Support NeoGAF

[Mr_Zombie]

I don't Facebook, but is the ignorance/hate still going strong? I mean, over the past few days, has it died down, or riled up?

I've seen few memes/comments indicating that in few years hetero couples will be the "pervert" minority and that everyone will be forced to go gay. So no... the circus of stupidity is still going on.

 

[Captain Europe]

We are going around in circles. If you think there was a consensus back then in the gay community go ahead and believe it. Apparently the absolutely roaring debate that marriage was a patriarchal, oppressive institution that took place back then is a figment of my imagination.

If gays didn't fight for marriage rights in the 90s, then it wouldn't have been legalised as early as 2001 in The Netherlands.

There were definitely gay people that wanted to get married.

 

[excelsiorlef]

If gays didn't fight for marriage rights in the 90s, then it wouldn't have been legalised as early as 2001 in The Netherlands.

There were definitely gay people that wanted to get married.

Same with Canada, an openly gay MP tried to get it passed in 1995. I didn't work by the desire was there

 

[User 463088]

There were also several cases in the 1990s in the US trying to get states to recognize same-sex marriage. For example, Dean vs DC said that refusal to issue marriage licences to gay couples did not violate the 14th Amendment.

People forget how far away the 90s were culturally to where we are today. According to Gallup, interracial marriage didn't achieve a majority's support until 1997. That's just...insane to me.

 

[Kangi]

Heck, there was a Golden Girls episode that spoke at length about how gay people wish to get married just as much as straight people, and deserve the chance to do so. 1991. Back then the legality of doing so was more complicated - DOMA hadn't yet been passed, among other things.

I'd recommend reading more about this. Same-sex marriage may have only gained real traction since the turn of the millennium, but it's far from a "new" goal.

 

[TheHeretic]

If gays didn't fight for marriage rights in the 90s, then it wouldn't have been legalised as early as 2001 in The Netherlands.

There were definitely gay people that wanted to get married.

I explicitly mentioned, probably a dozen times now, the transition was in the 90's because of what happened in Hawaii.

 

[Izuna]

But is it even special protection laws? Sure, they're made because of discrimination against specific groups, but these laws do work to protect people on both sides of the spectrum. If a white person is fired for being white, anti-discrimination laws protect them.

=| making this about race doesn't simplify your argument, it changes the point you are trying to make.

If a person who part of a LGBT group that affects their appearance, thus unfitting traditional work status quo or can be seen as distracting to other employees, causes them to not gain employment, that is an issue where there should be a system to protect THEM that has nothing to do with the majority group.

I think that's kinda clear.

 

[DOWN]

Can someone put the rainbow colouring on something on my avatar? I'd like to keep the background as it is now since I am not sure if it would even fit well but maybe colouring the helmet could work.

 

[T.O.P]

yup, they just went there

 

[Moff]

 

[A Link to the Past]

=| making this about race doesn't simplify your argument, it changes the point you are trying to make.

If a person who part of a LGBT group that affects their appearance, thus unfitting traditional work status quo or can be seen as distracting to other employees, causes them to not gain employment, that is an issue where there should be a system to protect THEM that has nothing to do with the majority group.

I think that's kinda clear.

...

You kidding me? lol I didn't make this about race, I made the point of using an example of a type of anti-discrimination law that exists to protect people from unfair dismissal. What you're describing is a situation that applies to everyone. It just so happens to disproportionately relate to one group more than another.

 

[Izuna]

...

You kidding me? lol I didn't make this about race, I made the point of using an example of a type of anti-discrimination law that exists to protect people from unfair dismissal. What you're describing is a situation that applies to everyone. It just so happens to disproportionately relate to one group more than another.

No what I meant to say, is that not all anti-discrimination laws benefit both sides and they shouldn't be required to.

Bear in mind, we both agree. Just colouring my point and moving it away from race.

EDIT: FUCK I am tired. I brought it up originally and forgot. I should sleep. I deeply apologise.

 

[OminoMichelin]

yup, they just went there

my fb has been fairly clean, fortunately. It's probably because I'm way too careful to not like sketchy pages though.

 

[T.O.P]

my fb has been fairly clean, fortunately. It's probably because I'm way too careful to not like sketchy pages though.

Someone shared it because he was disgusted as well, my friendlist is way too restricted to even have the chance for shit like this

 

[excelsiorlef]

Ohhh Rick Santorum

publican presidential candidate Rick Santorum argued over the weekend that President Barack Obama should redirect the energy that he has been putting into fighting climate change into promoting heterosexual marriages “for the survival of our county.”

In an interview on Sunday, Santorum told the hosts of Fox & Friends that the U.S. Congress should pass laws to require Supreme Court justices to face elections and to force them to “take all appeals” because of their ruling that effectively legalized marriage for same-sex couples.

“The better solution if you’re going to put effort into try to control the judiciary is by doing things that limits their jurisdiction or requires, for example, the Supreme Court to take all appeals,” he explained.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson wondered what Santorum would do to stop the institution of marriage from “collapsing” after Friday’s Supreme Court ruling.

“The most important power that a president has — and obviously I’m running for president — the most important power the president has is the power of the bully pulpit,” Santorum opined. “Can you imagine if instead of if the president spent all his time talking about global warming, if he talked about the importance of marriage and fathers and mothers taking responsibility for raising this children in healthy homes?”

“And actually promoting marriage,” he continued. “And actually have programs that support the idea of marriage and togetherness in order to raise children.”

“That, to me, is the most important thing we can do as a society, is begin to lift up marriage as an institution that’s important for the survival of our country because too many children are falling through the cracks.”

According to the candidate, the Supreme Court’s decision had cemented the notion that “marriage has nothing to do with children.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/ric...gay-marriage-for-the-survival-of-our-country/

Gay marriage is legal and now judges should be elected and they're rulings appealable.

So in other words not a Supreme Court.

 

[Kater]

Thanks!

 

[Sobriquet]

Ohhh Rick Santorum

Holy. Shit.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

To answer this, the main difference is that homosexual don't seek repentance or acknowledge their sin and for that are arrogant and defiant. This makes it kind of unique among other sins in today's culture. It is no more severe than any other sin all people are guilty of, but to seek Christ you need to be honest with your sin and seek forgiveness.

Please god forgive me for you making me gay..........

 

[Mr_Zombie]

yup, they just went there

I wonder, how ignorant one has to be to use a photo of August Landmesser in the context of being against marriage equality. The irony.

 

[Siegcram]

According to the candidate, the Supreme Court’s decision had cemented the notion that “marriage has nothing to do with children.”

I mean, it doesn't. Never has, really.

 

[Grazzt]

 

[excelsiorlef]

Holy. Shit.

Basically in arguing somehow that legal marriage marriage irreparably changes the USA Santorum has now asked that the USA be irreparably changed by basically abolishing the Supreme Court.

An elected, appealable Supereme Court is no longer a Supreme court

 

[Forkball]

All the pro gay marriage people on my Facebook were celebrating at first, but now those against it are slowly starting to post stuff, including the dictionary definition of intolerance and explaining why homosexuality isn't like other sins. I was starting to worry that everyone I knew was loving and open-minded.

 

[excelsiorlef]

All the pro gay marriage people on my Facebook were celebrating at first, but now those against it are slowly starting to post stuff, including the dictionary definition of intolerance and explaining why homosexuality isn't like other sins. I was starting to worry that everyone I knew was loving and open-minded.

Can you post the argument about how being say is a special sin, that's a new one for me.

 

[Sobriquet]

I"m pretty happy that I haven't seen a single negative post on my Facebook.

Can you post the argument about how being say is a special sin, that's a new one for me.

Yeah, I'm curious as well. I think most people wonder why that particular "sin" is singled out.

 

[Rootbeer]

I"m pretty happy that I haven't seen a single negative post on my Facebook.

I know it's been mostly positive from all of my Facebook friends too... which honestly is not what I would have predicted given some of the other stuff I see some of them posting.

But, a few of the most conservative ones I have there have simply chosen not to mention it. I'm sure that's for the best.

The tides are turning... can't fight it. I think a lot of people can sense that even if they disagree with the ruling. So it's best to not look like an asshole about it.

 

[ivysaur12]

This woman who's a Senior Editor at The Federalist (https://twitter.com/MZHemingway) has an ENTIRE TIMELINE of salt.

Mollie ‏@MZHemingway Jun 26
Much like Roe more or less began the fight over killing the unborn, today’s decision launches — rather than ends — the fight over marriage.

Mollie ‏@MZHemingway Jun 26
I get feeling some folks think court’s opinion is final say. They’re going to be so surprised to meet people outside their bubble.

Mollie ‏@MZHemingway Jun 26
People made fun of me for putting polygamy in the <5 years window. Read Kennedy and you won’t. Also, far less radical than SSM, fwiw.

Mollie &#8207;@MZHemingway Jun 26
Speaking as someone who changed my mind on marriage law, thinking deeply on this topic hasn’t even come close to happening in this country.

Mollie &#8207;@MZHemingway Jun 26
Mollie retweeted Rockwall Science Guy
As I studied, I changed my mind and now oppose redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

Mollie &#8207;@MZHemingway Jun 26
That Roberts and Alito explicitly warn the religious that we are vulnerable is kind of chilling to live through.

Mollie &#8207;@MZHemingway Jun 26
I’m noticing exuberance from media and other liberal fans of SSM but not so much from right-of-center supporters of SSM. Kind of interesting

Mollie &#8207;@MZHemingway Jun 26
Immediately getting responses: right-of-center folks didn’t realize redefining marriage would be reasoned this poorly.

Mollie &#8207;@MZHemingway Jun 26
I suppose now is not time for me to say “I told you so.” Heh. But seriously, people, don’t be so naive. This was not difficult to predict.

Mollie &#8207;@MZHemingway Jun 26
Also getting a contingent of rightish folks who are simply being polite because they are friendly with people who support natural marriage.

Mollie &#8207;@MZHemingway Jun 26
#ConfessYourThoughtCrime: Different things are different

Mollie &#8207;@MZHemingway Jun 26
That rainbow White House is our high cathedral. Bow down! Or be burned at the stake. Your choice. Whatever, heretic.

Mollie &#8207;@MZHemingway 14h14 hours ago
Mostly what I found terrifying about reading the four strongly worded dissents is that Scalia was the calmest about how bad Obergefell is.

Mollie &#8207;@MZHemingway 6h6 hours ago
Kennedy’s decision is such an incoherent train wreck that it actually emboldened natural marriage advocates. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15235/

A horrible appearance she did on CNN, which literally reflects nothing about the truth of The Federalist and their coverage of marriage equality: http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/06/28/exp-rs-0628-bias-in-gay-marriage-coverage.cnn

Here are some hilarious responses from The Federalist on how constimadipated they are about marriage equality:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/27/gay-marriage-is-here-now-what/#.VY6maHKP1zI.twitter

It is a happy coincidence that the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage comes on the heels of a hysterical outburst on the Left against displays of the Confederate flag and commemorations of the Confederacy across the country.

Ooooh.

If five judges on the Supreme Court have pronounced, in a breathtaking presumption of power, that all 50 states must redefine marriage, what does that mean for the countless institutions within our civil society—churches and synagogues, charities and adoption agencies, counseling services and religiously affiliated schools—that are made up of American citizens who believe marriage is the union of one man and one woman?

Ahhhh!

As a longtime defender of traditional marriage, I’m supposed to take a day of mourning before moving forward. Actually, though, I’m feeling fairly chipper after hearing the ruling. To be clear, the decision was a complete travesty. We’ve just seen America’s cultural 1 percent impose its understanding of marriage unilaterally on a nation that is still deeply divided on this important question. The result will not be “inclusion,” but rather the dictatorial exclusion of a major part of our cultural and legal heritage, along with the cherished beliefs and values of a substantial portion of our citizenry, from the democratic process. Clearly, this is nothing to celebrate.

Right!

The Supreme Court seems to hate children. First, in Roe v. Wade, it took away a child’s right to life in favor of the convenience of an adult. Now, it has taken away a child’s right to a biological mother and father, favoring fleeting sentimentality over a child’s established, inherent needs.

Weee!

I see two problems with the pro-gay marriage argument, and the SCOTUS ruling gives us a chance to see if and how they will play out in practice. The first problem is that, over the past half-century, virtually every one of the Left’s opinions and activist efforts regarding marriage and family have proven to be disastrous for both marriages and families. Loosening welfare standards, glorifying single parenthood, a near-ubiquitous culture of contraception, abortion-on-demand—all of these things have been the Left’s hobby-horses and all of them have had, overall, a profoundly negative impact upon the building block of our society, the family unit.

Definitely.

Proponents of marriage must immediately redouble our efforts to ensure robust legal protections for the expression of beliefs that don’t conform to popular dogmas, especially those of fundamentalist LGBT activists. Their illiberal agenda is clearly seen in the aggressive persecution of business owners, professors, public servants, and nuns who have the audacity to conform their behavior to their religious beliefs.

They must have found our notes!

The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of same-sex marriage is not surprising, but it is indeed moral and historical disaster. The Court has both created a generation’s worth of confusion about the purpose and nature of marriage and left the well-being of children subject to the sexual autonomy of adults.

Yeah!

To be fair, there are a few pro-marriage equality opinions peppered through here, but it's not the free flowing diversity of opinions that Ms. Hemmingway seems to believe. That's fine. I actually have no problem with that. Just be honest.

 

[Forkball]

HOW COME GUYS HOW COME

Can you post the argument about how being say is a special sin, that's a new one for me.

Here is the link.

tl;dr, homosexuality isn't like other sins because we celebrate the lifestyle. He does mention that all sins are equal in the eyes of God, which kind of makes you think that would nullify his entire point.

The website also has a recent article about same sex marriage with the appropriate subtitle of LAMENTING THE NEW CALAMITY.

 

[danm999]

One thing I will never honestly understand about people that say this sort of stuff, that America should celebrate God and not live in sin..

If they honestly wanted a country where the government was actually religious and followed God, and believed in strict rules about homosexuality, abortion, sexuality, etc... there ARE countries like that.

Why don't they simply immigrate somewhere where the country is actually run by Christians, instead of trying to change this country, with our fundamental principle of separation between church & state?

America was never, ever, about making all her citizens follow one religion. It was actually the complete opposite, one of our founding ideals. So if someone really wanted to live in a nation of God... why don't they actually go do so o.o?

I would guess they don't believe America is/ever was that country and that it's true Christian identity has been perverted by liberals and gays.

It's the same sort of rhetoric you're seeing in all the salt on display in this thread. Generally; they are taking something from us that they have no right to. The institution of marriage. There's even a comic in here somewhere analogizing marriage as breaking into your house and eating your breakfast. Like there's a group that owns marriage as a concept or legal status and it's being stolen by interlopers.

Honestly, it's so, so prevalent in so much right wing rhetoric the idea of ownership of something being eroded that people have confused themselves into thinking them own, ie; from racists who talk about "their America" being destroyed by minorities.

 

[linkboy]

One thing I will never honestly understand about people that say this sort of stuff, that America should celebrate God and not live in sin..

If they honestly wanted a country where the government was actually religious and followed God, and believed in strict rules about homosexuality, abortion, sexuality, etc... there ARE countries like that.

Why don't they simply immigrate somewhere where the country is actually run by Christians, instead of trying to change this country, with our fundamental principle of separation between church & state?

America was never, ever, about making all her citizens follow one religion. It was actually the complete opposite, one of our founding ideals. So if someone really wanted to live in a nation of God... why don't they actually go do so o.o?

And give up all the good things that America has, psshhh.

Basically, they want their cake and eat it too. They can't see past their myopic, narrow view of the world.

Anything that doesn't fit into that narrow window is wrong and shouldn't be allowed.

Ohhh Rick Santorum



http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/ric...gay-marriage-for-the-survival-of-our-country/

Gay marriage is legal and now judges should be elected and they're rulings appealable.

So in other words not a Supreme Court.

If anything, there needs to be less political partiness (for lack of a better term) on the Supreme Court. The whole point of the Supreme Court is to be partisan free and just rule on the law.

 

[boiled goose]

I would guess they don't believe America is/ever was that country and that it's true Christian identity has been perverted by liberals and gays.

It's the same sort of rhetoric you're seeing in all the salt on display in this thread. Generally; they are taking something from us that they have no right to. The institution of marriage. There's even a comic in here somewhere analogizing marriage as breaking into your house and eating your breakfast. Like there's a group that owns marriage as a concept or legal status and it's being stolen by interlopers.

Honestly, it's so, so prevalent in so much right wing rhetoric the idea of ownership of something being eroded that people have confused themselves into thinking them own, ie; from racists who talk about "their America" being destroyed by minorities.

But it's just such shallow bs. Are they fighting to make divorce illegal? What about shellfish eating? What about using the Lords name in vain? What about being rich, after all isn't that pretty much a guarantee to go to hell?

They are simply picking and choosing to hate

 

[danm999]

But it's just such shallow bs. Are they fighting to make divorce illegal? What about shellfish eating? What about using the Lords name in vain? What about being rich, after all isn't that pretty much a guarantee to go to hell?

They are simply picking and choosing to hate

For a lot of people it boils down to this; they simply don't like gay people independent of their theological beliefs.

If you view it from that perspective, all the comparisons to pedophilia and bestiality and incest make sense (well, not make sense, but you understand why they're making them).

 

[Son Of D]

We still doing the rainbow avatars? If so, could someone please rainbow my avatar? I was thinking maybe the text and bubbles.

 

[slit]

Ohhh Rick Santorum



http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/ric...gay-marriage-for-the-survival-of-our-country/

Gay marriage is legal and now judges should be elected and they're rulings appealable.

So in other words not a Supreme Court.

Actually I think what he is saying is that the Supreme Court has to hear all appeals and can't turn any down, not that they can be appealable. This goes back to last year when the court refused to hear the appeals after lower courts ruled that the state bans were unconstitutional so the lower court rulings stood. Boy did that piss them off. In any event, the guy is a doofus.

 

[anonymous_abc]

 

[DOWN]

We still doing the rainbow avatars? If so, could someone please rainbow my avatar? I was thinking maybe the text and bubbles.

 

[linkboy]

Actually I think what he is saying is that the Supreme Court has to hear all appeals and can't turn any down, not that they can be appealable. This goes back to last year when the court refused to hear the appeals after lower courts ruled that the state bans were unconstitutional so the lower court rulings stood. Boy did that piss them off. In any event, the guy is a doofus.

Then there's no point for the appellate courts to exist, since you're just going to render their verdict useless if the Supreme Court takes every case.

But I'm pretty sure (actually, I hope considering he's in government) that good ole Rick knows that and is just spouting bullshit to pander to his base (whom I'm willing to bet doesn't know how the system works).

 

[slit]

Then there's no point for the appellate courts to exist, since you're just going to render their verdict useless if the Supreme Court takes every case.

But I'm pretty sure (actually, I hope considering he's in government) that good ole Rick knows that and is just spouting bullshit to pander to his base (whom I'm willing to bet doesn't know how the system works).

Actually you should hope since he's a lawyer!

 

[linkboy]

Actually you should hope since he's a lawyer!

Then that scares me even more.

 

[brochiller]

Ohhh Rick Santorum



http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/ric...gay-marriage-for-the-survival-of-our-country/

Gay marriage is legal and now judges should be elected and they're rulings appealable.

So in other words not a Supreme Court.

According to the candidate, the Supreme Court’s decision had cemented the notion that “marriage has nothing to do with children.”

But, marriage doesn't have to have anything to do with children. So he's saying we shouldn't let any gay people marry because some of them MIGHT want kids and those that do MIGHT be bad parents? Can't stand this guy.

 

[werks]

Actually I think what he is saying is that the Supreme Court has to hear all appeals and can't turn any down, not that they can be appealable. This goes back to last year when the court refused to hear the appeals after lower courts ruled that the state bans were unconstitutional so the lower court rulings stood. Boy did that piss them off. In any event, the guy is a doofus.

I'm pretty sure the only reason scotus even took the case is because the the 6th circuit court upheld ssm ban and created a circuit level split. The desenting judge even aledges that it was on purpose.

Because the correct result is so obvious, one is tempted to speculate that the majority has purposefully taken the contrary position to create the circuit split regarding the legality of same-sex marriage that could prompt a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court and an end to the uncertainty of status and the interstate chaos that the current discrepancy in state laws threatens.

 

[sploatee]

Yeaaaaah, its a little iffy.

Well I made you this for a start

Late but thanks!

 

[Son Of D]

Thanks.

 

[brochiller]

Can someone please rainbow my avatar too? Hope I'm not too late.

 

[cajunator]

Can someone rainbowify the hair in this pic if anyone is still doing it?

Chiyo <3

 

[DedValve]

Well I made you this for a start

Oh dear. I saw this and immediately thought some shit was gonna go down. What an unfortunate rainbowfied avatar lol.

 

[fixedpoint]

Can someone please rainbow my avatar too? Hope I'm not too late.

 

[Heysoos]

Can anyone rainbowfy mine?

 

[Mr. Giggles]

Ooooo me too.

I want my hair rainbowed up

 

[T.O.P]

Didn't ask because mine fells like it would be a bitch to rainbowfy