By Lawrence Hurley

The court took no action on four other pending cases concerning gay marriage bans in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee, but could act on those cases as soon as later this week.WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court, which is in the midst of deciding whether to take up the issue of gay marriage, on Monday declined to take an early look at a challenge to Louisiana’s state ban.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-rejects-louisiana-gay-marriage-case-takes-144720151.html

From what I see, they're not saying gay marriage should be illegal, but they just don't want to look at the case. In my opioion, I think anybody should be legally allowed to marry anyone, This is the USA, how is it that a country founded on freedom and basic liberties say that two people who love each other get married, this is why we don't have complete seperation of the church and state and likely never will be, because people fail to realize that just as science and religion don't go hand in hand, religion and politics don't either. 

From what I see, they're not saying gay marriage should be illegal, but they just don't want to look at the case. In my opioion, I think anybody should be legally allowed to marry anyone, This is the USA, how is it that a country founded on freedom and basic liberties say that two people who love each other get married, this is why we don't have complete seperation of the church and state and likely never will be, because people fail to realize that just as science and religion don't go hand in hand, religion and politics don't either. 

Don't forget that the founders were also very religious men. Not many religions allow same-sex marriages. 

From the article, this was an appeal directly from the district court. It was extremely unlikely that the Supreme Court would review it; they almost never accept cases outside one of the two normal pipelines (for federal courts, district -> circuit -> Supreme; for state, whatever state process -> highest state court -> SCOTUS). As the article says, there are also other cases that have gone through the normal process whose cert petitions are pending. Alternatively, they could wait in this case till the appeals court rules and then take the case. Or they could take the other pending cases (that have gone through the process), combine them, and then combine that with this one when the Fifth Circuit rules here.

The point is, this is not really much of a story (a more accurate headline is "Supreme Court Follows Standard Procedure with La. Gay Marriage Case").

Don't forget that the founders were also very religious men. Not many religions allow same-sex marriages. 

 

 

Which is why I say (personal opinion of course) America would be far better off without religion, I say this because it seems as though we will never have true separation of church and state. 

Don't forget that the founders were also very religious men. Not many religions allow same-sex marriages. 

 

Yes but they also wrote there would be separation of church and state.

 

If you have an issue with gay marriage then that is fine, that is your personal belief but I find it extremely hypocritical (and illegal) that states ban gay marriage. I find it funny that the same political party that claims they want less government interference and how the government shouldn't be telling us how to live our lives is the same political party that thinks it is okay to pass laws banning gay marriage among other issues that are really no ones business. What happened to:

 

"We hold these truths to be self‐evident, that

all men are created equal, that they are

endowed by their Creator with certain

unalienable Rights, that among these are

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Edited January 13, 201511 yr by l3ubba

 

Yes but they also wrote there would be separation of church and state.

 

If you have an issue with gay marriage then that is fine, that is your personal belief but I find it extremely hypocritical (and illegal) that states ban gay marriage. I find it funny that the same political party that claims they want less government interference and how the government shouldn't be telling us how to live our lives is the same political party that thinks it is okay to pass laws banning gay marriage among other issues that are really no ones business. What happened to:

 

"We hold these truths to be self‐evident, that

all men are created equal, that they are

endowed by their Creator with certain

unalienable Rights, that among these are

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

 

 

-Written by men who owned slaves and were the richest and most powerful of the country

 

(Don't get me wrong I still agree with you 100000% but I wanted to throw that in there!)

-Written by men who owned slaves and were the richest and most powerful of the country

 

(Don't get me wrong I still agree with you 100000% but I wanted to throw that in there!)

 

Yep, I'm well aware of that. They were somewhat hypocritical themselves.

From what I see, they're not saying gay marriage should be illegal, but they just don't want to look at the case. In my opioion, I think anybody should be legally allowed to marry anyone, This is the USA, how is it that a country founded on freedom and basic liberties say that two people who love each other get married, this is why we don't have complete seperation of the church and state and likely never will be, because people fail to realize that just as science and religion don't go hand in hand, religion and politics don't either. 

I think they should be allowed to marry however not by churches, or in the name of God do it in some other form that doesn't make mockery of God. Respect people's religious views as well. Don't destroy another people's rights to give another people. That just defeats the purpose.

while I don't support  same sex marriage I think they should be allowed to marry however not by churches, or in the name of God but rather in some other form that doesn't make mockery of God. Respect people's religious views as well. Don't destroy another people's rights to give another people. That just defeats the purpose.

As I have stated several times, I disagree with anything having to do with homosexuality because of my personal beliefs, morals, and values. You aren't going to change my opinion, so don't bother debating homosexuality with me. You will only grow annoyed and irritated.

 

Though I disagree with homosexuality I believe that in the United States, all people are eligible to equal rights under the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. With that being said, I disagree with homosexuality in any way, shape, or form; But I believe that you should have the right to marry who you please, regardless of gender, race, etc.

I think they should be allowed to marry however not by churches, or in the name of God do it in some other form that doesn't make mockery of God. Respect people's religious views as well. Don't destroy another people's rights to give another people. That just defeats the purpose.

while I don't support same sex marriage I think they should be allowed to marry however not by churches, or in the name of God but rather in some other form that doesn't make mockery of God. Respect people's religious views as well. Don't destroy another people's rights to give another people. That just defeats the purpose.

That's a decision for individual churches. It wouldn't matter anyway, as a church ceremony isn't a legal binding action.

And to points others have made, I don't exacly understand being "against homosexuality." People are homosexual in the same way you're heterosexual, or any other sexual identification. It's like saying you disagree with biology.

Edited January 13, 201511 yr by SIR_Sergeant

That's a decision for individual churches. It wouldn't matter anyway, as a church ceremony isn't a legal binding action.

And to points others have made, I don't exacly understand being "against homosexuality." People are homosexual in the same way you're heterosexual, or any other sexual identification. It's like saying you disagree with biology.

Not understanding would be considered ignorance. Before I argue with anyone about anything, I make for certain that I understand their argument and perspective, even if I disagree with it. Rejecting an opposing argument because of self ignorance of their argument is invalid in my eyes. It's like if I were to say I oppose the Democratic party, simply because I don't know anything about it and I don't quite understand their ideology.

 

With that being said, try to comprehend the perspective of those who oppose homosexuality before rejecting it. I fully understand why someone would support homosexuality, though I disagree with it. It isn't very difficult to understand, it's simply what we believe in. Religion, morals, values, whatever it may be. You don't need to form a testimony to create an opinion.

Edited January 13, 201511 yr by CriminalKillaz

Not understanding would be considered ignorance. Before I argue with anyone about anything, I make for certain that I understand their argument and perspective, even if I disagree with it. Rejecting an opposing argument because of self ignorance of their argument is invalid in my eyes. It's like if I were to say I oppose the Democratic party, simply because I don't know anything about it and I don't quite understand their ideology.

With that being said, try to comprehend the perspective of those who oppose homosexuality before rejecting it. I fully understand why someone would support homosexuality, though I disagree with it. It isn't very difficult to understand, it's simply what we believe in. Religion, morals, values, whatever it may be. You don't need to form a testimony to create an opinion.

Allow me to rephrase. I understand why some people are opposed to it. What bothers me are the explanations behind the opposition. I have trouble rationalizing the idea that something can be considered wrong or bad because a 2000 year old story book tells them so when homosexuality is a completely natural human behavior. Again, the exact same thing as heterosexuality.

Allow me to rephrase. I understand why some people are opposed to it. What bothers me are the explanations behind the opposition. I have trouble rationalizing the idea that something can be considered wrong or bad because a 2000 year old story book tells them so when homosexuality is a completely natural human behavior. Again, the exact same thing as heterosexuality.

Well this is when people begin to have differentiating opinions and beliefs. I disagree with homosexuality because of my morals and values, not only because of what the Bible says. To put it in a more blunt form:

 

I am testing 3 different children. I give Child A a stick and a bottle. I give Child B 2 sticks. I give Child C 2 bottles(water). All items of the same category are the exact same size and shape. I tell all 3 children to put one item into another, then stand when finished.

 

The only person that could succeed in this test would be Child A.

 

Why would only Child A succeed? Because he put the stick in the hole, he did what made sense, he did what would have been natural. 

 

In my opinion, homosexuality is not natural. If we didn't have the advanced technologies we have now, how would same-sex couples reproduce? Something called mechanical isolation is the answer. Some things just simply aren't physically possible, and when something isn't naturally possible, it can't be naturally correct.

Edited January 13, 201511 yr by CriminalKillaz

Well this is when people begin to have differentiating opinions and beliefs. I disagree with homosexuality because of my morals and values, not only because of what the Bible says. To put it in a more blunt form:

I am testing 3 different children. I give Child A a stick and a bottle. I give Child B 2 sticks. I give Child C 2 bottles(water). All items of the same category are the exact same size and shape. I tell all 3 children to put one item into another, then stand when finished.

The only person that could succeed in this test would be Child A.

Why would only Child A succeed? Because he put the stick in the hole, he did what made sense, he did what would have been natural.

In my opinion, homosexuality is not natural. If we didn't have the advanced technologies we have now, how would same-sex couples reproduce? Something called mechanical isolation is the answer. Some things just simply aren't physically possible, and when something isn't naturally possible, it can't be naturally correct.

That's an absurd analogy to make. Human sexuality is incredibly fluid, not binary like in your example. Am I correct that you're making the claim that because two men or two women cannot produce a child, they shouldn't have sex? A penis and a vagina together can be the only body parts involved in sex? While at the most basic level, sex is about procreation, it serves many more functions. Sex is important for mental health and is considered by many as a basic personal need (Maslow's hierarchy of needs).

In regards to homosexuality being "unnatural," it has been documented in hundreds of animal species. Species that don't make a conscious decision to have sex like we do.

That's an absurd analogy to make. Human sexuality is incredibly fluid, not binary like in your example. Am I correct that you're making the claim that because two men or two women cannot produce a child, they shouldn't have sex? A penis and a vagina together can be the only body parts involved in sex? While at the most basic level, sex is about procreation, it serves many more functions. Sex is important for mental health and is considered by many as a basic personal need (Maslow's hierarchy of needs).

In regards to homosexuality being "unnatural," it has been documented in hundreds of animal species. Species that don't make a conscious decision to have sex like we do.

You are somewhat correct. It is obvious that a purpose of humanity is to reproduce. Notice I said a purpose, not the purpose. If we weren't supposed to reproduce, regardless of religious beliefs, men wouldn't have a penis and women wouldn't have a vagina. If we break it down further, men wouldn't have sperm cells. Then what fun would sexual intercourse be lol  .

 

I disagree. This would be considered a raw version of "Follow the leader". Just because other species act a certain way, doesn't mean that we should as well. That's like my dog jumping into a pile of doodoo and chewing on it like bubble gum. That doesn't mean that it would be okay if I did it as well, it would be absurd and disgusting.

Edited January 13, 201511 yr by CriminalKillaz

You are somewhat correct. It is obvious that a purpose of humanity is to reproduce. Notice I said a purpose, not the purpose. If we weren't supposed to reproduce, regardless of religious beliefs, men wouldn't have a penis and women wouldn't have a vagina. If we break it down further, men wouldn't have sperm cells. Then what fun would sexual intercourse be lol .

I disagree. This would be considered a raw version of "Follow the leader". Just because other species act a certain way, doesn't mean that we should as well. That's like my dog jumping into a pile of doodoo and chewing on it like bubble gum. That doesn't mean that it would be okay if I did it as well, it would be absurd and disgusting.

I'm not saying we should because they do, I'm saying we're not the only ones. That it does exist outside of humanity, without conscious decision making.

I'm not saying we should because they do, I'm saying we're not the only ones. That it does exist outside of humanity, without conscious decision making.

I understand, I was just being silly lol. Just keep in mind that I'm not trying to offend you or anyone else. I'm just stating my own opinions and beliefs. I understand your opinions and beliefs, and I respect them. I would expect the same treatment reversed, but this is the internet lol.

I understand, I was just being silly lol. Just keep in mind that I'm not trying to offend you or anyone else. I'm just stating my own opinions and beliefs. I understand your opinions and beliefs, and I respect them. I would expect the same treatment reversed, but this is the internet lol.

 

 

While I respect your opinion, just remember that society is recognizing  homosexuality more and more and we as society are starting to become more accepting of them, while i do see where you're coming from, I disagree with your post, I for one think that no matter what sexuality you're (wether it be pansexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, polygamy. etc) No one should be judged based on their sexual orientation, that's just how I see it though. 

Edited January 13, 201511 yr by Chester199

In my opinion, homosexuality is not natural. If we didn't have the advanced technologies we have now, how would same-sex couples reproduce? Something called mechanical isolation is the answer. Some things just simply aren't physically possible, and when something isn't naturally possible, it can't be naturally correct.

 

Ah, I love this argument of "homosexuality is not natural". Allow me to quote an artical article (dat spelling) from the RationalWiki: 

 

 

"It's not natural"

This is an inherently weak and uncogent objection. This argument is a blatant rendition of the appeal to nature, as it assumes that what is natural is acceptable or better and what is unnatural is not. What this would entail logically is that adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, and nakedness must be acceptable as they are "natural," while playing checkers, sleeping on a bed, wearing clothes and indeed cooking meat are not "natural" and thus unacceptable. Most homophobic persons typically do not advocate creating laws outlawing things such as sleeping on beds, not to mention that using computers isn't natural either — yet homophobes clearly use computers since their hate sites exist.

Moreover, even if it did logically follow that what is natural is good, it turns out that homosexuality occurs in nature; biologists have extensively documented same-sex behavior in over 500 species of animals and observed it in a total of 1,500 species of animals.^[3][4]Bonobos, for example, are known for indulging in almost any "perversion" humanity has thought of — and perhaps some we've missed out on. Mammals aren't the only kind of animal that do this either.^[5]

 

 

You can find the entire article here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Homophobia#Rationalizations_of_homophobia

It's interesting to read because it reduces to nothingness all the arguments used by people against homosexuality.

Edited January 13, 201511 yr by Hystery