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.
To me that's akin to throwing most all of humanity and history under the bus for not fully accepting abnormal sexuality. Not something I agree with .
Thank you for finally being honest. I don’t get how it’s akin to “throwing most all of humanity and history under the bus”. Homosexuals have been treated very poorly throughout history and you think correcting that and admitting we were wrong is a bad thing? We were wrong because it led to people being abused and denied basic rights.
Would you say the same about slavery ending or women getting the vote? Those were also historical things we corrected because we accepted that they were wrong. Did we run down history with a bus on those too?
I think your last sentence says it all. You think of homosexuality as “abnormal” and because of that belief anyone who is “abnormal” doesn’t deserve the same rights you enjoy. Pardon me if I completely disagree and find your opinion bigoted and cruel.
Thank you for finally being honest. I don’t get how it’s akin to “throwing most all of humanity and history under the bus”. Homosexuals have been treated very poorly throughout history and you think correcting that is the same as admitting we were wrong?? And that’s a bad thing? We were wrong because it led to people being denied basic rights.
Would you say the same about slavery ending or women getting the vote? Those were also historical wrongs we discarded because we accepted that they were wrong. Did we run down history with a bus on those too?
I don't agree homosexuals were treated very poorly or denied basic rights throughout American and Western history. I'm not going to agree and admit we were wrong.
I don't agree homosexuals were treated very poorly or denied basic rights throughout American and Western history. I'm not going to agree and admit we were wrong.
You need to educate yourself. No one with any knowledge of the laws about homosexuality as they previously existed in this county would make such an absurd and patently false statement.
In his opinion statement, Justice Thomas wrote “this petition implicates important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell, but it does not cleanly present them."
Justices Thomas & Alito agreed with the denial of hearing the Kim Davis appeal however took the opportunity to say they would like to overturn another decision.
Currently, there are no direct challenges to Obergefell in the lower courts; Justice Thomas' statement invites such challenges that "cleanly present them".
Thomas also wrote:
"By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests
explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the Court has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have “ruinous consequences for religious liberty.”"
The scope of Obgerefell Thomas and Alito were writing about was the relationship of the ssm ruling to 1st Amendment rights. Given the opportunity would they overrule Obgerefell in its entirety ? Maybe. Would Roberts ? Though he wrote the dissent, I don't think so, but maybe.
This case didn't change anything. Don't tell me you were surprised that Thomas and Alito would rehear a ssm-type case.
"By choosing to privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests
explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the Court has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have “ruinous consequences for religious liberty.”"
The scope of Obgerefell Thomas and Alito were writing about was the relationship of the ssm ruling to 1st Amendment rights. Given the opportunity would they overrule Obgerefell in its entirety ? Maybe. Would Roberts ? Though he wrote the dissent, I don't think so, but maybe.
This case didn't change anything. Don't tell me you were surprised that Thomas and Alito would rehear a ssm-type case.
Agree the Kim Davis case didn't change anything. Also not surprised Justices Thomas & Alito would welcome the opportunity to hear a lower court appeal or challenge to Obergefell.
Justice Thomas' statement invitation to "cleanly present them" is likely referring to more of the religious baker type case.
To me that's akin to throwing most all of humanity and history under the bus for not fully accepting abnormal sexuality.
There’s your problem. Natural variation in complex systems is not abnormal...it’s natural. Most of “humanity and history” is about superstition, burnt offerings, priests and shamans explaining natural variation as affronts to some some vengeful deity. Wrong.
There’s your problem. Natural variation in complex systems is not abnormal...it’s natural. Most of “humanity and history” is about superstition, burnt offerings, priests and shamans explaining natural variation as affronts to some some vengeful deity. Wrong.
Not saying it is not at least partly natural variation, but still abnormal sexuality kind of similar to pedophilia and what have you.
Not saying it is not at least partly natural variation, but still abnormal sexuality kind of similar to pedophilia and what have you.
Similar only insofar as it’s a variation from the mean. Other than that, it’s a silly example.
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.
.