Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage

[Celever]

I am glad that they have finally made a decision about this, one way or another.

Being a churchgoer from Kansas, I am certainly not in favor of homosexuality, but I hope now that everyone is happy or is at least relatively happy, we can shift our focus as a nation to more urgent matters. I am not saying that this matter was unimportant, as everyone should have the right to be happy, but I feel like some of this debate about the legalization of gay marriage was blown out of proportion. It is a waste of time to stand around yelling at each other about whether ancient doctrines or modernists are correct. We should have decided on this a long time ago.

I, personally, am one of those Christians who tries to accept different people, rather than shun them or try to make them sound "evil". And while I fail to understand the reasoning behind why one needs to be "gay", I am happy that they are happy, and I hope we can all move on and find solutions to some of the bigger problems that the United States is currently facing.

I'd feel bad if I didn't say this:
People are gay for the exact same reason that people are straight, whether that be through biology or through environment. Being gay is not a conscious decision which people make (though sometimes being straight is because the homosexuals don't want to be different). From your comment about not understanding why one needs to be gay I didn't think you understood this, so I thought I'd clear it up a little bit.

 

[Ice Espeon]

America is a country that often likes to perceive itself as a leader on the world stage, and I'm sure that legalising gay marriage will give America a lot of respect in the rest of the world and rightly so. If you intend to lead, you must be willing to make bold statements that not everyone will agree with, and this is one of them. If the Supreme Court had gone the other way on this decision, America would be seen as a backward country certainly in Europe, not willing to move on into a more accepting age when people that are different are not shunned from society for being different.

The word 'freedom' seems to be used a lot in America whenever a big decision is made (such as "I need guns to maintain my freedom!" or "it's my religious freedom to be disgusted by and reject those evil homosexuals!" or "it's my freedom of free speech to say 'I hate the Muslamics'!") but what makes an individual's "freedom" greater than someone else's? Why should your "freedom" be allowed to restrict another's "freedom"?

Gay marriage does not encroach on the "freedom" of those who would insist that being gay is immoral or that being gay is a choice, whereas gay marriage being outlawed does restrict the "freedom" of people to express their love openly without fear of being called immoral or evil. Gay people don't go around telling Christians that they are evil or immoral so why should it be acceptable for the reverse to be true?

The argument that homosexuality is wrong "because the bible says so" is ignorant of the atrocities that the bible condones, such as:

"Whosoever … hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookback, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken … He shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries. Leviticus 21:17-23 KJV"

or

"You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT"

Now, unless you are willing to argue that disabled people are not worthy of God, or that slavery is a good thing, then I don't think it's wise to try to argue that gay people are evil because the bible says they are.

 

[Teal]

I hope I'm not the only one who doesn't even understand wtf @Otaku is writing.

 

[Gruffling]

I hope I'm not the only one who doesn't even understand wtf @Otaku is writing.

While I question his position and his motives (obviously things can sound very different as written text than they would do if said verbally) he has the right to his opinion and shouldn't be accosted for it. Some of the things he's said do seem a little uninformed but I wouldn't say he's acted hostile or anything so live and let live.

 

[Teal]

While I question his position and his motives (obviously things can sound very different as written text than they would do if said verbally) he has the right to his opinion and shouldn't be accosted for it. Some of the things he's said do seem a little uninformed but I wouldn't say he's acted hostile or anything so live and let live.

I said I don't even understand what he is writing.

 

[Gruffling]

I said I don't even understand what he is writing.

See case in point as to how things are different in text. The use of wtf made it seem harsher.

 

[TheStrictNein]

I hope I'm not the only one who doesn't even understand wtf @Otaku is writing.

There are many ways to skirt around an issue.

Words are a very good way of doing so. Obfuscate your opinion into a million words.

In any case, couldn't be happier for the Gay members of this world. If Marriage was ONLY a thing of love or religion then I could see a side to the argument it's infringing on people's religious rights. However, when you start protecting people legally and start putting restrictions on things based on marital status then it's a Human Right. For example, being able to share your Health Insurance with someone you are married to. Gay people could not share their life saving Insurance with their partner of decades because the courts wouldn't recognize their bond. No longer.

 

[Professor Palutena]

I, personally, am one of those Christians who tries to accept different people, rather than shun them or try to make them sound "evil". And while I fail to understand the reasoning behind why one needs to be "gay", I am happy that they are happy, and I hope we can all move on and find solutions to some of the bigger problems that the United States is currently facing.

This is my stance on this issue as well.

According to Matthew 22, the greatest two commands from God are that one is to Love the Lord and to Love Others. No one is an exception to the Love Others command, including LGBTQ members. If Christians feel it's necessary to hate homosexuals (and I've seen a lot of the stuff people from my church have said, and it makes me cringe), I think it's important for them to realize that, according to the Bible, God loves homosexuals despite breaking one of his commands (as per Romans 5:8-9, God loves sinners). Christianity is complicated (which happens when the Bible has over 70 authors and isn't written in chronological order), and I think this is why there's so many different interpretations of what it says. Having so many authors essentially means the Bible ends up contradicting itself very frequently (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 present two different stories as to the order of the seven days of creation).

 

[Otaku]

Maybe you need a lesson on how our government works. I learned in elementary school about the balance of powers and that the Supreme Court, both houses of Congress, and the President all hold the same amount of power equally.

You were taught incorrectly; the Supreme Court is intentionally the weakest branch of the three, and the power to create law rests with Congress.

 

[Mr.Muffin]

I was actually volunteering in a thrift store when I learned about this news, and I was very happy. I happy that we are getting closure to true equality. I think by people being able to live a normal life, and start a family that the stereotypes of homosexual people will be proven false.

Also why does everyone have to be so cynical about a great thing?

 

[Rusty Sticks]

You were taught incorrectly; the Supreme Court is intentionally the weakest branch of the three, and the power to create law rests with Congress.

First it's the "overstepping its boundaries", now it's "weakest branch". Make up your mind. The system of Checks and Balances allows each the branches to counter each other. That's literally what happened. That's how it works.

 

[thegrovylekid]

Also why does everyone have to be so cynical about a great thing?

Couldn't agree more.

Anyways, this is getting kind of out of hand. Gay people can now marry, this is great. This is the first step to ending homophobia. Gay people are still people. They're no different from the rest of us.

 

[HanusaRadianceElemental]

I'd feel bad if I didn't say this:
People are gay for the exact same reason that people are straight, whether that be through biology or through environment. Being gay is not a conscious decision which people make (though sometimes being straight is because the homosexuals don't want to be different). From your comment about not understanding why one needs to be gay I didn't think you understood this, so I thought I'd clear it up a little bit.

Thank you very much for clearing that up for me. I guess that I thought it was a decision you made, rather than a natural urge, for lack of a better phrase.

My main point was, I think as a society, we to need stop arguing so much over these kinds of things and work together to find solutions to other issues. I just wanted to express how happy I am that our leaders were able to reach a satisfactory agreement on this debate. I think it says a lot about the positives to our society.

I am also glad that the majority of us on here can have civil conversations about these things. I think it is good to take breaks from Pokemon once in a while to enrich each other's understanding.

Have a great day!

 

[professorlight]

I said I don't even understand what he is writing.

It's just the standard anti-gay marriage argument ("What about my religious liberties!"), hidden behind a veil of concern devised to throw the argument towards the people who benefited; how they should be against this decision because the way it was reached is a slippery slope that ends with getting your guns taken away and other such dystopian nightmares that no one save a fringe core of conservative people care about.

As a handy guide, here are some highlights, you can see here the usual talking points of:

The government overstepping its boundaries, that "other unions" will be recognized (such as, I don't know, man and dog, or man and children (it's not the first time I hear this argument)), or defining marriage in the religious sense, when this doesn't affect the religious institution:

-What of other unions that will remain unrecognized?
-the process by which marriage is redefined is as important as whatever definition is selected and that affects us all in the United States of America. The method matters regardless of your stance on the underlying issue.
-You also need to explain why an institution meant for a man and a woman should be changed.
-The court does not have the power to legalize gay marriage
-marriage, an institution both civil and religious
-There have been those who wish to alter the definition to accommodate more than just same sex attraction as well.

Claiming that gay people were already fully enjoying their rights, which is demonstrably untrue by the very fact that this decision was just now reached, also if you live in texas:

-A same-sex attracted person was already equal before the law prior this ruling
-This wasn't done at the will of the people. This was done through judges overstepping their legal authority, pleasing activists.
-Why can they not simply enjoy the freedom available to all, which does not include forcing others to conform to your own worldview?
-Why does another person's freedom to engage in sex with another person or how they identify in terms of gender negate another person's rights?

Or claiming that their enjoyment of their newly achieved rights somehow prevents him from enjoying his':

-Your definition of "love" is rather questionable.
-choose between my religious freedom and treating a same-sex union in as if it were the same as a marriage.
-I suspect sooner or later someone I know or myself will be facing fines or jail time.

And that is when he isn't either pretending to take a neutral position while still saying this was bad, or outright deriding the capacity for serious discussion of the people here, just because this is a pokemon forum, which, I don't know, why speak up at all in that case?

-this doesn't just affect me, it affects you.
-I didn't even start this thread.
-the process by which marriage is redefined is as important as whatever definition is selected and that affects us all in the United States of America. The method matters regardless of your stance on the underlying issue.
-Some are painting this as a win for the LBGTQ community. That is a lie. They too have lost freedom with this, offered up on the alter of the "Almighty State".
-what can't SCOTUS decide so long as someone brings it to them?
-this would have been a Pyrrhic victory because it wasn't a matter for SCOTUS to decide.
-would be if I thought this was a prudent venue in which to discuss it

Now, I normally wouldn't have bothered with pointing this out, but I've been around, and I know how younger people can be deceived by these kind of underhanded tactics.
Otaku, if you want to argue against this here, because this forum is in fact capable of holding that discussion (although, it doesn't seem you, or anyone here, is coming from a place that can be changed further by a forum discussion), you're absolutely free to do it; no one here is attacking you (whether you are taking offense anyway is a different story), but you could at least be forthcoming about what you believe, and state your position and interests outright, instead of masking them with concern and warnings. That is The. Worst. Thing you can do if you're looking for intelligent discussion, which is what you want, according to you.

 

[TheGuy]

You were taught incorrectly; the Supreme Court is intentionally the weakest branch of the three, and the power to create law rests with Congress.

Otaku's arguments are very reasonable and very typical of those who fear big government. And to state that the judiciary was meant to be the weakest of the three branches is correct (Federalist No. 78 outlines this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._78 ). However, Federalist 78 points out that this is a case where the Supreme Court has not overstepped it's bounds. Hamilton outlines the process of judicial review, where federal courts are to determine the constitutionality of act of Congress, and by logical extension, the constitutionality of the President's actions (As is seen in the courts holding say over the constitutionality of President Obama's executive order on immigration), and the states (since the Constitutional limits were applied to the states through the 14th Amendment). As such, the Court holds the authority to strike down provisions in state constitutions and statutes that violate the Constitution.

You make the perfectly acceptable argument that this does not violate Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because gay people had equal freedom as straight people because they could both be "straight married". Let me say, I sympathize with this argument, but I counter by saying that because these people are born this way the arguments used to advocate for race equality under the 14th Amendment in the 50's and 60's apply here. In my opinion, this is where the Supreme Court must decide, if gay marriages are protected under the 14th Amendment and I firmly believe that both arguments are very compelling, but the majority of the Supreme Court agrees with mine and not yours.

Let the the legal argument be about the 14th Amendment and not about the nature of the Supreme Court, because the Courts have only used judicial review properly if the 14th Amendment is violated by these states that had banned gay marriage.

I would ask that others refrain from thinking that Otaku has some sort of underlying motives and that he "hates gay people" or something ridiculous, he's simply putting forth his opinion about the legal aspects of this case and any debate with Otaku should pertain to the legal arguments. I think that although Otaku and I differ in opinion we both share an interest in Constitutional Law and the Government (it's why I'm going to major in government on a pre-law track at Georgetown).

 

[steffenka]

I think it's great that lgbt people all over America now can get married. I also think it's hilarious that people want to move to Canada, when same sex marriage has been legal there for years!

Though as a non-American I do wonder why they are so upset about this, and lgbt people in general..?

 

[professorlight]

Otaku's arguments are very reasonable and very typical of those who fear big government. And to state that the judiciary was meant to be the weakest of the three branches is correct (Federalist No. 78 outlines this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._78 ). However, Federalist 78 points out that this is a case where the Supreme Court has not overstepped it's bounds. Hamilton outlines the process of judicial review, where federal courts are to determine the constitutionality of act of Congress, and by logical extension, the constitutionality of the President's actions (As is seen in the courts holding say over the constitutionality of President Obama's executive order on immigration), and the states (since the Constitutional limits were applied to the states through the 14th Amendment). As such, the Court holds the authority to strike down provisions in state constitutions and statutes that violate the Constitution.

You make the perfectly acceptable argument that this does not violate Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because gay people had equal freedom as straight people because they could both be "straight married". Let me say, I sympathize with this argument, but I counter by saying that because these people are born this way the arguments used to advocate for race equality under the 14th Amendment in the 50's and 60's apply here. In my opinion, this is where the Supreme Court must decide, if gay marriages are protected under the 14th Amendment and I firmly believe that both arguments are very compelling, but the majority of the Supreme Court agrees with mine and not yours.

Let the the legal argument be about the 14th Amendment and not about the nature of the Supreme Court, because the Courts have only used judicial review properly if the 14th Amendment is violated by these states that had banned gay marriage.

I would ask that others refrain from thinking that Otaku has some sort of underlying motives and that he "hates gay people" or something ridiculous, he's simply putting forth his opinion about the legal aspects of this case and any debate with Otaku should pertain to the legal arguments. I think that although Otaku and I differ in opinion we both share an interest in Constitutional Law and the Government (it's why I'm going to major in government on a pre-law track at Georgetown).

I really hope that you're right; I have found similar arguments in other places all too often (and they're equally heartbreaking every time), and I would be delighted if it turned out that the more homophobic parts of his argument are a simple miscommunication and he just has a sincere worry about the way the government works.
That said, both opinions are not contrary to each other (and in fact, it's often you find them both on a person), and some of the parts I quoted are fairly straightforward, and so, hard to misconstrue.

 

[AllisonTheLatias]

I think it's great that lgbt people all over America now can get married. I also think it's hilarious that people want to move to Canada, when same sex marriage has been legal there for years!

Though as a non-American I do wonder why they are so upset about this, and lgbt people in general..?

LGB* No "T".

T in LGBTQSA ect. stands for Transgender, and by extension anyone who falls under the Trans Umbrella. While the Supreme Court has decided on allowing people to marry freely, we sit in the dark. Skyrocketing murder rates. Suicide attempt rates reaching 50% (a statistic to which I take part in). Beatings in the streets. Disrespect from our own fudging president who had claimed to stand by us all the way. Onlookers laugh as someone attempts to rap~e me on my second day presenting female in the streets of our great nation's capital only because I'm the trans girl. A simple marriage bill helps none of this. I've been waiting my entire life for a possibility to transition, and after coming out and getting in contact with someone who can supply me with such a life changing thing back in November of last year; I'm still waiting, because as a trans girl; I have very little rights here, and nothing is being done to fix that.

Sorry about that, this issue has been building up and just seeing that little discrepancy allowed me to blow up. I apologize if this sounds aggressive.

 

[Otaku]

Otaku, if you want to argue against this here, because this forum is in fact capable of holding that discussion (although, it doesn't seem you, or anyone here, is coming from a place that can be changed further by a forum discussion)...

Doesn't this statement already seem to contradict itself? If no one here is coming from a place that can be changed further by forum discussion, then can we actually hold a discussion, as opposed to sounding off about our talking points and going home (and that is if we behave ourselves), that isn't really a discussion.

Let us assume for a moment however that at least some on this thread could have their minds changed... will we be allowed to have a good conversation? The sheer volume of responses can present a serious challenge even if everyone asks me good questions and makes good points. Even if everyone is as concise as possible, when one person is trying to answer multiple posts (possibly multiple points in some or all of those posts) that person is going to have some very lengthy responses or else must not address some of what is being discussed. People in an ideal situation aren't going to bring up anything else either; not that something different can't be on topic, but for an ideal discussion you don't need the distraction. These are issues in a situation that is otherwise ideal.

Okay, so the thread isn't "ideal" for the discussion; does that mean it isn't still a suitable venue?

In a forum such as this, when a poster gets something wrong or at something not already in evidence or that cannot actually be safely assumed, how can that be handled? As part of a Private Message, even one with multiple parties, one can "call a time out" and get things sorted out since, if all agreeable to the discussion in the first place, that is in the best interest of all involved. Here... that isn't an option; while trying to address an error the discussion continues, including people trying to "build" on that error. Even when an error is caught and addressed, some people will reject the correction. @TheGuy and I don't agree on certain things, but he made a post to (partially) defend an earlier post of mine. He did this because after I pointed out a relevant error that another person made, a third party decided to double down on the error and claim that I was wrong about it being an error. He also did this while trying to further the discussion by... actually debating some of my points in a respectful manner. Unfortunately, he's not the "norm" for this thread.

Which brings us to the next point: the preceding has been presented under the assumption everyone was well-behaved and knowledgeable. Even those endeavoring to be well behaved can still mess up, and those that are knowledgeable can still make mistakes; a problem with other methods of discussion but here they aren't easy to remedy. There are those that are either not well behaved, not knowledgeable or both; they can make having a good discussion all but impossible, especially if they can be persuasive. We have already had what, two posts that needed direct moderation?

I began working on a PM response to a particular post on this thread about four and a half hours ago, a few minutes after returning home. About an hour into composing that PM, I noticed your response @professorlight (which is no longer even your most recent!). Since then I have been working on this post, but have had to restart multiple times: sometimes because of a later post rendering something I said low priority or unneeded, others as I tried to ascertain how much I should try to respond to in a single post. As you can see, just considering the appropriateness of continuing the discussion here has proven quite lengthy and makes it seem like I may be better off letting what I have already posted speak for itself... and perhaps to answer some of the questions that I haven't yet.

 

[Shining Raikou]

Okay, we're not here to debate what you think makes a good discussion. If you don't have any more talking points move on.

All further posts need to relate directly to the topic or be a reply that is on topic. Otherwise I'll hand out warnings.