US Supreme Court to Hear Case on Same-Sex Marriage

[Slybak]

More to the point, I think is that it doesn't matter if it's genetic, innate, developed via culture, or an outright choice. That argument's interesting, but it's nothing but a distraction when it comes to legal rights. Even if every single gay person actively chose to be gay (this is obviously not the case), there would still be no valid legal basis for denying them equal protection of the law.

It matters slightly as to whether or not homosexuals qualify as a suspect class or not (a suspect class is a discrete minority that has faced legal discrimination in the past based upon their possession an immutable and/or highly visible characteristic that does not impede their ability to contribute to society), which impacts the process through which laws that discriminate against that class are reviewed by the courts.

If they are a suspect class, laws that discriminate against them in any way are presumed invalid unless the government proves that the law advances some compelling governmental interest and does so in a manner that is the least restrictive possible on the rights of members of that class. This is called strict scrutiny, and laws generally do not survive a strict scrutiny review. If they are not a suspect class, then the law is presumed valid unless the plaintiff in the case proves that it advances no rational government interest, other wise known as rational basis review.

It doesn't matter much because discriminatory laws against homosexuals haven't survived rational basis review, because discrimination for the purpose of discrimination is not a rational government interest. In the Prop 8 trial, all the plaintiffs had to do was point to the precedent in Romer that said discrimination against homosexuals for its own sake was not a rational government interest, and the side that wished to uphold the law was forced to twist itself into knots finding some rationale other than outright discrimination for the law. They couldn't do it.

But strict scrutiny would likely have a chilling effect on such laws appearing on the books in the future and the enforcement of existing discriminatory laws, so it's better for those who have been historically discriminated against. It brings a more definite finality to the issue. Unlike, for example, laws that discriminate based on gender, a category not subject to strict scrutiny, that are still somewhat nebulously constitutional.

The issue has been that the courts do not want to touch the issue of whether not not homosexuality is an immutable characteristic.

[TheImmortalLordAtlas]

Which religion is that? Characters in the Old Testament were married, and that is the book that all of the Abrahamic religions were created out of.

Don't forget the religions in all the other religions that aren't Abrahamic in nature.

[Vargarii]

Yeah, no. You're just expressing a complete confusion as to what the Trinity entails. The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost aren't one and the same. If they were, you'd just call them God, and Jesus' sacrifice would be meaningless, because it would be like God clipping a toenail.

Jesus has nothing whatsoever to do with divine inspiration, particularly those bits that came before Him. You can't conflate the two unless you don't understand what the Trinity means, and seriously, if you're Christian, that's basic Sunday School stuff.


Plus, there's the issue of Literalism. Literalism is the idea that every word in the bible is literally true. Most Christians recognize this as ludicrous. The Bible is widely recognized to be infallible by Christians, but that isn't even close to the same thing; the doctine of infallibility is perfectly comfortable with passages having a metaphorical or historical value, but not being applicable to modern life in any moral or ethical way. Literalism is the idea that making fun of a bald guy literally made God send bears to devour children. Infallibility sees that this passage is just an exaggerated way of saying "respect your elders". There's a reason literalism is widely considered heretical; because it just flat-out doesn't work. There are obvious contradictions. Some may just be typos (they were printed earlier), but according to Literalist philosophy there is no such thing; Solomon had both forty thousand horse stalls and four thousand, at the same time.

I udnerstood this when replying to him, but I only did it because of the way he presents his arguments. If he pieced them together similar to yours, I'd probably have responded differently.

[darkwarrior42]

Marriage is a religious sacrament........not a legal right. You want a legal right to be together have a civil union.

Then I presume that since separation of church and state is officially recognized, and you list your location as being in the US, you believe that religious marriages should not have any official recognition or benefits in the eyes of the government, and that to obtain legal benefits in addition to religious recognition you should have to go through both a civil union and a religious ceremony. I also presume you want any and all reference to marriage in the law to be removed and replaced with civil union.

If marriage is a religious sacrament, then the government has no place making laws for OR against it. It should be left up to individual religious how they handle it, and those decisions will have absolutely no bearing on civil unions. Since everyone will then be able to get civil unions (for federal/legal benefits) and religious ceremonies (if desired, based on the religious beliefs of the couple in question), it will be perfectly equal.

[rayden54]

I think the government needs to stop calling ANY SINGLE UNION OF TWO PEOPLE marriage. How many problems would be solved if the word "marriage" was eliminated from government laws? Then, there is a true separation of church and state. Churches can call the joining of two people together marriage, but the state will only recognize it as a legalized, joint-union.

I'm with you there.

[nnelson54]

Don't forget the religions in all the other religions that aren't Abrahamic in nature.

Yes, but most of the people in this thread are speaking from the position of the Abrahamic religions. They feel that marriage is their sacrament.

[chadwix]

Mice share about 97.5% of the same DNA as humans and are often used as studies because their genes are less complex while being nearly identical.

I get the feeling you, shockingly, don't understand much about genetics.

I have a feeling your going to dislocated your shoulder reaching this hard. It has been studied extensively in humans for over 20 years. They are yet to find it. Not saying it isnt there, they have found schizophrenia traits but nothing sexually orientated.

I just found it funny that their checkmate card had nothing to do with studies conducted on real people.

"They feel that marriage is their sacrament. "

Lucky for us your here to force your views on us. Your right, were wrong, thats the only way to debate with intolerant people.

[Endus]

Aversion therapy is actually extremely psychologically harmful to gays, as "cured" gays have an unsettlingly high suicide rate.

Oh, I know, I wasn't getting all pro-aversion-therapy. It's a heinous and damaging process that nobody should ever be forced to undergo; it's essentially torture.

I was just trying to point out that while there ARE some cases where people volunteer for it, it's typically only for behaviours that carry greater risks to them than the aversion therapy itself. And being gay isn't a risk that would make it acceptable.

Marriage is a religious sacrament........not a legal right. You want a legal right to be together have a civil union.

As others have pointed out, this is entirely incorrect. Marriage has traditionally been a legal principle. It only became a sacrament in the Christian Church in the Middle Ages; we don't have the exact date but the earliest references are around 1200 B.C.E. And then during the Reformation, this was challenged, and many Protestant faiths still do not recognize it as such.

It isn't universally a sacrament even among Christians, and even among those for whom it's been a sacrament the longest, for more than half of Christianity's existence it simply was not considered to be one.

Marriage is a legal principle. Religion has adopted it, for various reasons, but it was originally, and still remains, a legal concept, not a fundamentally religious one.

[Slybak]

Marriage is a religious sacrament........not a legal right.

WRONG.

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

[Vargarii]

Yes, but most of the people in this thread are speaking from the position of the Abrahamic religions. They feel that marriage is their sacrament.

It's also pretty much impossible to convince them that they are wrong, they tend to ignore any information given regarding marriage that pre-dates their own.

[Endus]

Yes, but most of the people in this thread are speaking from the position of the Abrahamic religions. They feel that marriage is their sacrament.

Again, if you're a member of an Abrahamic faith and feel that marriage has always been a sacrament, then the issue is that you do not understand the history of your own Church, because these aren't even debated issues; marriage was absolutely not a "sacrament" prior to around 1200 B.C.E., and the word has no meaning to either Jewish or Muslim believers.

[Thage]

I have a feeling your going to dislocated your shoulder reaching this hard. It has been studied extensively in humans for over 20 years. They are yet to find it. Not saying it isnt there, they have found schizophrenia traits but nothing sexually orientated.

I just found it funny that their checkmate card had nothing to do with studies conducted on real people.

Google magic:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-into-men.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-12-04/t...ase?_s=PM:TECH
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/O...he-2748350.php
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0709074239.htm

In short, experimenting on mice is easier, and can be almost effortlessly extrapolated to predict the results and begin testing on humans after finding the correlating genes because we share more than 95% of our DNA between one another, with mouse DNA being simpler and thus easier to test on.

Science 1, Chadwix nil.

[nnelson54]

"They feel that marriage is their sacrament. "

Lucky for us your here to force your views on us. Your right, were wrong, thats the only way to debate with intolerant people.

I'm a straight white atheist man who fully supports a homosexual's right to be married, a woman's right to vote, a black man's right to not be property and your right to believe in God.

How am I being intolerant?

[StickYou]

WHOA backlash. Let me just clear something up.....I'm all for same sex couples having every legal right opposite sex couples have. Your sexual orientation shouldn't mean a dang thing. I just feel the act of 'marriage' is a religious ceremony, and if you don't follow the rules of that ceremony then it can't happen. It's like saying 'I want to be baptisted a certain religion.......but I'm not gonna believe in the god of set religion.' If you don't follow the rules it can't happen. BUT AGAIN.....all people should be equal in the eyes of the law..........and law and religions don't mix.

[chadwix]

Google magic:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-into-men.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-12-04/t...ase?_s=PM:TECH
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/O...he-2748350.php
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0709074239.htm

In short, experimenting on mice is easier, and can be almost effortlessly extrapolated to predict the results and begin testing on humans after finding the correlating genes because we share more than 95% of our DNA between one another, with mouse DNA being simpler and thus easier to test on.

Science 1, Chadwix nil.

Your ignoring the fact it has been studied in humans longer than mice. Grats on making a mouse homosexual in a controlled environment, lmao mice.

[Vargarii]

WHOA backlash. Let me just clear something up.....I'm all for same sex couples having every legal right opposite sex couples have. Your sexual orientation shouldn't mean a dang thing. I just feel the act of 'marriage' is a religious ceremony, and if you don't follow the rules of that ceremony then it can't happen. It's like saying 'I want to be baptisted a certain religion.......but I'm not gonna believe in the god of set religion.' If you don't follow the rules it can't happen. BUT AGAIN.....all people should be equal in the eyes of the law..........and law and religions don't mix.

It's just that it isn't. If you refer to the information Endus gave, it paints the best picture of all the arguments about it.

---------- Post added 2012-12-08 at 09:40 PM ----------

Your ignoring the fact it has been studied in humans longer than mice. Grats on making a mouse homosexual in a controlled environment, lmao mice.

How does the amount of time correlate with the ability to link information between mice and humans?

[Puck]

"They feel that marriage is their sacrament. "

Lucky for us your here to force your views on us. Your right, were wrong, thats the only way to debate with intolerant people.

No, we are here to force Your views off of us.

And you are wrong, I am happy you are starting to see it.

[Themius]

WHOA backlash. Let me just clear something up.....I'm all for same sex couples having every legal right opposite sex couples have. Your sexual orientation shouldn't mean a dang thing. I just feel the act of 'marriage' is a religious ceremony, and if you don't follow the rules of that ceremony then it can't happen. It's like saying 'I want to be baptisted a certain religion.......but I'm not gonna believe in the god of set religion.' If you don't follow the rules it can't happen. BUT AGAIN.....all people should be equal in the eyes of the law..........and law and religions don't mix.

Because you FEEL it's a religious thing even though its not??? You go and get LEGAL papers for marriage. After that most people have a religious ceremony. However you don't nee that to be married.

[Endus]

I just feel the act of 'marriage' is a religious ceremony, and if you don't follow the rules of that ceremony then it can't happen.

And you are absolutely, 100% wrong.

Marriage started as a legal concept. It has remained a legal concept. You can get married with no religious affiliation at all. If you think "marriage" is a religious ceremony, then you would also necessarily have to think that atheists can't get married either.

Obviously, that's not true, and nobody sane ever suggests that. Because deep down, they KNOW it's not religious at heart. It's legal. The opposition to gay marriage is not about religion, it's about using religion to deny others equal treatment under the law, due to a religious bias against them.


The only "ceremony" required is that both of you sign the paperwork, and tell the justice of the peace or otherwise approved representative of the government that you both freely consent. Everything else is drapery and frills that have no binding relevance to the marriage agreement.

As another for-instance, if two people get married, and then one of them says "I now denounce my faith and refuse to believe in God", the Church can't negate or anull the marriage just because they lied about their faith. It doesn't matter if they get married and then he declares, after the paperwork is signed, that he's a Satanist and will glory in the coming desecration, and proceed to consummate his marriage on the altar in front of all, while slaughtering a goat to the Great Satan.

The churchgoers would be horrified and he'd probably be excommunicated and banned, but the marriage stays binding and there is fuck all the church can do about it.

[Chrysia]

Your ignoring the fact it has been studied in humans longer than mice. Grats on making a mouse homosexual in a controlled environment, lmao mice.

You're ignoring the fact that the human genome is considerably more complex, and thus always takes longer to identify and correlate genes in than in other animals.