SCOTUS strikes down gay marriage bans, legalizing marriage equality nationwide

Status
Not open for further replies.
cajunator said:
In that case then its fine.
To me tolerance is a compromise sort of thing. Like "Well ok we will allow you to exist for now". I know every little victory counts but it seems like such a hollow word to describe something.
Click to expand...
Tolerance can sometimes mean a begrudging compromise like you're saying. But that's not necessarily all it ever means. And I don't think that's how it's generally meant in discussions like these.
 
excelsiorlef said:
DGr5HfOt.png
Click to expand...

<3

WYj3ypc.gif
 
Ah, "tolerance". So often code for "I don't like you but I won't actively campaign against your existence anymore".

Unfortunately (or fortunately?), tolerance will be the name of the game for treatment of LGBTs for some time to come. Widespread acceptance will take more time.
 
Such an amazing day, and i'm sure it's even more amazing for those devoted years of their lives and fought to make this happen!!!

I'm loving how colourful social media is at the moment ;)
 
foxtrot3d said:
The fuck did he get that from? Marriage didn't come about from a religious or political movement? Sure...
Click to expand...

It didn't, actually. Marriage came out of a desire to share property rights and establish recorded familial lineages/dynasties and existed long before the imposition of religion on society. Romans, Mesopotamians and the Fujian region of China all had officiated ceremonies that allowed the union of men to one another, to name a few. These were all civil marriages, not religious ones.

Emperor Nero of Rome was said to have married a man named Pythagoras (not THE Pythagoras) and enforced his marriage as lawful. He then did so again, although the second time was a pederastic relationship with an unwilling slave boy.

Mesopotamia in particular had ceremonies for both heterosexual and homosexual pairings that were considered equal pairings by the people of that era and such unions were available to the common population.

And the Chinese Ming Dynasty apparently was ripe with gay nobles sharing their homes and their beds and were publicly recognized as married.

Only after the imposition of Christianity on the Roman Empire did marriage become a religious issue in most European cultures. What happened in Mesopotamia and China I can not so easily recall, but I believe one of the successor dynasties enforced homosexual pairings as acceptable but not for the purpose of marriage and that kinda stuck and mutated into "be gay all you want in private, my child, as long as I get a grandchild from your civil marriage."

Kangi said:
The newest Cyanide & Happiness:

kCHnOCB.png
Click to expand...
AMAZING.
 
Alienfan said:
Such an amazing day, and i'm sure it's even more amazing for those devoted years of their lives and fought to make this happen!!!

I'm loving how colourful social media is at the moment ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah I really like all the color. I always try to spread multicolor happiness everywhere to begin with. Today I had an actual reason too. I bought a corsiar K70 RGB keyboard just so I could have a bunch of color at my desktop even. I wish I could post a short video of the profile Im using for my keyboard now. Its sick.
 
blackjaw said:
I'm proud that my kid can grow up in a more tolerant America.

My wife was mentioning how our kid will grow up thinking of gay marriage like we think of slavery....like wtf were people thinking, how can someone be so hateful or care so much about denying another human something so basic.

I'm happy for everyone that was waiting for this decision and look forward to seeing what is next for society as a whole.
cajunator said:
But tolerance is one thing, what you want is full acceptance.
I dont like when people "tolerate" something. That means the begrudge it. Fucking accept it. Its the new reality, so swallow pride and accept whatever it is.
Seanspeed said:
Tolerance can sometimes mean a begrudging compromise like you're saying. But that's not necessarily all it ever means. And I don't think that's how it's generally meant in discussions like these.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Kangi said:
Ah, "tolerance". So often code for "I don't like you but I won't actively campaign against your existence anymore".

Unfortunately (or fortunately?), tolerance will be the name of the game for treatment of LGBTs for some time to come. Widespread acceptance will take more time.
Click to expand...
It's very true that tolerance isn't really the desired end goal, and that acceptance is. Even still, someone with a closed mindset is such because they've thought that way for a long time. Negative as it may be to say, it's probably going to take small, cumulative steps for their perspective to change if it's going to change at all.

Because of this, I think tolerance is a wonderful thing to reiterate in discussions like this, even if it's not contextually perfect.
 
Terrell said:
It didn't, actually. Marriage came out of a desire to share property rights and establish recorded familial lineages/dynasties and existed long before the imposition of religion on society. Romans, Mesopotamians and the Fujian region of China all had officiated ceremonies that allowed the union of men to one another, to name a few. These were all civil marriages, not religious ones.

Emperor Nero of Rome was said to have married a man named Pythagoras (not THE Pythagoras) and enforced his marriage as lawful. He then did so again, although the second time was a pederastic relationship with an unwilling slave boy.

Mesopotamia in particular had ceremonies for both heterosexual and homosexual pairings that were considered equal pairings by the people of that era and such unions were available to the common population.

And the Chinese Ming Dynasty apparently was ripe with gay nobles sharing their homes and their beds and were publicly recognized as married.

Only after the imposition of Christianity on the Roman Empire did marriage become a religious issue in most European cultures. What happened in Mesopotamia and China I can not so easily recall, but I believe one of the successor dynasties enforced homosexual pairings as acceptable but not for the purpose of marriage and that kinda stuck and mutated into "be gay all you want in private, my child, as long as I get a grandchild from your civil marriage."


AMAZING.
Click to expand...

Well, that's exactly the point I'm making. Roberts is pulling out of nowhere this assertion that marriage was initially created to perfectly ensure procreation between a man and a woman, in addition to raising said child. The idea that "invention" of marriage can be pinpointed down to one completely logic based, unemotional, biological reason is kind of insane.
 
After just getting off of a short ban, I am finally getting to post in this thread, and I have to say: HOLY FUCKING SHIT IT HAPPENED!

LGBT-GAF, congratulations. I won't say "You earned it", because it's something you should have had in the first place, and you didn't need to "earn" it. I honestly didn't expect to see this happen for even longer, and I am so glad I was proven wrong.

My girlfriend messaged me on Facebook this morning saying "gay marriage is legalized!" and I was half asleep and like "dude....what" and looked it up and holy shit, it was! Job fucking well done! Thanks Obama, Supreme Court, and everyone that made this possible. This is fucking HUGE.
 
foxtrot3d said:
Well, that's exactly the point I'm making. Roberts is pulling out of nowhere this assertion that marriage was initially created to perfectly ensure procreation between a man and a woman, in addition to raising said child. The idea that "invention" of marriage can be pinpointed down to one completely logic based, unemotional, biological reason is kind of insane.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm sure that it was PART of the reason, but not the definitive and only reason.

And sorry for misinterpreting. Still, the history lesson isn't a bad thing to have in the thread.
 
Terrell said:
Well, I'm sure that it was PART of the reason, but not the definitive and only reason.

And sorry for misinterpreting. Still, the history lesson isn't a bad thing to have in the thread.
Click to expand...

Except that we don't stipulate even a desire to procreate for a marriage license today. It's a silly argument, as it's always been.
 
jbug617 said:
Justice Thomas dissent.
CIbrDVIUwAAsxSJ.png
Click to expand...

How does a cunt like that even get into a position where him and others like him get to make law for hundreds of millions of people at the whims of his beliefs.

I'm pretty sure slaves and people in concentration camps lost their dignity because they were not deemed to be human fucking beings.

You'd think a black guy would know his history and at least empathise.
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
How does a cunt like that even get into a position where him and others like him get to make law for hundreds of millions of people at the whims of his beliefs.

I'm pretty sure slaves and people in concentration camps lost their dignity because they were not deemed to be human fucking beings.

You'd think a black guy would know his history and at least empathise.
Click to expand...

He is trying to say no one can strip you of your dignity, so you can if you're strong enough keep your dignity even in the worst of situations.

It's still a fucking stupid argument though.
 
Amir0x said:
He is trying to say no one can strip you of your dignity, so you can if you're strong enough keep your dignity even in the worst of situations.

It's still a fucking stupid argument though.
Click to expand...

Tell that to gitmo prisoners who get stripped bare and humilitated at the hands of the government. Maybe Mr Thomas would like to spend a few months there and see how long he keeps his dignity.
 
Such great news. Gay marriage has been legal here in Iowa for a while now but it's so great that it's finally legal everywhere. I love the new GAF logo too.
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
Tell that to gitmo prisoners who get stripped bare and humilitated at the hands of the government. Maybe Mr Thomas would like to spend a few months there and see how long he keeps his dignity.
Click to expand...

He is correct though. No matter how inhumane the treatment, our right to be treated as better does not go away. We never become less just because we are viewed or treated as less.

The problem lies with the conclusion he wants to draw from this assertion.

Essentially he is saying that since all men are equal and will always be thus, it is okay to treat some as less since they will still continue to be intrinsically equal.
 
This is a great day! I wasn't going to post because I'm exhausted from arguing against bigots elsewhere (who are suddenly all legal experts concerned about jurisprudence; I don't know why I put myself through it) but then I saw the lovely Gaf icon above and it warmed my heart. :)
 
While I agree that Justice Kennedy's opinion is, generally, high on rhetoric and too light on substance, it doesn't bother me because the equal protection argument always seemed pretty clear to me. Judge Posner's opinion for the Seventh Circuit reflects my thinking on this pretty well.
 
excelsiorlef said:
Acceptance is saying I'm ok with you being here, tolerance is saying I wish you weren't here but since you are I guess maybe I won't kick you out, but I'd really wish you'd go away.
Click to expand...
Gone over this already. You're choosing an interpretation of tolerance based on what it *could* mean if you took it that way, but as always, its important to put things into appropriate context, and within civil rights issues, tolerance has generally been sort of synonymous with 'acceptance'. Civil rights leaders themselves will proclaim to 'preach tolerance' after all.

I do agree acceptance would be technically be a better term, but I think you should understand what somebody means by it before arguing against them.
 
xbhaskarx said:
Not sure why more people aren't talking about this line from Thomas' dissent:

"The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away."

I read a lot of dumb shit back in law school but this takes the cake... this is so frightening Thomas should be removed from the Court by any means necessary.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by OneEightZero said:
Clarence Thomas: Same-sex marriage bans, like slavery, were just fine for human dignity
Click to expand...

The lack of logic and compassion in this opinion blows my mind. My God! What is this clown thinking?!? It's all the more baffling coming from an African American too! Slaves didn't loose their dignity???? WOW!
 
Congratulations america! Very glad to see this but why are a bunch of states being assholes and not let LGBT people get married? It's a disgrace and disgusting to see. And yet here in EU in Italy they voted against it also another disgusting sight to see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dave Grohl announces daughter outside of his marriage
2 3
143
10K
Dr.Morris79 replied
If you are reading this you’re gay! LMAO!!!
Live  2 3
142
681
violence replied
UFO? Lets shoot it down
10
239
IAmRei replied
  • Locked
I think my dog might be gay
20
605
T8SC replied
School Phone Bans Spark Analog Revival: iPods Return
43
533
mitch1971 replied
Top Bottom