the grandmother actually accurate about what many sexually active lesbians do? :ne_nau:
Yes, I have heard that too, but I doubt this forum would be a very reliable source for that kind of info. Kinda curious myself...
Iceaxe
10-20-2014, 06:53 PM
I just found out I'm a lesbian....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vm2jPM4ee8
Sombeech
01-21-2015, 06:39 AM
Lonesome Alito Declares Marriage Only Between A Man And The Sea
http://o.onionstatic.com/images/28/28429/16x9/700.jpg?1939
[COLOR=#1A1A1A][FONT=Helvetica]WASHINGTON
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.