The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Utah's Marriage Fight Continues

xbuzzerx said:
What kills me is, this is a strictly religious definition of marriage. It doesn't belong in the courtroom. And the interpretation of the Bible as saying that the only purpose of marriage is with the aim of procreation is but merely one interpretation to begin with. No church that I know of bars barren people or elderly people from getting married.

It's pretty galling to get in front of a judge in a U.S. court and try to rewrite a legal statute based off a completely unconstitutional reasoning.
Click to expand...

The fact that a religious view even gets listened to is appalling. Religions don't get special rights -- and any church that really believes it has the truth wouldn't want any.
 
Kulindahr said:
The fact that a religious view even gets listened to is appalling.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I would think. When they brought up procreation that the judge would ask, where is this a requisite of marriage, and if they so much as mentioned Christian tradition or the Bible or the U.S. being a Christian nation, tell them they have one recess to reform a proper legal argument or else summary judgment against them.
 
Update to the above ^^^

ECF citing ScotusBlog on Twitter:

Sotomayor has asked for a reply from the respondents due Friday. So it will be at a week likely before the Supreme Court makes a decision on the stay request.
 
Kulindahr said:
The fact that a religious view even gets listened to is appalling. Religions don't get special rights -- and any church that really believes it has the truth wouldn't want any.
Click to expand...

All too many of them claim that this is a "Christian" nation and we're supposed to make laws according to what their interpretation of the bible is.

updated: I see that's pretty much what buzzer said so I'm echoing his statement.

And if procreation is a requirement for marriage when when will the laws be enacted forcing married couples to have children against their will? If they refuse, prison time..... one of those for profit prisons.
 
CowboyBob said:
All too many of them claim that this is a "Christian" nation and we're supposed to make laws according to what their interpretation of the bible is.

updated: I see that's pretty much what buzzer said so I'm echoing his statement.

And if procreation is a requirement for marriage when when will the laws be enacted forcing married couples to have children against their will? If they refuse, prison time..... one of those for profit prisons.
Click to expand...

And isn't this the same part of the political spectrum that is horrified at how many kids poor black or hispanic people have in any other context? lol.
 
xbuzzerx said:
That's exactly what I would think. When they brought up procreation that the judge would ask, where is this a requisite of marriage, and if they so much as mentioned Christian tradition or the Bible or the U.S. being a Christian nation, tell them they have one recess to reform a proper legal argument or else summary judgment against them.
Click to expand...

On the flip side, all it should take is a few people from a religion that supports same-sex marriage, and it should be all over, because the law can't discriminate against their religious practices.
 
CowboyBob said:
All too many of them claim that this is a "Christian" nation and we're supposed to make laws according to what their interpretation of the bible is.

updated: I see that's pretty much what buzzer said so I'm echoing his statement.

And if procreation is a requirement for marriage when when will the laws be enacted forcing married couples to have children against their will? If they refuse, prison time..... one of those for profit prisons.
Click to expand...

Nah, they wouldn't be likely to procreate in prison. Park them on a pleasant, beautiful island until they pop off a kid.
 
Kulindahr said:
On the flip side, all it should take is a few people from a religion that supports same-sex marriage, and it should be all over, because the law can't discriminate against their religious practices.
Click to expand...

Would you be interested in forming a zen Buddhist church with me, Kulindahr? Zen Buddhist monks used to recommend homosexual sex as a form of meditation.
 
I think it's a trap.

The ingredients of a trap:
1) a Judge inclined to rule against equality but aware of facing an up-hill battle,
2) Knowing Utah would appeal to the Supreme Court,
3) having a case for equality which is weak, or flawed, or incomplete, or otherwise not as robust as other cases moving more slowly through the courts.

Wouldn't it be smart to propel the weaker case as rapidly as possible to the SC?

I must admit this theory has less to do with having thought it through carefully and more with not trusting them even as far as I can throw them.
 
Kulindahr said:
Convince me that Zen Buddhism is compatible with Christianity, and I'll give it serious thought. :D
Click to expand...

I read through the entire wikipedia section on the "comparison of Buddhism and Christianity" under the irreconciliable foundations part, and the only one that seemed remotely consistent was the monotheistic one-god Nicene Creed vs. Buddhist "polytheism", although I would personally disagree with that notion. Most Buddhist sects do not embrace the idea of a multitude of gods but rather many manifestations of Buddha in different forms, similar to the Christian God's three manifestations. Or you could argue that Buddhism expounds the process of all individuals trying to become as gods through eliminating desire/greed/temptation, but isn't trying to be Christlike the attempt to be godlike as well?
 
bankside said:
I think it's a trap.

The ingredients of a trap:
1) a Judge inclined to rule against equality but aware of facing an up-hill battle,
2) Knowing Utah would appeal to the Supreme Court,
3) having a case for equality which is weak, or flawed, or incomplete, or otherwise not as robust as other cases moving more slowly through the courts.

Wouldn't it be smart to propel the weaker case as rapidly as possible to the SC?

I must admit this theory has less to do with having thought it through carefully and more with not trusting them even as far as I can throw them.
Click to expand...

It would be very Machiavellian but then the decision came two weeks after motions and it was quite long and sincerely written it seemed to me.
 
xbuzzerx said:
I read through the entire wikipedia section on the "comparison of Buddhism and Christianity" under the irreconciliable foundations part, and the only one that seemed remotely consistent was the monotheistic one-god Nicene Creed vs. Buddhist "polytheism", although I would personally disagree with that notion. Most Buddhist sects do not embrace the idea of a multitude of gods but rather many manifestations of Buddha in different forms, similar to the Christian God's three manifestations. Or you could argue that Buddhism expounds the process of all individuals trying to become as gods through eliminating desire/greed/temptation, but isn't trying to be Christlike the attempt to be godlike as well?
Click to expand...

You echo Deacon Don, the Roman Catholic deacon I knew who insisted that the two were compatible.

I'll have to read the Wiki article.
 
xbuzzerx said:
And isn't this the same part of the political spectrum that is horrified at how many kids poor black or hispanic people have in any other context? lol.
Click to expand...

HA!

Mormons breed like rabbits tho. A guy I worked with was Mormon and 29.... he and his wife (26 yo) had 6 kids already and wanted more. The poor gal looked tired all the time. My next door neighbors years ago were a Mormon family and they had 8 in their small 3 bedroom house. One of their daughters ended up having 12. The more brats they squeeze out, the more Mormons there are.

And they have the nerve to criticize a large African-American or Hispanic family. Hypocrites.

One thing I've noticed ..... most every Mormon husband and wife I know personally has been divorced at least once.
 
CowboyBob said:
HA!

Mormons breed like rabbits tho. A guy I worked with was Mormon and 29.... he and his wife (26 yo) had 6 kids already and wanted more. The poor gal looked tired all the time. My next door neighbors years ago were a Mormon family and they had 8 in their small 3 bedroom house. One of their daughters ended up having 12. The more brats they squeeze out, the more Mormons there are.

And they have the nerve to criticize a large African-American or Hispanic family. Hypocrites.

One thing I've noticed ..... most every Mormon husband and wife I know personally has been divorced at least once.
Click to expand...

My 100% experience of Mormons in my h.s. and young adult life was that they were a pronounced modern day version of the old stereotype of Catholic school kids/girls/guys. Kinda... conflicted, neurotic-about-it guilty psycho-sluts.
 
 
Alnitak said:
It would be very Machiavellian but then the decision came two weeks after motions and it was quite long and sincerely written it seemed to me.
Click to expand...

Yeah....still, has any other decision out-and-out said a ban is unconstitutional? (at the level of the US Constitution...)

I thought this might be the first case put before the SC to actually confront the core issue of whether there is any constitutional way to ban equal marriage. (up until now it seems that even when the SC affirms equality it has done so on other more nebulous/indirect grounds)

In Canada we went through this. The Government wanted to pass the buck to the Court as far as negative blowback on equality legislation. "The Court made us do it!"

So instead of asking whether the then-current ban was constitutional, or whether any alternative ban might withstand scrutiny, they asked if the draft equality law would be constitutional. Duhh...

Thus we got a Supreme Court ruling on equal marriage without our Court ever having to face the question of whether a ban in any form was compatible with our constitutional rights or not. The Court might well have said some ban was okay. Or they might have had a much more difficult time explaining why it wasn't.
 
In the meantime. I hope that thousands more get married in Utah because the more people who are hitched...the harder it becomes for the State to unhitch them.
 
rareboy said:
In the meantime. I hope that thousands more get married in Utah because the more people who are hitched...the harder it becomes for the State to unhitch them.
Click to expand...

I wish that were the case in Australia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top