SCOTUS strikes down gay marriage bans, legalizing marriage equality nationwide

Status
Not open for further replies.
cajunator said:
No way. that movie is completely terrible. Taco Bell ok.
Click to expand...

tumblr_m2yu8jAQWo1r30txzo1_250.gif


But still today is a great day.
 
Ivan A Nguyen said:
As a catholic, I couldn't even walk into a random catholic church and demand a traditional catholic wedding. You have to be part of the community, get interviewed, and all that jazz.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A wedding, not just getting married (big difference between the two) is about you ratifying your relationship in the eyes of your community and friends. Why people think anything other than an EXTREME outlier (that will get all the press on every TV network when it happens I'm sure) would try and force their way into something that wouldn't want them in the first place?

People are dumb sometimes.

Gorger said:
Isn't suicide sin?
Click to expand...

Apparently nobody told pastor Scarborough that sins do not vary by level. And that if he did that, he'd be on the same level as the homosexuals and bisexuals and pansexuals and whatever else he's choosing to vilify.

Ironic, in a way.
 
bengraven said:
A family member just told me to remove my Fb posts about this.

"For every gay couple that's happy there's a good Christian couple who are sad by this - you would do well to respect their feelings too".
Click to expand...
What about a gay Christian couple? Will one of them be sad and the other one happy?
 
Frozenprince said:
Everybody knows real Christians aren't the ones who ignore what Jesus said for what a preacher told them he said. :)

At least everybody should know.
Click to expand...

There is so many real issues that face America that the church should be focused on: poverty, homelessness, racism, that most fellow Christians harp on ssm is confusing to me.

I guess the change starts with myself.
 
Frozenprince said:
Can a Catholic walk into a Mosque and demand the Imam marry them in a traditional Catholic ceremony?

Then wtf is the argument here? Nobody is going to try and impose anything on someone that doesn't want it. The whole point of SSM is that we're finally free of having these things imposed ON US.
Click to expand...

What I'm curious is whether he's actually that dumb / unaware ... or does he know that's not how it works, but is throwing it out there to motivate the base who is that dumb / unaware?
 
Cybit said:
Based on the demographics (and the response today) - I'm of the opinion that gay marriage will go the way of interracial marriage rather than abortion - but to say that it definitely will go that way (and be more or less commonly accepted) is not something I'm willing to say. It *could* end up like abortion; and Roberts is pointing that out.

Also, I'm pretty sure John Roberts is smarter than you and I combined and then squared. I'm pretty sure all of the justices are, actually. (Thomas might be crazy pants, but he's probably smart). He just doesn't think they're the same, and history (and time) will show whether he is right or not.
Click to expand...

We can prognosticate; it's an ability we humans have. Predictions using past events and trends tend to be very accurate. SSM will definitely continue gaining support, especially now that it is law. Unless some emergent situation occurs that no one - not even John Roberts - can account for, the majority think and will continue to think that homosexuality is valid.

And smart people can have stupid opinions, too. No need for the appeal to authority. What will change about the concept of sexuality in the future that will validate or invalidate Roberts' stance? Why must we wait until some far off time to reason if there is a difference between hetero and homosexual marriage?
 
ElectricBlanketFire said:
Tell them statistically speaking, there is a gay person in their family, on their street and making their food...WITH THEIR GAY HANDS!!!
Click to expand...

She said there is a gay cousin in the family and that "she's always so sad". Um, yeah, there's probably a reason for it. Maybe because her closest family member is a Pentacostal who believes everyone is going to burn in hell? I can't imagine how those gatherings must feel.

Easton Dark said:
Say that those christian couples should become gay to be happy again.
Click to expand...

pigeon said:
The only solution is to gay marry them.
Click to expand...

She is legitmately trying to make me feel bad for being happy.

Like apparently Christians are really really sad...this person who is agoraphobic and never leaves her house and gets her news from Steve Harvey says. I want to be like "how do you know unless you leave your house and see what it's like out there?"
 
Speaking as someone who believes in God, just please ignore what those uneducated fools have to say. :/

Don't let them ruin your happy day! You are all equal under the lord! Don't believe the propoganda, damnit!
 
bengraven said:
A family member just told me to remove my Fb posts about this.

"For every gay couple that's happy there's a good Christian couple who are sad by this - you would do well to respect their feelings too".
Click to expand...

Tell them you didn't realize freedom of expression didn't go both ways.

See what I did there? Guys? Guys?
 
Why did people want to keep gays from getting married? As far as I am concerned everyone should get to be miserable equally.

jk I love my wife...:P
 
2002whitegt said:
There is so many real issues that face America that the church should be focused on: poverty, homelessness, racism, that most fellow Christians harp on ssm is confusing to me.

I guess the change starts with myself.
Click to expand...

Now that this is finally no longer an issue that people can use to distract from those other issues (though it was a legitimate issue and I am ecstatic it's finally over with) maybe we'll start seeing progressive social movement in those other areas as well.

Funding for homeless and mental health services has been gouged to less than 40% of what they were 30 years ago, this is the issue the country needs to be talking about right now.
 
I've just been smiling all day every time I think about this ruling today. June 26th what a great day.



June 26th 2003 - sodomy is no longer illegal anywhere in the U.S.

June 26th 2013 - DOMA is overturned, allowing the Federal government to recognize same sex marriages.

June 26th 2015 - same sex marriage legal in all 50 states.
 
xbhaskarx said:
How often does social change of this magnitude happen so rapidly?
0jpgH3d.gif


Compare 2007 to where we are in June 2015...
Click to expand...

Hopefully, soon enough, marijuana reform will look the exact same way. Washington and colorado opened the floodgates.

Can you imagine if america is a place with legal weed and gay marriages by, say, 2020? Could you ever have imagined that would have been possible even 5 years ago?
 
Krejlooc said:
Hopefully, soon enough, marijuana reform will look the exact same way. Washington and colorado opened the floodgates.

Can you imagine if america is a place with legal weed and gay marriages by, say, 2020? Could you ever have imagined that would have been possible even 5 years ago?
Click to expand...

Yeah I could imagine that. The tides were and are already turning in favor of it.
 
cajunator said:
Lol my coworker said exactly that before.
He divorced twice.
Click to expand...

It's almost like the national divorce rate is 50% for a reason. lol

Krejlooc said:
Hopefully, soon enough, marijuana reform will look the exact same way. Washington and colorado opened the floodgates.

Can you imagine if america is a place with legal weed and gay marriages by, say, 2020? Could you ever have imagined that would have been possible even 5 years ago?
Click to expand...

It needs to happen before any more of Mexico is turned into the sovreign country of Drug Lords.

The US is directly responsible for the deaths of 60,000+ Mexican nationals because of the war on drugs. Entire chunks of Mexico are UNLIVABLE because of the threat of death. The police are so rampantly corrupt that less than 5% of all murderers are even ARRESTED, let alone incarcerated. It needs to end.
 
Frozenprince said:
Apparently nobody told pastor Scarborough that sins do not vary by level. And that if he did that, he'd be on the same level as the homosexuals and bisexuals and pansexuals and whatever else he's choosing to vilify.

Ironic, in a way.
Click to expand...

Don't forget about folk who like lobster and bacon, as well as those children who disrespected their parents!
 
Felix Lighter said:
So, no marriage for gays and no marriage for the infertile then?
Click to expand...

Well, the argument that men and women are complimentary isn't just restricted to their ability to have children together. The argument is that men and women can experience a special kind of physical and emotional intimacy together that people of the same sex cannot experience because of the way the different innate strengths and weaknesses and the different physical makeup of the two genders are designed to work together to create something greater than each individual part. That happens whether or not the couple end up having children.

CrimzonSamurai said:
That argument only makes sense if marriage was a prerequisite for procreation, though, which it isn't. And that's not even the function of marriage that is at issue in this argument. The only function of marriage is to consolidate state benefits into one legal entity - that being the couple. If marriage wasn't government recognized to begin with, and remained only a religious rite, then your argument would have merit. But, if you're going to offer tax breaks for it, that can't happen under the Constitution of the United States of America.

Also Intelligent Design is not "believing in evolution with a caveat" it's still not believing in evolution.
Click to expand...

I actually do agree that civil marriage should be considered as distinct from religious marriage, as the two sides of society are no longer linked in the way they used to be. What the government says and what God says are two different things. Unless you live in a government run by God, which certainly is true of no government on earth. So religious arguments are not going to have persuasive merit when determining governmental policy.

I haven't seen a good argument that believing in evolution necessarily precludes believing in a Creator.

Stumpokapow said:
Still circular; you (substitute "you" for the argument, if you do not agree with it personally but are advancing it as a reasonable example of a position) define marriage in such a way to exclude gay marriage, and then you use that definition to demonstrate that marriage excludes gay people. Yes, if the definition of marriage is that you need a man and a woman, then it follows that the definition of marriage requires a man and a woman.

It's still circular if you make the circle a little bigger and say marriage is defined as requiring two opposite types of people, where we define type as gender, thus it follows that that definition of marriage excludes same-sex couples.

No matter how many levels of indirection you but on the definition, if you have a definition that's crafted such that all straight couples are eligible and no gay couples are eligible, and you use that definition to prove that gay couples are not eligible, you are making a circular argument.

If you want to own the immutable definition question-begging, just go with "God made marriage this way", which is what the people not dressing up their feelings in sophistry do, and the rest of us can feel free to roll our eyes and move along.
Click to expand...

Whether you define marriage as between a man and a woman or marriage as between any two consenting adults or marriage as anything else, arguing about it is always going to come down to an argument about definition. I don't think there's any way to avoid that. There's not really a way to define marriage in a way that's completely agnostic as to its makeup and then argue from there as to what marriage is. So yes, the question ultimately comes down to who defines marriage and what they define it as.
 
Krejlooc said:
Hopefully, soon enough, marijuana reform will look the exact same way. Washington and colorado opened the floodgates.

Can you imagine if america is a place with legal weed and gay marriages by, say, 2020? Could you ever have imagined that would have been possible even 5 years ago?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. Exciting times no doubt.
 
cajunator said:
Yeah I could imagine that. The tides were and are already turning in favor of it.
Click to expand...

Blows my fucking mind.

In a good way, I mean. I honestly believe the number of people truly upset by this are a disgustingly tiny minority. I suspect many, at worst, simply dont care. And most are probably happy because, let's face it, its 2015 and you have to live in a bubble to not know a single gay person. Its so much harder to hate when the issue is given a face.
 
hosannainexcelsis said:
Well, the argument that men and women are complimentary isn't just restricted to their ability to have children together. The argument is that men and women can experience a special kind of physical and emotional intimacy together that people of the same sex cannot experience because of the way the different innate strengths and weaknesses and the different physical makeup of the two genders are designed to work together to create something greater than each individual part. That happens whether or not the couple end up having children.



I actually do agree that civil marriage should be considered as distinct from religious marriage, as the two sides of society are no longer linked in the way they used to be. What the government says and what God says are two different things. Unless you live in a government run by God, which certainly is true of no government on earth. So religious arguments are not going to have persuasive merit when determining governmental policy.

I haven't seen a good argument that believing in evolution necessarily precludes believing in a Creator.



Whether you define marriage as between a man and a woman or marriage as between any two consenting adults or marriage as anything else, arguing about it is always going to come down to an argument about definition. I don't think there's any way to avoid that. There's not really a way to define marriage in a way that's completely agnostic as to its makeup and then argue from there as to what marriage is. So yes, the question ultimately comes down to who defines marriage and what they define it as.
Click to expand...

All I see here is empty sophistry.
 
I hope this means that marijuana prohibition will get the spotlight now for the next big thing that needs to be reformed in this country.
 
hosannainexcelsis said:
The argument is that men and women can experience a special kind of physical and emotional intimacy together that people of the same sex cannot experience because of the way the different innate strengths and weaknesses and the different physical makeup of the two genders are designed to work together to create something greater than each individual part. That happens whether or not the couple end up having children.
Click to expand...

How do you test this? When a same sex couple tells you that, no, they can and do experience the same physical and emotional intimacy together, on what basis do you gainsay their testimony?
 
hosannainexcelsis said:
Well, the argument that men and women are complimentary isn't just restricted to their ability to have children together. The argument is that men and women can experience a special kind of physical and emotional intimacy together that people of the same sex cannot experience because of the way the different innate strengths and weaknesses and the different physical makeup of the two genders are designed to work together to create something greater than each individual part. That happens whether or not the couple end up having children.
Click to expand...

This is some woo-woo shit.
 
hosannainexcelsis said:
I actually do agree that civil marriage should be considered as distinct from religious marriage, as the two sides of society are no longer linked in the way they used to be. What the government says and what God says are two different things. Unless you live in a government run by God, which certainly is true of no government on earth. So religious arguments are not going to have persuasive merit when determining governmental policy.

I haven't seen a good argument that believing in evolution necessarily precludes believing in a Creator.
Click to expand...

I know someone else will get to countering the rest of your post, but as for this part this ruling and thereby US Law is only concerned with civil marriage. Religious institutions are, by order of the decision, exempt from being compelled to perform same sex marriages if they have a conscientious objection. So, any argument informed by religion or other cultural tradition isn't going to work.

And the argument that you can't believe in evolution and a creator at the same time is simple, evolution by definition functions with random mutations as the mechanism for change and adaptation. A creator, also by definition, would not allow for the necessary randomness that the system needs.

I mean, sure, you can say "god did it" but if you're honest with yourself it's kind of a cop out. Better to go the deist route and say he left the primordial ooze and then just sat back and watched until it gained sentience, or something.
 
hosannainexcelsis said:
I haven't seen a good argument that believing in evolution necessarily precludes believing in a Creator.
Click to expand...
How about the fact that by making it seem as if all living organisms were created in a way that doesn't require a creator and planting plenty of 'evidence' in favor of such a process taking place, God is systematically fooling people into thinking he doesn't exist; therefore making him not a merciful God, therefore making him not the Christian God.
 
Is it just me or is the Supreme Court the branch of government that seems to have its shit together more than the other two at least in the past few years?
 
bengraven said:
A family member just told me to remove my Fb posts about this.

"For every gay couple that's happy there's a good Christian couple who are sad by this - you would do well to respect their feelings too".
Click to expand...

I will respect only their ability to have those feelings; not the feelings themselves. Let's be clear: just because someone is sad about something, doesn't mean they deserve sympathy. People cried over the ending of segregation. In this case, anyone who is sad about the expansion of civil rights is simply misguided and wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dave Grohl announces daughter outside of his marriage
2 3
143
9K
Dr.Morris79 replied
20 injured after Mexican Navy training ship strikes Brooklyn Bridge
News  2
56
555
Major Insano replied
Tragic News: Destiny open marriage fails
2 3 4
171
36K
Deleted member 1159 replied
  • Poll
The pull-down ad bar thing
Community 
44
643
AgatonSax replied
Microsoft is finally shutting down Skype in May
41
2K
MakeMudosGreatAgain replied
Top Bottom