Completely missed the point.
To put into perspective. You have to look at the supreme court.
There are 9 judges in the supreme court. It was ruled in a 5-4 favour for gay marriage.
The people dont get a say in who is in the supreme court, as its decided by the senate and the president.
So 5 people out of your whole country dictated the nation for gay marriage.
@danomighty Dont worry.
The Supreme court also gave a monkey human rights. Its only a matter of time.
(Oh, hey. Rare The Green Trench Coat sighting. At least something good came out of this thread rather than just being able to note that Cisco’s useless ass is back yet again.)
The Supreme Court also said that corporations are people, decided in favor of Bush who then became President probably illegally, initially held up segregation and other horrible things. I don’t think anyone has ever liked all of their decisions and they shouldn’t, but what you’re implying basically has no merit really unless you’re trying to argue to get rid of the Supreme Court entirely, which would be hilarious for various reasons.
Well, still officially legal in any case. Let’s not pretend it isn’t basically legal in a sense since there’s still de facto segregation in a lot of places even outside of the South, though that’s another discussion that I’m sure a bunch of trolls would gladly flock to as well.
That’s not exactly news though. Literally everyone has some type of agenda and bias and the majority of people tend to just be “followers”–mob mentality and all that. So…yeah, not exactly illuminating about anything, especially since I don’t recall anyone saying that non-heterosexuals were anywhere near perfect.
This is why reading comprehension is so important.
You completely missed MY point. If that language was not put into law to begin with, denying homosexuals to marry would have not been a big issue, thus not having to go to the Supreme Court in the first place.
Completely fine with power abuse.
With the ruling you’ve thrown first, tenth and thirteenth amendment protections to the wind.
Thats not an issue.
But if it werent for you bigots not letting people be complete equals then this wouldnt have to happen! >:(
I’ve given my reasons and link stories and sources to my claims.
All I have seen was lol didnt read, your dumb.
And for the wailing and gnashing in this thread, gay people can still get married.
Stay mad, haters.
Wait, what is the issue with all this again?
Gay marriage is legal so now it’s only a matter of time before dog fucking and underage marriage is legal to! OH THE HUMANITY!!!
If letting homosexuals get married, it will opens up a Pandora’s box for others forms of depravity. MUH TRUHDISHIONS!
LOUD NOISES.
You know, just like interracial marriage. The arguments for this are almost exactly the same, word for word.
Mhmm. Which means people’ll get over it eventually.
Hinduism and Buddhism don’t inherently prohibit homosexuality. There’s an entire section in the Kama Sutra about how to have sex with manwives/trannies. Homosexuality was well tolerated in Chinese Buddhism, the topic wasn’t even part of doctrine.
This is a really stupid way to look at it.
There are a number of problems affecting any number of fringe groups, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t important. Just because this isn’t important to you does not mean it isn’t important in the grand scheme of things.
Here is my opinion
The best thing they should do is really change the name of their wedlock. No one really has the problem with gay people wanting to love and be with each other, but just respect the fact that marriage is the wedlock that Christians hold with in our religion. All cultures and beliefs have their own names for their wedlocks, and marriage is the name in which we Christians hold for our tradition. Marriage by definition does mean man and woman.
Why not just show respect for our beliefs, we (christians) believe that marriage is supposed to be a covenant from God between man and woman so why can’t we just get respect on that? Even if you don’t believe in our God that does not mean that you have the right to just force your wants on to what we just believe in and just throw all your bashing when we are upset about that.
You all want separation from church and state just as much as we do. However the fact that legalizing gays’ and giving it a name that is viewed religiously is in opposition to the separation because it is already invading Church beliefs. If the word “marriage” is changed for homosexual wedlock then christians won’t have a right to oppose to it because it has nothing in relation to us.
And here we go with Fishjie posting nothing but insults towards christians again. What the hell is so wrong about believing that us imperfect humans are not just living in an evil world to one day just not exist anymore, what is wrong in believing in a God who actually loves humanity? What is so wrong about believing in a religion that orders forgiveness and loving even you enemies? What is so wrong about believing that there is justice for the good and the evil no matter what happens?
Is it because of some bad representatives today and in history? Why, atheism never had any bad representatives before? You guys have no reason at all other than to just christian bash which shows allot about who you really are.
If you read my post you would see that there was another option that didnt involve waiting for the state. Also, the definition of marriage is fundamental to the decision as rendered. In any of the many landmark civil rights cases of the past there was no redefining of fundamental legal concepts, just overturning (or unfortunately some of the older cases upholding) an unequal application of legally established constitutional protections.
The law did not ‘care’ what people did in private. This is precisely *not *what the decision was about. The decision was about the public recognition of a union as it pertains to sensitive matters such as joint property/deathbed bedside/healthcare matters etc. Despite what you read on facebook the decision was not about allowing people the freedom to love/sleep with whomever they want. And regarding state-to-state legal discrepancies; there are a lot. This was by design. States as laboratories, etc…
This is a great example for me to explain my point: There was no controversy about what voting was, the legal definition of it was not in debate it was simply denied to certain people via discrimination. Similarly, there was no controversy about what a person was (if we are being completely honest), it is just that a certain subset of the population was susceptible to being treated as property. The blazing difference here is the fundamental legal definition of marriage (as it is defined in certain States – and as it has always been defined worldwide for millenia). This is a fundamental difference.
You are part of the punditry who use this as an opportunity to attack those who oppose. Certainly some who oppose represent the reciprocal to your punditry (anti-gay bigots), however others have legitimate concerns and arent necessarily caught up in the superficial social tidal wave of gay pride. As usual the issue is more subtle (and more profound) than the mainstream news/social media/politicians would lead their subjects to believe.
Perhaps the low bar for approval of massive loans are exactly the reason for the high cost. There is no market pressure. No? Although one legit fix may be to allow a declaration of bankruptcy to void the debt. What do you think the chances of that happening are?
Give it time. In about 20 years, “companion animal” will mean something entirely different.
Yeah, no. Marriage has existed long before religion has. What you want is a specific definition of marriage that your religion adheres to, which is bullshit. Marriage has, since the Stone Age, been an evolving process that changes definition when it sees fit.
So, with no respect at all, fuck you.
Oh em gee. Totally, like awesome.
Are you even a man anymore? Just reading those headlines was obvious click bait. No better then citing Gawker as a source.
The 1 of out of the 3 authors cited wasnt even a historian. But a lawyer and writer.
The other 2 cant possibly have a bias at all, nope.
But even if I were to buy that. You still havent address a big concern. Children.
Your whole argument is about 2 consulting adults and you focus only on that. Overlooking facts when someone brings what a traditional family vs a gay family and how they’re children compare and the overall environment.
As I’ve said, you only care about your feelings. You’ve never consider the possible side effects of your actions.
Only that, “YAY WE MARRIED NAO” and scream bigots or idiots when people talk against it.
The main point of my post was “changing the name” for the wedlock of homosexuals. I did address that wedlocks have different names in other cultures and i never implied Christianity and Judaism invented it. I’m saying the word “marriage” is a christian name, therefore it would be better to change gay “marriage” into something else. It’s like Christian vivaha, it would be understandable as to why Hindu’s would find that title offending and belief disrupting.
The problem with changing the name is that you’re already making it unequal even if on paper everything is the same. You might please the people objecting on the grounds of religion but you won’t please homosexuals who want to call it a marriage. I used to believe civil unions with the same exact rights would suffice but later changed my stance because it’s just not fair and not equal.
Besides, religion should be 100% out of politics. You don’t want to pay taxes? Fine. But don’t inject your beliefs into the system.