Same Sex Marriage Legal in all US States

[shades]

Everything this country legislated, acted on, and ruled by was based on our Christian beliefs for our first nearly 200 years of existence.

Then suddenly our kids can't pray in school or acknowledge Christmas in public, or even utter the word God, because a few special interest non believers made a fuss.

Christian beliefs are an easy target because it is based mostly on faith, and I get that.

But I am not going to give up those beliefs because someone else tells me to.

I know there is a God and one day so will you.

If everyone believed in their heart what I believe there would be no wars, no poverty, nothing but a common understanding that we are all Gods children put on earth and are here to enjoy its fruits.

So I'm having a little trouble understanding your disdain for it.

[shades]

I'll give you MYGNRFORUM if you can convince Shades to marry you

I'll wank you off with a smile on my face if you can find the link to that thread with him banging on about the Earth around the sun and all that from ages ago.

you're a sad little man fruit cake.

let me help you out.

There was a conversation going on about how there is no God and I pointed out that all of this is too perfect to be an accidental big bang, or whatever other nonsense you were pedaling.

And I'll say it again, if the earths orbit around the sun wasn't "exactly" what it is our entire rains, evaporation, rains, green growth lifeline cycle would cease to exist..

I may have stated it wrong but if you weren't like 9 years old you could see what I was saying.

Now go cupcake somewhere else, unless you want to personally come see me, which we all know you don't.

Edited June 26, 2015 by shades

[Black Sabbath]

Why does God make gay people then

[DieselDaisy]

What bothers me the most about this decision is that the SCOTUS has apparently decided that its role is now to determine the intent of the law, rather than to determine if the law itself is actually constitutional or not. This far exceeds the Marbury versus Madison decision, and changes the court's scope from judicial review to quasi legislating ability. So one extra person voting on a panel to make the vote 5-4 for gay marriage overrules 300 million people in the country. Maybe we should start a new country.

Some loon shoots 9 people in a church and next thing you know liberals want to redefine the meaning of a flag. Which is no better than the hate mongers that want to redefine it to mean racism.

You do realize that the Confederate flag was never really meant to represent "The South" in the way you presume it to be. It was a battle flag, nothing more. This was the actual Flag of the Confederate:

The Confederate flag was re-purposed by the Dixiecrat party in 1948 as "states rights" symbol. This was never its original intent.

So if you're going to talk about "redefin[ing] the meaning of the flag," I would suggest you know what your'e talking about.

It in actual fact uses the exact same schematic as the United States flag (then and now) except it merely removes the federal states who had remained loyal (or vice versa, sets out merely the successionist states); the states corresponding to the revolutionary 13 colonies of course remain as bars. The reason for the adoption of the second Confederate (saltire) flag was the unit confusion and number of 'friendly fire' incidents at the First Battle of Bull Run/Manassas.

[downzy]

Everything this country legislated, acted on, and ruled by was based on our Christian beliefs for our first nearly 200 years of existence.

Then suddenly our kids can't pray in school or acknowledge Christmas in public, or even utter the word God, because a few special interest non believers made a fuss.

Christian beliefs are an easy target because it is based mostly on faith, and I get that.

But I am not going to give up those beliefs because someone else tells me to.

I know there is a God and one day so will you.

If everyone believed in their heart what I believe there would be no wars, no poverty, nothing but a common understanding that we are all Gods children put on earth and are here to enjoy its fruits.

So I'm having a little trouble understanding your disdain for it.

No, law was not based on Christian beliefs. It's why the founders wrote on the separation of religion and state.

No one is asking you to give up your beliefs, what's being asked is that others not have your views imposed upon them. Nobody is forcing you to get married to a guy; but todays decision prevents your views imposed on others.

I suppose you're not familiar with a time known as the medieval period; where most of the European continent believed in a Christian God. Not sure if you're familiar with that period history, but few would characterize it as a time lacking in poverty and war.

[axlslash]

Everything this country legislated, acted on, and ruled by was based on our Christian beliefs for our first nearly 200 years of existence.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

You have opinions. Your opinions do not comport with the Constitution. You are a Christian first and an American second, and you want the country's government to agree with you. That's fine. But don't argue why a decision is wrong based on the Constitution and laws of the United States when you fundamentally don't understand how it works. You responded to my last post by saying "they walk among us" and that I "really believed what I wrote." I do believe what I write, and if by "they" you mean lawyers, you are correct. But at the end of the day, your arguments are founded in religion and not the Constitution. Which is fine for you, but not for the country.

And for the record, I'm religious too, so don't think I'm knocking religion. But you cannot foist that on people and claim to be in line with the Constitution.

You realize that Kennedy's opinion explicitly preserved the right of religious orgs to refuse to ceremonialize same-sex marriages, right? This is ONLY civil marriage we're dealing with here. You might want to actually read the opinion before you start discussing it.

[downzy]

Well said Axlslash!

[shades]

with the resources and charity of today's catholic church I'm pretty sure we could outdo the medievals.

And I argue the church and state meaning to mean the exact opposite. That the state could not infringe on ones beliefs through government.

and stop with the two guys married stuff, that's ridiculous.

[DieselDaisy]

Everything this country legislated, acted on, and ruled by was based on our Christian beliefs for our first nearly 200 years of existence.

Then suddenly our kids can't pray in school or acknowledge Christmas in public, or even utter the word God, because a few special interest non believers made a fuss.

Christian beliefs are an easy target because it is based mostly on faith, and I get that.

But I am not going to give up those beliefs because someone else tells me to.

I know there is a God and one day so will you.

If everyone believed in their heart what I believe there would be no wars, no poverty, nothing but a common understanding that we are all Gods children put on earth and are here to enjoy its fruits.

So I'm having a little trouble understanding your disdain for it.

No, law was not based on Christian beliefs. It's why the founders wrote on the separation of religion and state.

No one is asking you to give up your beliefs, what's being asked is others do not have your views imposed upon them. Nobody is forcing you to get married to a guy; but todays decision prevents your views imposed on others.

I suppose you're not familiar with a time known as the medieval period; where most of the European continent believed in a Christian God. Not sure if you're familiar with that period history, but few would characterize it as a time lacking in poverty and war.

Bit academic linking ''poverty and war'' with belief in a ''Christian god' since (European) secularisation, which began with humanism and the Enlightenment of the 16th/17th centuries, did not see a reduction in poverty or war. Quite the reverse in fact since the thoroughly secularised - even atheistic - politics of the French Revolution saw the onset of, 'total war' with the levée en masse (i.e. mass conscription). Any student of medieval combat knows that warfare was strictly limited in scale, involving paltry numbers of knights engaged in set piece engagements.

[shades]

Everything this country legislated, acted on, and ruled by was based on our Christian beliefs for our first nearly 200 years of existence.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

You have opinions. Your opinions do not comport with the Constitution. You are a Christian first and an American second, and you want the country's government to agree with you. That's fine. But don't argue why a decision is wrong based on the Constitution and laws of the United States when you fundamentally don't understand how it works. You responded to my last post by saying "they walk among us" and that I "really believed what I wrote." I do believe what I write, and if by "they" you mean lawyers, you are correct. But at the end of the day, your arguments are founded in religion and not the Constitution. Which is fine for you, but not for the country.

And for the record, I'm religious too, so don't think I'm knocking religion. But you cannot foist that on people and claim to be in line with the Constitution.

You realize that Kennedy's opinion explicitly preserved the right of religious orgs to refuse to ceremonialize same-sex marriages, right? This is ONLY civil marriage we're dealing with here. You might want to actually read the opinion before you start discussing it.

are you really this clueless, or does it just come across that way

[downzy]

Everything this country legislated, acted on, and ruled by was based on our Christian beliefs for our first nearly 200 years of existence.

Then suddenly our kids can't pray in school or acknowledge Christmas in public, or even utter the word God, because a few special interest non believers made a fuss.

Christian beliefs are an easy target because it is based mostly on faith, and I get that.

But I am not going to give up those beliefs because someone else tells me to.

I know there is a God and one day so will you.

If everyone believed in their heart what I believe there would be no wars, no poverty, nothing but a common understanding that we are all Gods children put on earth and are here to enjoy its fruits.

So I'm having a little trouble understanding your disdain for it.

No, law was not based on Christian beliefs. It's why the founders wrote on the separation of religion and state.

No one is asking you to give up your beliefs, what's being asked is others do not have your views imposed upon them. Nobody is forcing you to get married to a guy; but todays decision prevents your views imposed on others.

I suppose you're not familiar with a time known as the medieval period; where most of the European continent believed in a Christian God. Not sure if you're familiar with that period history, but few would characterize it as a time lacking in poverty and war.

Bit academic linking ''poverty and war'' with belief in a ''Christian god' since (European) secularisation, which began with humanism and the Enlightenment of the 16th/17th centuries, did not see a reduction in poverty or war. Quite the reverse in fact since the thoroughly secularised - even atheistic - politics of the French Revolution saw the onset of, 'total war' with the levée en masse (i.e. mass conscription). Any student of medieval combat knows that warfare was strictly limited in scale, involving paltry numbers of knights engaged in set piece engagements.

No where did I state that there's a causal or even correlative relationship between "poverty and war" and "Christian God." What's being disputed is the notion that the belief in a Christian God and Christian values is the answer to war and poverty. In many cases, it's the direct cause. At other times, both war and poverty are result of other factors.

Everything this country legislated, acted on, and ruled by was based on our Christian beliefs for our first nearly 200 years of existence.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

You have opinions. Your opinions do not comport with the Constitution. You are a Christian first and an American second, and you want the country's government to agree with you. That's fine. But don't argue why a decision is wrong based on the Constitution and laws of the United States when you fundamentally don't understand how it works. You responded to my last post by saying "they walk among us" and that I "really believed what I wrote." I do believe what I write, and if by "they" you mean lawyers, you are correct. But at the end of the day, your arguments are founded in religion and not the Constitution. Which is fine for you, but not for the country.

And for the record, I'm religious too, so don't think I'm knocking religion. But you cannot foist that on people and claim to be in line with the Constitution.

You realize that Kennedy's opinion explicitly preserved the right of religious orgs to refuse to ceremonialize same-sex marriages, right? This is ONLY civil marriage we're dealing with here. You might want to actually read the opinion before you start discussing it.

are you really this clueless, or does it just come across that way

Either respond to the points he's making or don't bother posting. You've already been warned by Black Sabbath. Please keep the conversation civil and free of personal attacks.

Final warning.

[Dazey]

And I'll say it again, if the earths orbit around the sun wasn't "exactly" what it is our entire rains, evaporation, rains, green growth lifeline cycle would cease to exist..

I may have stated it wrong but if you weren't like 9 years old you could see what I was saying.

Now go cupcake somewhere else, unless you want to personally come see me, which we all know you don't.

It's called gravity you utter cretin teddy bear . Edited June 26, 2015 by Dazey

[shades]

Why does God make gay people then

same reason he makes everyone else, to live and be happy, love whom they want.

and if because of mans stupid rules and regulations on inheritances, hospital visitations, property ownerships, etc they see the need to forma civil union to adhere then

I' all for it.

but

you can't redefine an institution because 6 liberal judges have lost their sense of duty.

[sliverjazz]

Im gettin hitched to my sister now yeehaw!

[Dazey]

Why does God make gay people then

same reason he makes everyone else, to live and be happy, love whom they want.

and if because of mans stupid rules and regulations on inheritances, hospital visitations, property ownerships, etc they see the need to forma civil union to adhere then

I' all for it.

but

you can't redefine an institution because 6 liberal judges have lost their sense of duty.

You really can though. Just read the final statement to see why.

Edit. 5

Edited June 26, 2015 by Dazey

[shades]

Everything this country legislated, acted on, and ruled by was based on our Christian beliefs for our first nearly 200 years of existence.

Then suddenly our kids can't pray in school or acknowledge Christmas in public, or even utter the word God, because a few special interest non believers made a fuss.

Christian beliefs are an easy target because it is based mostly on faith, and I get that.

But I am not going to give up those beliefs because someone else tells me to.

I know there is a God and one day so will you.

If everyone believed in their heart what I believe there would be no wars, no poverty, nothing but a common understanding that we are all Gods children put on earth and are here to enjoy its fruits.

So I'm having a little trouble understanding your disdain for it.

No, law was not based on Christian beliefs. It's why the founders wrote on the separation of religion and state.

No one is asking you to give up your beliefs, what's being asked is others do not have your views imposed upon them. Nobody is forcing you to get married to a guy; but todays decision prevents your views imposed on others.

I suppose you're not familiar with a time known as the medieval period; where most of the European continent believed in a Christian God. Not sure if you're familiar with that period history, but few would characterize it as a time lacking in poverty and war.

Bit academic linking ''poverty and war'' with belief in a ''Christian god' since (European) secularisation, which began with humanism and the Enlightenment of the 16th/17th centuries, did not see a reduction in poverty or war. Quite the reverse in fact since the thoroughly secularised - even atheistic - politics of the French Revolution saw the onset of, 'total war' with the levée en masse (i.e. mass conscription). Any student of medieval combat knows that warfare was strictly limited in scale, involving paltry numbers of knights engaged in set piece engagements.

No where did I state that there's a causal or even correlative relationship between "poverty and war" and "Christian God." What's being disputed is the notion that the belief in a Christian God and Christian values is the answer to war and poverty. In many cases, it's the direct cause. At other times, both war and poverty are result of other factors.

Everything this country legislated, acted on, and ruled by was based on our Christian beliefs for our first nearly 200 years of existence.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

You have opinions. Your opinions do not comport with the Constitution. You are a Christian first and an American second, and you want the country's government to agree with you. That's fine. But don't argue why a decision is wrong based on the Constitution and laws of the United States when you fundamentally don't understand how it works. You responded to my last post by saying "they walk among us" and that I "really believed what I wrote." I do believe what I write, and if by "they" you mean lawyers, you are correct. But at the end of the day, your arguments are founded in religion and not the Constitution. Which is fine for you, but not for the country.

And for the record, I'm religious too, so don't think I'm knocking religion. But you cannot foist that on people and claim to be in line with the Constitution.

You realize that Kennedy's opinion explicitly preserved the right of religious orgs to refuse to ceremonialize same-sex marriages, right? This is ONLY civil marriage we're dealing with here. You might want to actually read the opinion before you start discussing it.

are you really this clueless, or does it just come across that way

Either respond to the points he's making or don't bother posting. You've already been warned by Black Sabbath. Please keep the conversation civil and free of personal attacks.

Final warning.

so far in this thread I've been called illiterate, and a cretin.

so you want all liberals to play with with no dissenting opinion just say so , you don't have to threaten me, this place will never change will it.

have fun

[SunnyDRE]

Jesus never said anything homosexuality.

[Słash]

So well apart from getting wed locked and being Married what benefits will be received compared to people in a live in relationship, this is just a general question, not just for same sex marriages, but even for Opposite sex marriages

[SunnyDRE]

So well apart from getting wed locked and being Married what benefits will be received compared to people in a live in relationship, this is just a general question, not just for same sex marriages, but even for Opposite sex marriages

insurance (death), medical, a whole host of state benefits (like food stamps), and taxes (can be good or bad).

[Bumblefeet]

Welcome to the 21st century USA, now work on that death penalty issue.

[Słash]

So well apart from getting wed locked and being Married what benefits will be received compared to people in a live in relationship, this is just a general question, not just for same sex marriages, but even for Opposite sex marriages

insurance (death), medical, a whole host of state benefits (like food stamps), and taxes (can be good or bad).

Thanks for pointing that out, for me marriage is just a piece of certificate wether its opposite sex or same sex marriage, the main thing matters is that 2 people should have that trust of love in each other, but well its good that its legal cause now it will help them get these benefits equally.

[axlslash]

Everything this country legislated, acted on, and ruled by was based on our Christian beliefs for our first nearly 200 years of existence.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

You have opinions. Your opinions do not comport with the Constitution. You are a Christian first and an American second, and you want the country's government to agree with you. That's fine. But don't argue why a decision is wrong based on the Constitution and laws of the United States when you fundamentally don't understand how it works. You responded to my last post by saying "they walk among us" and that I "really believed what I wrote." I do believe what I write, and if by "they" you mean lawyers, you are correct. But at the end of the day, your arguments are founded in religion and not the Constitution. Which is fine for you, but not for the country.

And for the record, I'm religious too, so don't think I'm knocking religion. But you cannot foist that on people and claim to be in line with the Constitution.

You realize that Kennedy's opinion explicitly preserved the right of religious orgs to refuse to ceremonialize same-sex marriages, right? This is ONLY civil marriage we're dealing with here. You might want to actually read the opinion before you start discussing it.

are you really this clueless, or does it just come across that way

I've cited case law and doctrines of Constitutional interpretation to you twice, and you've called me names. I'm genuinely interested in hearing it if you have an actual legal argument for any of your name-calling. Otherwise, you're just making yourself and everyone who agrees with you - including the ones who CAN make strong legal arguments - look bad.

[Gracii Guns]

Doesn't bother me *shrugs*. I'm happy for them, hopefully other conservative nations will take a better attitude towards the LGBT community too.

I understand why some churches aren't supportive (the theology on this varies between denominations) but there's a big difference between church and state-officiated marriage anyway.

[DieselDaisy]

LGBT haha.

[Bumblefeet]

By the way, I'm all for gay marriage but you could have at least tried to bargain with them and make gay jokes and slander part of comedy again in exchange for marriage equality; things have gotten too PC.