Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
recent posts have been deleted for being insufficient responses and personal. Please debate - don’t bicker and don’t get snarky.
Thank you.
It seems that happens when people are faced with facts don’t want to acknowledge the facts (like anatomy & statistics). They feel threatened by the facts so they lash out in ad hominem (personal) attacks, despite that being logical fallacy. Imagine if in a court of law, they tried name calling - they’d be laughed right out of the court room!
Q: Why wasn't there more outrage to the Supreme Court Ruling on Gay Marriage?
Because the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges was consistent with established caselaw:
*That there is a fundamental right to marriage (first recognized by the Supreme Court in the 1800s and reiterated in many rulings since then), and
*That there was no compelling state interest in restricting that right to opposite-sex couples
Also, since same-sex marriage had already been legal in various states for more than 11 years (beginning with Massachusetts in 2004), and because states are the laboratories of democracies, they provided examples that all the hysterical predictions of calamities to follow the allowing of same-sex marriage were nothing more than vacuous fear-mongering.
I wasn't born in 1967, when the Supreme Court struck down all laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Did the usual suspects (they're obviously cut from the same social cloth) whine and pout about that for years and years after, too? I suppose they did...
This is a good question, the gay marriage ruling is a big deal and really changes things culturally. I wonder if something else was going on at the time, maybe some international crisis that dominated the headlines. Anyone recall anything?
Yeah come to think of it I am surprised conservatives were not outraged. Perhaps my idea on what a conservative is wrong. I thought conservatives would try to conserve traditional culture. Looking at society now I would say conservatives are not conserving anything.
This is an easy one...the public had been desensitized to gay marriage for quite some time, before it went to the SC.
Keep in mind, not that long ago, no TV network or producer would depict homosexuality in a positive light, this changed eventually and its how they managed to change public opinion so quickly.
Actually the public finally came to realize that homosexuality and and gay relationships are a perfectly normal part of our everyday life. They always were, but with the advent of television and then the Internet, it was no longer possible to be ignorant of reality. You could say they were "desensitized" but in actuality they became informed and aware.
I wasn't particularly a fan of applying the tradition-filled term "marriage" to gay partnerships, but I've accepted that society wants to go there and so I moved on. It's not like it's killing anybody, and there are probably health benefits to society in terms of reducing some disease vectors. The more gay couples that live in stable relationships, the better it is for everybody.
This is a good question, the gay marriage ruling is a big deal and really changes things culturally. I wonder if something else was going on at the time, maybe some international crisis that dominated the headlines. Anyone recall anything?
Yeah come to think of it I am surprised conservatives were not outraged. Perhaps my idea on what a conservative is wrong. I thought conservatives would try to conserve traditional culture. Looking at society now I would say conservatives are not conserving anything.
Actually, it changed very little - except for those with same-sex attraction. Furthermore, I think you're getting the cause-and-effect backwards. The ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges didn't cause change; it was caused itself by change.
American society has been shifting its opinion of gays and their legal rights for several decades. The ruling didn't cause that but reflected it. It's no more of a coincidence that the ruling came when it did than it was a coincidence that Loving v. Virginia - the 1967 ruling the struck down bans on interracial marriage - came during the Civil Rights era,
Why hasn't there be more of a backlash to the Supreme Court Ruling on Gay Marriage?
Generally, Supreme Court rulings on big divisive issues trigger backlashes. For example, many people feel that Roe V. Wade triggered a big backlash by taking a divisive issues out of the hands of elected state legislatures and instead was settled by unelected Federal judges in Washington.
Similar backlashes were seen on controversial rulings on prayer in school, affirmative action, desegregation, etc.
By contrast, the public has basically shrugged on federal judges mandating gay marriage rights. Even conservative activists seem to have moved on. No talk of litmus tests for Federal Judges or attempts at Constitutional amendments. Republican candidates don't even talk about it.
Live and let live. Because how two consenting adults decide to live their lives and their romantic relationships is nobody’s business. Because everybody is entitled to equal protection under the law. Because there is separation of state and church. Because we are in the 21 century. Because all major civilized nations are moving in the same direction. And so many other reasons
Americans have become almost completely immoral when it comes to sex of unmarried people. Nobody says a word of disapproval anymore about shacking up, one night stands etc. Its become completely acceptable, no matter whose involved.
Americans have become almost completely immoral when it comes to sex of unmarried people. Nobody says a word of disapproval anymore about shacking up, one night stands etc. Its become completely acceptable, no matter whose involved.
There's nothing immoral about sex between consenting adults.
My wife and I lived together for over two years before we married. This month we celebrated our 24th anniversary. Why wouldn't we have premarital sex? It was fun and it was an expression of love. It was part of our bonding process, and our cohabitation demonstrated to us that we were compatible in life. There was nothing immoral about it. Nothing changed except certain legal particulars when we went to a courthouse and had a brief ceremony officiated by a judge.
The fact that you derive your morality on the topic from some ancient book? That's your problem, not ours. That's what this broader issue is about: it's not your business what sort of sex two adults are having. Period.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Q: Why wasn't there more outrage to the Supreme Court Ruling on Gay Marriage?
