Author Topic: Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings  (Read 72041 times)

Offline Aj3042

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Oct 2013
  • Posts: 1379
  • Total likes: 4
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
  • Location: The Oval Office
  • Programs: Presidential Limo Gold, Secret Service Detail Platinum, Air Force One Diamond, White House Free Days, Red Telephone Priority Service.
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #120 on: June 26, 2015, 01:20:37 PM »
Your quote here: implies that sexual behavior has historically been between man and woman, and recently there is an enlightened movement that is popular so people  are now pro homosexual behavior.

But what was shown is that for thousands of years and in many of the greatest societies in "history" held that homosexual behavior was the preferred way of having a partner you love.

So by saying that history would dictate that marriage should be between marriage (or sexual behavior) should be between a man and woman is simply inaccurate. And to imply that it is a enlightened (meaning newer and recent) movement that is pro-gay, is also historically inaccurate as it has a long history in this world and basis.


To broaden the discussion the Torah doesn't really comment on a marriage contract between two men, only about sexual contact, the court didn't rule on sexual contact, only on a contract which maybe the Torah does or doesn't recognize as having any halachik ramifications.

For example if yankel and shimon want tax benefits of being married does the torah forbid this? I do not think so.

That example shows the ruling of the court is not necessarily against halacha.

I do agree it is a break down of the morals and spirit of the Torah however.
 That is how I would answer you in short. This can be talked about for days.
I want to answer you point by point but given the short day I will say this and leave someone else to advocate for God's word.
First off the fact that it existed in some places says nothing to the effect that it was a commonly held belief or that it was held on the same level s regular marriage.
"But what was shown is that for thousands of years and in many of the greatest societies in "history" held that homosexual behavior was the preferred way of having a partner you love." Please stop being ridiculous that's false. And don't go show me one pagan society that did it-that won't cut it.
The movement now is stronger than it's ever been. Of course it's always been around but not like this.
And your claim of that it's not technically forbidden is so ludicrous I won't even bother much with it. I think we both know the judges didn't intend it for people just living together in the same house. Stop being ridiculous.

I'm signing out of this now-I won't debate the irrefutable corruption of Western morals on A Friday afternoon. I might as well debate someone who claims the sky is red.

Offline good sam

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 3340
  • Total likes: 558
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 10
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #121 on: June 26, 2015, 01:20:58 PM »
Who cares what they WANT? Law is Law
Geeze, it's impossible to argue a point with you.
If you don't care why would you comment?
HT: DMYD

Offline ChaimMoskowitz

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Posts: 6738
  • Total likes: 1097
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #122 on: June 26, 2015, 01:22:17 PM »
Geeze, it's impossible to argue a point with you.
When someone refuses or avoids answering a question then the answer is obvious to most.
I just found a new supply of forks!

Offline jj1000

  • Administrator
  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • **********
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Posts: 13470
  • Total likes: 6095
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 29367
    • View Profile
  • Location: The value of a forum such as this one is not in that one can post a question and receive an answer, but in that the question has most likely been asked before, and the answer is available to him that will but only use the search function.
  • Programs: 1. Search on google. 2. Search in the right board of DDF with a general word or two. 3. Read the wiki. 4. Read the thread. 5. Ask away.
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #123 on: June 26, 2015, 01:24:39 PM »
I want to answer you point by point but given the short day I will say this and leave someone else to advocate for God's word.
First off the fact that it existed in some places says nothing to the effect that it was a commonly held belief or that it was held on the same level s regular marriage.
"But what was shown is that for thousands of years and in many of the greatest societies in "history" held that homosexual behavior was the preferred way of having a partner you love." Please stop being ridiculous that's false. And don't go show me one pagan society that did it-that won't cut it.
The movement now is stronger than it's ever been. Of course it's always been around but not like this.
And your claim of that it's not technically forbidden is so ludicrous I won't even bother much with it. I think we both know the judges didn't intend it for people just living together in the same house. Stop being ridiculous.

I'm signing out of this now-I won't debate the irrefutable corruption of Western morals on A Friday afternoon. I might as well debate someone who claims the sky is red.

Sorry to be blunt you really stink at arguing. Not a personal attack, just letting you know in many threads the way you argue just isn't very good.

Point by point is pretty much the only way to do it on a forum. So come back Sunday and go point by point because what you just wrote is basically saying I am right you are wrong instead of addressing my points that logically showed how you are in fact the one who isn't being logical.
See my 5 step program to your left <--

(Real signature under my location)

Offline ChaimMoskowitz

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Posts: 6738
  • Total likes: 1097
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #124 on: June 26, 2015, 01:26:05 PM »
Point by point is pretty much the only way to do it on a forum. So come back Sunday and go point by point because what you just wrote is basically saying I am right you are wrong instead of addressing my points that logically showed how you are in fact the one who isn't being logical.
Have no idea who is right or wrong but this is classic JJ.  :)
I just found a new supply of forks!

Offline aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 17395
  • Total likes: 14333
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 14
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #125 on: June 26, 2015, 01:27:36 PM »
To broaden the discussion the Torah doesn't really comment on a marriage contract between two men, only about sexual contact, the court didn't rule on sexual contact, only on a contract which maybe the Torah does or doesn't recognize as having any halachik ramifications.

For example if yankel and shimon want tax benefits of being married does the torah forbid this? I do not think so.

That example shows the ruling of the court is not necessarily against halacha.

I do agree it is a break down of the morals and spirit of the Torah however.
 That is how I would answer you in short. This can be talked about for days.
I hope you do not really believe what you wrote that this is not against halacha. Can a man be an eishes ish?
Feelings don't care about your facts

Offline sky121

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2011
  • Posts: 11513
  • Total likes: 168
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 12
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #126 on: June 26, 2015, 01:29:06 PM »
I hope you do not really believe what you wrote that this is not against halacha.

Why? 
"Not all who wander are lost"

Offline jj1000

  • Administrator
  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • **********
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Posts: 13470
  • Total likes: 6095
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 29367
    • View Profile
  • Location: The value of a forum such as this one is not in that one can post a question and receive an answer, but in that the question has most likely been asked before, and the answer is available to him that will but only use the search function.
  • Programs: 1. Search on google. 2. Search in the right board of DDF with a general word or two. 3. Read the wiki. 4. Read the thread. 5. Ask away.
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #127 on: June 26, 2015, 01:30:05 PM »
I hope you do not really believe what you wrote that this is not against halacha. Can a man be an eishes ish?
My point is does a paper from the court house have any halachik ramifications? Feel free to find a rav that'd prohibit yankel and shimon getting married for tax benefits. I'm sure some rav would forbid it but I'd bet many would say it is halachikally ok, and if that's the case this ruling doesn't have any technical halachik problems, besides the spirit etc.
See my 5 step program to your left <--

(Real signature under my location)

Offline Aaaron

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 1360
  • Total likes: 39
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
  • Location: Baltimore

Offline Aaaron

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 1360
  • Total likes: 39
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
  • Location: Baltimore
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #129 on: June 26, 2015, 01:34:00 PM »
I want to answer you point by point but given the short day I will say this and leave someone else to advocate for God's word.
First off the fact that it existed in some places says nothing to the effect that it was a commonly held belief or that it was held on the same level s regular marriage.
"But what was shown is that for thousands of years and in many of the greatest societies in "history" held that homosexual behavior was the preferred way of having a partner you love." Please stop being ridiculous that's false. And don't go show me one pagan society that did it-that won't cut it.
The movement now is stronger than it's ever been. Of course it's always been around but not like this.
And your claim of that it's not technically forbidden is so ludicrous I won't even bother much with it. I think we both know the judges didn't intend it for people just living together in the same house. Stop being ridiculous.

I'm signing out of this now-I won't debate the irrefutable corruption of Western morals on A Friday afternoon. I might as well debate someone who claims the sky is red.

Kind of like those that insisted the earth was flat and the sun revolves around the Earth.  ::)

Offline jj1000

  • Administrator
  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • **********
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Posts: 13470
  • Total likes: 6095
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 29367
    • View Profile
  • Location: The value of a forum such as this one is not in that one can post a question and receive an answer, but in that the question has most likely been asked before, and the answer is available to him that will but only use the search function.
  • Programs: 1. Search on google. 2. Search in the right board of DDF with a general word or two. 3. Read the wiki. 4. Read the thread. 5. Ask away.
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #130 on: June 26, 2015, 01:34:57 PM »
the sun revolves around the Earth.  ::)
It does. No definitive proof otherwise.
See my 5 step program to your left <--

(Real signature under my location)

Offline Aaaron

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 1360
  • Total likes: 39
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
  • Location: Baltimore
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #131 on: June 26, 2015, 01:37:31 PM »
It does. No definitive proof otherwise.

I forgot, Chabad is big into that one.  No definitive proof that God exists either, so he doesn't.   ;)

Offline good sam

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 3340
  • Total likes: 558
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 10
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #132 on: June 26, 2015, 01:37:45 PM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality
Don't want to read the whole thing. Where does it say homosexuality is "preferable."
If you don't care why would you comment?
HT: DMYD

Offline jj1000

  • Administrator
  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • **********
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Posts: 13470
  • Total likes: 6095
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 29367
    • View Profile
  • Location: The value of a forum such as this one is not in that one can post a question and receive an answer, but in that the question has most likely been asked before, and the answer is available to him that will but only use the search function.
  • Programs: 1. Search on google. 2. Search in the right board of DDF with a general word or two. 3. Read the wiki. 4. Read the thread. 5. Ask away.
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #133 on: June 26, 2015, 01:39:11 PM »
I forgot, Chabad is big into that one.  No definitive proof that God exists either, so he doesn't.   ;)
Just means you can't say there is proof one way or another...
See my 5 step program to your left <--

(Real signature under my location)

Offline Aaaron

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 1360
  • Total likes: 39
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
  • Location: Baltimore
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #134 on: June 26, 2015, 01:39:16 PM »
Don't want to read the whole thing. Where does it say homosexuality is "preferable."

Regardless, JJ may concede on that point.  The crux is that it's been around and accepted since the literal dawn of civilization, contrary to some posters' here beliefs.

Offline good sam

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 3340
  • Total likes: 558
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 10
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #135 on: June 26, 2015, 01:39:23 PM »
It does. No definitive proof otherwise.
It's about as definitive as the dead woman's husband showing up in court.
If you don't care why would you comment?
HT: DMYD

Offline Aaaron

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jan 2012
  • Posts: 1360
  • Total likes: 39
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
  • Location: Baltimore
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #136 on: June 26, 2015, 01:40:18 PM »
Just means you can't say there is proof one way or another...

Ah, the problems Einstein introduced with his pesky theories. 

Offline jj1000

  • Administrator
  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • **********
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Posts: 13470
  • Total likes: 6095
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 29367
    • View Profile
  • Location: The value of a forum such as this one is not in that one can post a question and receive an answer, but in that the question has most likely been asked before, and the answer is available to him that will but only use the search function.
  • Programs: 1. Search on google. 2. Search in the right board of DDF with a general word or two. 3. Read the wiki. 4. Read the thread. 5. Ask away.
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #137 on: June 26, 2015, 01:42:23 PM »
Don't want to read the whole thing. Where does it say homosexuality is "preferable."
"Women are for business, boys are for pleasure." i.e. the preferred partner is a male...
See my 5 step program to your left <--

(Real signature under my location)

Offline jj1000

  • Administrator
  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • **********
  • Join Date: Jun 2008
  • Posts: 13470
  • Total likes: 6095
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 29367
    • View Profile
  • Location: The value of a forum such as this one is not in that one can post a question and receive an answer, but in that the question has most likely been asked before, and the answer is available to him that will but only use the search function.
  • Programs: 1. Search on google. 2. Search in the right board of DDF with a general word or two. 3. Read the wiki. 4. Read the thread. 5. Ask away.
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #138 on: June 26, 2015, 01:42:58 PM »
Ah, the problems Einstein introduced with his pesky theories. 
LOL, ye he was cool like that.
See my 5 step program to your left <--

(Real signature under my location)

Offline good sam

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 3340
  • Total likes: 558
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 10
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court of the United States
« Reply #139 on: June 26, 2015, 01:46:45 PM »
"Women are for business, boys are for pleasure." i.e. the preferred partner is a male...
In other words, pedophilia is the preferred form of pleasure. I wonder how the boys felt about that.
If you don't care why would you comment?
HT: DMYD