Same Sex Marriage Legalized In All 50 States But It's Still Not Over

[Jack-Hammer]

Pretty much the top news story of the day is the Supreme Court's landmark decision to overturn the latest attempted state bans on same sex marriage, declaring it legal in all 50 states by a decision of 5-4.

The writing's been on the wall for quite some time now that this was going to happen, due in part to public opinion dramatically shifting in favor of same sex marriage over the course of the last 10 years. When the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 8 in May of 2009, it was the first step towards marriage equality and there was just an avalanche of support growing from the decision. When the United States Supreme Court upheld the California Supreme Court's decision in 2013, it was all but written in the stars that it'd be legalized nationwide.

Of course, there are already some Republican Presidential candidates trying to use this to their advantage by stating they intend to try for a constitutional amendment to overturn the ruling of the Supreme Court despite the fact that currently about 70% of Independent voters are in favor of same sex marriage. The Republican Party no longer has the sort of public support it once had on social issues like this and a lot of Republicans have pretty much thrown in the towel on it. Republican candidate Jeb Bush has said that while he doesn't really support gay marriage, it's an issue that Republicans just aren't going to win and it's time for the party to move on.

Of course, there's still quite a bit of fighting left to do as a whole as this ruling applies only to marriage; there are still quite a few ways left in which LGBTs can be discriminated against. For instance, in 30 states, it's legal for an employer to fire someone if they're gay; doesn't matter how great they are at their job, doesn't matter if they're an asset to whatever company or institution they're working for, they can be fired based on their sexual orientation. So this is one of the next big fights for the gay community for the foreseeable future.

Another one involves whatever sort of rules and regulations come about in regards to government officials, namely a Justice of the Peace, deciding to refuse to preside over gay marriage ceremonies due to religious conviction. This one will be especially messy, there's no real way around that.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

It definitely a step in the right direction. There is no good reason not to legalize same sex marriage, if gays and lesbians want to be miserable like the rest of us there's no reason to stop them (as Jim Cornette would put it). For myself it really comes down to why should anyone care? If there was only 5 million people on the planet and half were gay then yeah I can see an issue strictly for species survival but that's not the case, it's nowhere near the case and it will never be the case.

Discrimination in general is just plain ridiculous, it's a thought process that needs to be rid of (which is easier said than done) and it's time to put the idea of treating a group of people poorly for things they essentially have no control over (like skin color, gender and sexual orientation). At the end of the day as long as no one is getting hurt then it really shouldn't matter. 2 males in love getting married isn't anything to get upset over, just let them do their thing, let them be happy and spend your time worrying about stuff that actually matters.

 

[Mustang Sally]

....and spend your time worrying about stuff that actually matters.

Add to that: spend your time worrying about things that actually affect you.

Even with all the folks in the world that feel qualified to dictate what other people should (or shouldn't) be doing, I can't see how two people of the same gender marrying and making a life together will have any bearing on the person who opposes the union. They will never see 99% of those people or be involved in their lives in any way.

Yes, they're offended that gay marriage even exists....I say it's none of their business.......and that the sun will still be coming up tomorrow whether people of the same gender can marry or not.

I'd love to talk to the four Supremes who voted against it.

 

[enviousdominous]

I'm one of those people who wouldn't be personally affected either way on this issue, I just have a problem with bullshit. Bullshit, in my opinion, is saying that two loving adults can't be allowed validation by our government because it makes some people uncomfortable.

Is gay marriage an insult to marriage? Umm, no it isn't. Think about it; same-sex couples are in love whether they're married or not. That they would choose to be married, in spite of those who hate them for the way they are, is a huge compliment to the idea of marriage. It completely destroys the delusion that depraved hedonism is a prerequisite of being a homosexual.

Gay marriage does not in any way violate someone's right to practice their religion in this country, nobody is forcing a priest to honor a same-sex marriage ceremony. Gay couples can be married in a courtroom, or a more moderate church.

People using the slippery slope fallacy by suggesting that soon people will be able to marry inanimate objects need to go suck car exhaust, we're talking about consenting adults of legal age. Preventing them from this very basic form of validation that allows them hospital visitation rights and joint insurance policies is the same kind of prejudice that ruled when our government prevented black and white people from getting married.

I know plenty of homosexual Christians, Muslims and Republicans. When a group attempts to alienate a portion of their following, they're limiting their own ability to thrive. A gay Republican is probably not going to vote to have their own rights taken away.

Thank goodness for this. The age of reason is still discovering itself.

 

[enviousdominous]

I'd love to talk to the four Supremes who voted against it.

I read Scalia's comments, and they urked me.

In a nutshell; Antonin Scalia is mad that this is a federal mandate, thus preventing individual states from deciding this issue for themselves.

I mentioned earlier how I hate bullshit, well Justice Scalia is full of it.

We're talking about a fundamental issue here, the rights of an individual. Scalia doesn't, in any way, reference his opinion toward homosexuality and the issue of same-sex marriage. He mostly rails against the supreme court itself for not having a better understanding of a major religion through status within those religions, and for not being from any states between the coasts. Keep in mind, he was therefore ripping on the three justices that voted with him on this case.

Skimming through all of what he said, it seemed like he wanted to convey that it's better to discriminate than to discriminate against those who discriminate and have money.

 

[therockiswwf]

If there was only 5 million people on the planet and half were gay then yeah I can see an issue strictly for species survival but that's not the case, it's nowhere near the case and it will never be the case.

Even if everyone on the planet was gay, I'm pretty sure someone would realize it and go oh shit we better start making some babies. So even if this were the case, it wouldn't be a problem.

Anyways, this is something that should have been legalized a long time ago. If people want to get married, let them. The fact that there are still laws discriminating against gay people is disgusting. But this ruling is a huge step forward. Hopefully this is only the first step and taking down those other discrimination laws is next. I'm glad that when people look back at our time, they will see that the bigots who discriminate against gays will be on the wrong side of history.

I'll never get why there is all this hate. If god were real (the one that hates gay people version), that means you would be worshipping a bigot. Why would you want to worship that? I'm not religious myself but if I were, I would have a huge problem worshipping something that tells me to hate based on something like this. The only thing that should matter is how nice you are, everything else is irrelevant.

 

[Torgo]

Great. Good for them. Yeah, I'm a conservative, but its ridiculous to ban em from marrying. We got to move on from the past. Plus, hey we believe in loving our neighbors, anyone who tries to kill or persecute gays for the heck of it is not Catholic.

However, what bugs me is the so called "next battleground", the "anti-discrimination" laws. That scares me. How long till they come after churches? They already have eliminated several people's entire lives by suing their businesses, because they declined to make a gay wedding cake (note that they never said no cake, go to hell, they refused to write gay sentient on it).

We shall see how far is too far.

 

[Барбоса]

However, what bugs me is the so called "next battleground", the "anti-discrimination" laws. That scares me. How long till they come after churches? They already have eliminated several people's entire lives by suing their businesses, because they declined to make a gay wedding cake (note that they never said no cake, go to hell, they refused to write gay sentient on it).

We shall see how far is too far.

It should not scare you.

It is important for the law, through test cases, to find out where the line is between the two inalienable rights - whether it is the ability of a private shop owner to deny custom, attempts to protect those who wish to discriminate through the dangerous 'conscience clauses' or the protection of religious freedom in the face of discrimination laws.

I agree that it will be messy - it was always going to be when deeply held religious beliefs are challenged and that line is likely to be very thin, even blurred - but that is no reason to shy away from it.

 

[Torgo]

It should not scare you.

It is important for the law, through test cases, to find out where the line is between the two inalienable rights - whether it is the ability of a private shop owner to deny custom, attempts to protect those who wish to discriminate through the dangerous 'conscience clauses' or the protection of religious freedom in the face of discrimination laws.

I agree that it will be messy - it was always going to be when deeply held religious beliefs are challenged and that line is likely to be very thin, even blurred - but that is no reason to shy away from it.

Yeah man, whatever happens its gonna make a lot of people unhappy, be it my side, the other side, whomever.

And that line between rights is gonna be moving a lot in both directions, and there will be conflict. This "cultural war" is not even close to being over.

 

[GI Cake]

Yeah man, whatever happens its gonna make a lot of people unhappy, be it my side, the other side, whomever.

And that line between rights is gonna be moving a lot in both directions, and there will be conflict. This "cultural war" is not even close to being over.

If your persecution complex was any more pronounced, I might be worried you are literally Jesus Christ. Gays can get married, and you're still allowed to be a hateful little man. Welcome to America.

 

[DetectiveZelix]

If your persecution complex was any more pronounced, I might be worried you are literally Jesus Christ. Gays can get married, and you're still allowed to be a hateful little man. Welcome to America.

Stop assuming things about him. That's the problem these days, anyone who even begins to speak as to not be on either side gets to be called a hater or a bigot or whatever if they dont fully support something. If this situation was truly "none of their business" why do people of the LGBT community get mad at them for being neutral or for not agreeing to what they want. It's not like they are personally trying to stop their mission. They just dont care to be involved.

And he's right, things are going to get ugly, no matter what is happening in this country, there is always an uproar or outcry over any and everything and the war seems to never end, no matter what the issue it, stating this is truth, not hate

 

[Барбоса]

Stop assuming things about him. That's the problem these days, anyone who even begins to speak as to not be on either side gets to be called a hater or a bigot or whatever if they dont fully support something. If this situation was truly "none of their business" why do people of the LGBT community get mad at them for being neutral or for not agreeing to what they want. It's not like they are personally trying to stop their mission. They just dont care to be involved.

And he's right, things are going to get ugly, no matter what is happening in this country, there is always an uproar or outcry over any and everything and the war seems to never end, no matter what the issue it, stating this is truth, not hate

The reason they get mad is because they are being denied being treated equally in many parts of life. Proclaimed neutrality is an acceptance of the status quo, which for the longest time has been in favour of that inequality.

On top of that, bigotry in all its forms should be confronted and revealed for the ignorance and stupidity it is based upon, and then overcome by education.

 

[Lee]

Yeah man, whatever happens its gonna make a lot of people unhappy, be it my side, the other side, whomever.

And that line between rights is gonna be moving a lot in both directions, and there will be conflict. This "cultural war" is not even close to being over.

May I ask why? Quite interested to know about the Christian view on marriage and sanctity etc.

 

[GI Cake]

Stop assuming things about him. That's the problem these days, anyone who even begins to speak as to not be on either side gets to be called a hater or a bigot or whatever if they dont fully support something. If this situation was truly "none of their business" why do people of the LGBT community get mad at them for being neutral or for not agreeing to what they want. It's not like they are personally trying to stop their mission. They just dont care to be involved.

>Accuse someone of making assumptions
>Then make assumptions about LGBT community

Torgo complains every other week about how the LGBT community is bringing about a culture war and constantly frets that one day the cross he climbs up onto is going to be banned. It takes a special kind of mouth breather to look at SSM as a communities attempt to trample on your rights.

And he's right, things are going to get ugly, no matter what is happening in this country, there is always an uproar or outcry over any and everything and the war seems to never end, no matter what the issue it, stating this is truth, not hate

Gay marriage has been legal in the majority of the country before the Supreme Court ruling and things haven't gotten any "uglier." The only bitterness and bigotry has been coming from the side convinced that gay marriage will kill Christianity in America. To call any of this a "culture war" is a stupid fucking hyperbole of the situation at hand.

 

[Con T.]

Great. Good for them. Yeah, I'm a conservative, but its ridiculous to ban em from marrying. We got to move on from the past. Plus, hey we believe in loving our neighbors, anyone who tries to kill or persecute gays for the heck of it is not Catholic.

However, what bugs me is the so called "next battleground", the "anti-discrimination" laws. That scares me. How long till they come after churches? They already have eliminated several people's entire lives by suing their businesses, because they declined to make a gay wedding cake (note that they never said no cake, go to hell, they refused to write gay sentient on it).

We shall see how far is too far.

You got any callouses from those straw men you're creating there?

I said this a week ago, in regards to Charleston

White supremacists have been kicking up a fucking fit in the last 8 years because they are losing. They are losing the only thing that in their minds, allows them to be in power- their whiteness in a white supremacist society. They are terrified of having to compete on a level playing field and frankly don’t think they should have to. This is not the death-wail of white supremacy by any means, it’s alive and well. But it is a backlash based on the fact that they’ve been losing ground both economically and rhetorically. White people are still in control of all the wealth but white supremacists are losing their social entitlements, and they’re angry that they’ve lost “their way of life”, which would be a satisfying lament if they weren’t so entitled that they lashed out in violence over that loss.

Substitute white supremacists with homophobes, and there is exactly zero difference. Those same homophobes will then unironically bemoan the oppression they feel from our PC culture.

Sound like someone you know?

Gay marriage has been legal in a good portion of the country for years, now. There hasn't been this anti-discrimination angle that threatens your church, which has been giving you callouses from your pearl clutching (or is that the straw man making?)

Come off the cross, Torgo. For all our sake

 

[Spidey Revivey]

Lol cultural war. Like the race war that broke out because of the black folk marrying them white folk, right? Or how 'bout that time we had ourselves that War on Christianity cuz them Atheist fellers got to marry one another? God I can remember those riots like yesterday about people getting hitched to inanimate objects. Cultural War begun, boys. Down with the reptilian overlords leaving chemicals in the sky because the Illuminati told them to.

Canada seems to be okay for the past decade the LGBT community was allowed to elope there. So does pretty much everywhere it's been legalized. The gays still have a hard road to walk though. In many states (including mine) you can fire people for their orientation. They'll still be oppressed by the drama queens that still think marriage has always been between a man and a woman. But now they're gaining a voice. Just think it's sad it took this long.

 

[Torgo]

Torgo complains every other week about how the LGBT community is bringing about a culture war and constantly frets that one day the cross he climbs up onto is going to be banned. It takes a special kind of mouth breather to look at SSM as a communities attempt to trample on your rights. .

I do? Every other week? About LGBT? Really? I write about other shit but not daily on here condemning all the gays to hell.

May I ask why? Quite interested to know about the Christian view on marriage and sanctity etc.

The Christian view is that gay marriage is morally wrong, as the church defines 'marriage' as one man and one woman (so did Hillary Clinton back in '04 but that's a whole nother ball game), as that was (and is) the natural way children are made. It is a sacred union, is what I am trying to say, and the church believes gay marriage messes that up.

Personally, I just think it is very bizarre, like marrying your mother, father, sister, daughter, etc (which you watch and see will be next on the list).

On top of that, bigotry in all its forms should be confronted and revealed for the ignorance and stupidity it is based upon, and then overcome by education.

Can I call out all those who bash religion on that? Pot, meet kettle. Jesus Christ.

Gay marriage has been legal in the majority of the country before the Supreme Court ruling and things haven't gotten any "uglier." The only bitterness and bigotry has been coming from the side convinced that gay marriage will kill Christianity in America. To call any of this a "culture war" is a stupid fucking hyperbole of the situation at hand.

Are you ignoring the bakeries, pizzerias, etc that have been closed due to them exercising their right to not only free business but freedom of religion? How long until they start coming after churches? Wait and see, you wait and see.

And I am seeing a TON of "bitterness and bigotry" right here on these boards. The ones that smash me for having different views. I see it on twitter, the posters calling out others as "ignorant bigots" for having a different point of view.

Open your fucking eyes and realize you are doing exactly what you call people like me out for. You are a bigot against those who disagree with you, and now you see (hopefully) how stupid and pointless that word is.

 

[GI Cake]

I do? Every other week? About LGBT? Really? I write about other shit but not daily on here condemning all the gays to hell.

Hyperbole, but that's beside the point.

The Christian view is that gay marriage is morally wrong, as the church defines 'marriage' as one man and one woman (so did Hillary Clinton back in '04 but that's a whole nother ball game), as that was (and is) the natural way children are made. It is a sacred union, is what I am trying to say, and the church believes gay marriage messes that up.

Where was the Christian protest against Divorce being legal in America? But that's besides the point, the United States doesn't base it's laws around the Church. If you want a Christian Theocracy go to Vatican City.

Personally, I just think it is very bizarre, like marrying your mother, father, sister, daughter, etc (which you watch and see will be next on the list).

Incest and Homosexuality are two completely different things.

Can I call out all those who bash religion on that? Pot, meet kettle. Jesus Christ.

Go ahead and call out people who bash religion, but for the most part people are bashing you specifically for attempting to use your religion as this cudgel to swing and sway the government to push your religious morality.

Are you ignoring the bakeries, pizzerias, etc that have been closed due to them exercising their right to not only free business but freedom of religion?

Your first amendment rights doesn't mean you're allowed to discriminate. The Letter-Day Saints used to exclude black people from their churches, businesses and neighborhoods. They obviously do not practice those beliefs today, but if they were to do so do you think they have a right to turn away black men and women because they feel religiously black people are inferior to whites?

How long until they start coming after churches? Wait and see, you wait and see.

Can you climb down from your cross please? No one is coming for your church. It's stupid shit like this that makes your victim-hood bullshit laughable.

And I am seeing a TON of "bitterness and bigotry" right here on these boards.

"Oh no, the country as a whole no longer forbids gay people I'll never meet to marry each other. And now people on the internet are calling me names after comparing homosexuality to incest." Are you attempting to lack self-awareness or are you just this ignorant.

The ones that smash me for having different views. I see it on twitter, the posters calling out others as "ignorant bigots" for having a different point of view.

I'm not calling you a bigot for inherently disagreeing with me. I'm calling you a bigot because you just compared homosexuality to fucking incest. How are you this dense?

Open your fucking eyes and realize you are doing exactly what you call people like me out for. You are a bigot against those who disagree with you, and now you see (hopefully) how stupid and pointless that word is.

I can only imagine that after all the mental gymnastics you had to pull to make sense for yourself.

 

[Torgo]

Hyperbole, but that's beside the point.



Where was the Christian protest against Divorce being legal in America? But that's besides the point, the United States doesn't base it's laws around the Church. If you want a Christian Theocracy go to Vatican City.

This is true, and that is the way that it should be regarding the separation of church and state, or else you have Iran, and no one likes Iran.
However, it would be great if some of the Catholic beliefs rubbed off on our leaders to influence them- not to use the Bible as a replacement for the Constitution, however.

Incest and Homosexuality are two completely different things.

I don't know, man. I mean, shouldn't you be able to marry the person you love???

Both break natural laws regarding family and reproduction. Frankly, both are mental problems, but hey, that's my opinion.

Go ahead and call out people who bash religion, but for the most part people are bashing you specifically for attempting to use your religion as this cudgel to swing and sway the government to push your religious morality.

I know I am, and I'm sorry. I shouldn't be. That's the problem with my side, we have a ton of scientific info and whatnot, but then go back to bible verses for arguments. That doesn't work.

But what's wrong with morality again? Got to have some sort of morals, no matter what you believe in.

Your first amendment rights doesn't mean you're allowed to discriminate. The Letter-Day Saints used to exclude black people from their churches, businesses and neighborhoods. They obviously do not practice those beliefs today, but if they were to do so do you think they have a right to turn away black men and women because they feel religiously black people are inferior to whites?

Classic argument. The first amendment protects freedom of religion as well as the right to practice it in their way. That means that we can practice as we see fit. Now, the separation of church and state means that this keeps those beliefs out of the public laws, however yes, some religious teachings have influenced public laws.

Regardless, speech, even if it is hate speech, is still speech. And so, it is legal and protected under the First Amendment. Besides, who gets to decide what is hate speech and discrimination, and what is not?

Can you climb down from your cross please? No one is coming for your church. It's stupid shit like this that makes your victim-hood bullshit laughable.

Its your ignorance that is laughable. Just this morning, front page of the Buffalo News: "GAY LEADERS NOW TO PRESS EXPANDED RIGHTS". That means that they will now be demanding laws that say , for example, they cannot be fired for being gay (which is ridiculous...it will turn into you cant fire me-I'm gay and I'll sue you!) and soon, "anti-discrimination" will turn its guns towards all churches, because they "discriminate" against gays (another lie, we accept all, at least in the Catholic Church, we just believe gay marriage is morally wrong)

"Oh no, the country as a whole no longer forbids gay people I'll never meet to marry each other. And now people on the internet are calling me names after comparing homosexuality to incest." Are you attempting to lack self-awareness or are you just this ignorant.

See what I said above. Gay marriage and polygamy/incest are similar in that they both are completely unnatural.

I'm not calling you a bigot for inherently disagreeing with me. I'm calling you a bigot because you just compared homosexuality to fucking incest. How are you this dense?

BIGOT
noun
1.

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

According to the dictionary, calling me a bigot for making a comparison makes no sense, but lets keep flinging that word left and right, shall we?

I can only imagine that after all the mental gymnastics you had to pull to make sense for yourself.

Admittedly, yes I could have worded that better.


Hey, how come you guys don't ever protest Muslim bakeries or mosques or anything? I always read about bashing the Catholics, why not the Muslims...who kill gays...

 

[Con T.]

Yeah, I'm not bothering with your straw men arguments. Let's just get down to business, shall we?

When you say this:

Frankly, both are mental problems, but hey, that's my opinion.

1. I'd love to know exactly how homosexuality is a mental problem. You know, for scientific reasons.

I get it, queering doesn't make the world work, and such. You know, Warrior was kind of a homophobe, too. But hey, that's my opinion.

2. How can you look at this definition below:

BIGOT
noun
1.

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion

Note that you clearly disagree with gay people's way of life (to the extent of saying homosexuality as a mental problem), and not consider yourself a bigot?

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Not that much of anything Torgo says deserves a response his idea that incest isn't natural is especially foolish. Incest goes on all over the place is nature. It is generally kind of bad for certain species development (especially humans) but it is very out there in nature.

Some people who enjoy a certain book would argue that a certain couple that lived for over 900 years used incest to make sure we were all alive today.

 

[Nate DaMac]

Not that much of anything Torgo says deserves a response his idea that incest isn't natural is especially foolish. Incest goes on all over the place is nature. It is generally kind of bad for certain species development (especially humans) but it is very out there in nature.

Some people who enjoy a certain book would argue that a certain couple that lived for over 900 years used incest to make sure we were all alive today.

I suppose this is a taboo thing to say but honestly, I couldn't care less if siblings married each other. Granted that this is an uneducated opinion that I'd be glad to alter after hearing from someone more educated than I. Obviously this disqualifies Torgo.

I especially liked the part where he said that businesses being unable to fire people solely due to their sexual preferences was ridiculous.

 

[Lee]

The Christian view is that gay marriage is morally wrong, as the church defines 'marriage' as one man and one woman (so did Hillary Clinton back in '04 but that's a whole nother ball game), as that was (and is) the natural way children are made. It is a sacred union, is what I am trying to say, and the church believes gay marriage messes that up.

Personally, I just think it is very bizarre, like marrying your mother, father, sister, daughter, etc (which you watch and see will be next on the list).

Like Abraham and Sarah being half brother/sister? Not going into the amount of cousin marriage but yeah the Bible doesn't define marriage as one man and one woman.

Throughout the old testament most marriages mentioned are either arranged, with family members or more than one. More often than not a combination of all three.

Lets look at the new testament where the book of 1 Timothy says "the husband of one wife" but alas that's in church leadership.

Homosexuality gets mentioned throughout the Bible 4 times by the name homosexuality. We know the Levitical law is fulfilled through Jesus which is why I can eat shellfish and wear clothes with more than two materials.

Coming to the new testament Paul mentions it twice and both in regards to the Corinthians. At the time of writing their population was dwindling and we know what the Greeks were like with their gay sex. This was in addition to having a wife so was essentially adultery. This is something I believe was for those people at that time.

Context on all four of these are the act of homosexual sex not a relationship or marriage.

In addition the word eunuch is also used for homosexuals in the Bible. The first gentile to be given the word was the Ethiopian Eunuch. So a gay black man?

Old testament wise God says:
Is 56 v 4 "For this is what the Lord says: I will bless those eunuchs who keep my Sabbath days holy and who choose to do what pleases me and commit their lives to me."

Then Jesus in Matthew says:
Matthew 19 v 12 "Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can."

Jesus even states some are born that way!

So the Bible doesn't say marriage is between one man and one woman. The church may do but they're wrong if you look at the Bible.

The Bible doesn't mention much on marriage but it does mention this in Matthew 19 v 8 - 9 (a few verses after the Eunuch mention):

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended. And I tell you this, whoever divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery—unless his wife has been unfaithful.”

So where are the protests against divorce?

In conclusion:

The Biblical model of marriage is to a relative, usually with a dowry and you can have more than one (unless in leadership).

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

I suppose this is a taboo thing to say but honestly, I couldn't care less if siblings married each other. Granted that this is an uneducated opinion that I'd be glad to alter after hearing from someone more educated than I.

Well, there is slight biology problem with that...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and-us/201210/the-problem-incest

So for the sake of their children its illadvised. Because gays can adopt children so its not that big of a deal but incest babies borned with some kind of defect is not just some crazy story that conservatives scare people. And if you alove them marridge there isnt much you can do about them getting children of their own. Unless you want to make them do abortion when they see problem or just let it go and have them do abortion or have baby with defect. Which cant be good for female body in general because just one abortion can cause numerous problems, let alone if they try multiple times. So, even if you somehow get past of morals, biology is tricky part to get by. And state should care about that stuff even if individuals dont.

There, hope I helped with my psychological mambo- jumbo.

 

[GI Cake]

This is true, and that is the way that it should be regarding the separation of church and state, or else you have Iran, and no one likes Iran.
However, it would be great if some of the Catholic beliefs rubbed off on our leaders to influence them- not to use the Bible as a replacement for the Constitution, however.

That's a whole lot of conjecture to assume Catholic Beliefs were an influence on a Constitution that was rather explicitly clear to keep America away from a Religious theocracy, but hey if you wanna make that argument, Catholic influence would explain why had Slavery in America up until the 1800's.

I don't know, man. I mean, shouldn't you be able to marry the person you love???

You should, and personally I don't care if you want to marry your own sister. The point is you're comparing sexual orientation with something that quite frankly isn't sexual orientation. It would be like comparing race with racing motorcycles.

Both break natural laws regarding family and reproduction. Frankly, both are mental problems, but hey, that's my opinion.

The United States doesn't operate on what you think is natural law. Besides that, if reproduction is such a concern for married couples, should the state demand fertility tests and for those who fail or banned from marriage?

I know I am, and I'm sorry. I shouldn't be. That's the problem with my side, we have a ton of scientific info and whatnot, but then go back to bible verses for arguments. That doesn't work.

That scientific info as to why Homosexual marriage is bad is so lofty, seeing as you haven't once mentioned it until now. At this point, I'm gonna assume you're just talking out of your ass. The only major opposition to SSM has, and always will be Religious Conservatives.

But what's wrong with morality again? Got to have some sort of morals, no matter what you believe in.

No one said you shouldn't have morals or that your morality is wrong. But rather your morality, and any other religious morality should not dictate how the nation operates.

Classic argument. The first amendment protects freedom of religion as well as the right to practice it in their way. That means that we can practice as we see fit. Now, the separation of church and state means that this keeps those beliefs out of the public laws, however yes, some religious teachings have influenced public laws.

You didn't answer the question. Do you think a religious person could a "Whites only" on their place of business and discriminate against people of color based on their religious views? What if an entire town practiced that religion, or >70% of the country?

Regardless, speech, even if it is hate speech, is still speech. And so, it is legal and protected under the First Amendment. Besides, who gets to decide what is hate speech and discrimination, and what is not?

How on Earth did you manage to avoid the question to the point where you made another stupid point that is irrelevant to the discussion? No one is denying your right to hate the queers, Torgo. But what the country has found itself doing again is repeating history with discrimination from businesses.

Its your ignorance that is laughable. Just this morning, front page of the Buffalo News: "GAY LEADERS NOW TO PRESS EXPANDED RIGHTS". That means that they will now be demanding laws that say , for example, they cannot be fired for being gay (which is ridiculous...it will turn into you cant fire me-I'm gay and I'll sue you!) and soon, "anti-discrimination" will turn its guns towards all churches, because they "discriminate" against gays (another lie, we accept all, at least in the Catholic Church, we just believe gay marriage is morally wrong)

This paragraph was a thrill ride from start to finish. Yes, you shouldn't be fired on the value that you are homosexual. Just like you shouldn't be fired for the value of being a Christian, or transgender, or a jew, or a Scientologists (actually, lets fire the Scientologists.) Why are you so vehemently against gays getting the same rights that you have?

And no, your hateful, stupid little church will be allowed to preach it's hateful, stupid little things for as long as you want. There is no way SSM will shut down religion. However, it is becoming more and more transparent that you are a catholic not for the lessons it teaches, but rather how conveniently their prejudices match your own.

See what I said above. Gay marriage and polygamy/incest are similar in that they both are completely unnatural.

Polygamy/Incest are unnatural? Have you not owned a couple of pets? Incest, and multiple sex partners exist in abundance in nature. There is literally hundreds of species among mammals alone that exhibit homosexual behavior alone. Hell, homosexual behavior was a well recorded behavior for as far back as we can discover. Homosexuals clearly existed in the Greeks, Romans, Mesopotamians, and it's even documented in the bible. To try and claim homosexuality is "unnatural" is absolutely bonkers.

BIGOT
noun
1.

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

According to the dictionary, calling me a bigot for making a comparison makes no sense, but lets keep flinging that word left and right, shall we?

Yes, lets argue semantics as to what is, and what isn't a bigot. THAT will help defend your position that it's totally okay to compare homosexuality to incest. I think riding a bicycle is just like murdering a bunch of people in a church. It's fun, and it has great cardio. If anyone disagrees with that, they're a bigot!

Admittedly, yes I could have worded that better.

Then we'll move past it then, no worries.

Hey, how come you guys don't ever protest Muslim bakeries or mosques or anything? I always read about bashing the Catholics, why not the Muslims...who kill gays...

Christians are an overwhelming majority in the United States. That's a statistical fact. As a result you're going to find more Christians running bakeries than Muslim bakeries. But I don't like Islam either, fuck Islam. The Muslims who kill people are evil, vile people. But Muslims, and certainly radical Islam isn't prevalent in American Politics.