# Gay marriage (finally) legalized in the US



## joepie91 (Jun 26, 2015)

> The US Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex marriage is a legal right across the United States.
> 
> It means the 14 states with bans on same-sex marriage will no longer be able to enforce them.
> 
> ...


More: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33290341


----------



## jarland (Jun 26, 2015)

Oh cool. I didn't see this everywhere else. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## drmike (Jun 26, 2015)

Well here we go with a hot button topic


----------



## AuroraZero (Jun 26, 2015)

drmike said:


> Well here we go with a hot button topic


Can't think of anything hotter, except maybe banning the rebel flag and the Revolutionary War from the history books.


----------



## HostMayo-WK (Jun 26, 2015)

as per my opinion the states should have their right to govern this rule.......anyways if a gay goes to another state he doesn't change!


----------



## drmike (Jun 26, 2015)

This isn't a government issue and never should have been.   It especially isn't a federal government bully issue of everyone.  This will get twisted like so many other Supreme Court rulings to shoe horn high insanity upon the individual states.

If States as independent and own law sort of places, per design wish to be the pot smoking state, the drive while intoxicated state, the hyper straight state, etc.  So freaking be it.   Good to have different environments where certain types of folks are drawn due to the government leadership thing.  This includes state(s) where gay rights get elevated status.

Federal government and crazy Supreme Court continues to RULE over the land as the supreme bully and cares not about State rights.

If citizens of those 14 States feel like this gay marriage thing isn't their thing, then so be it.   If Mississippi loves their old flag and rest of the country has issue with it, so be it.

If Colorado loves high citizens floating around, so be it. Each of the 50 States ought to have some advantages for some folks and not be the generic lawn at the Mall of America with a federalized goon squad on every block.

Even in very old gay Greece, there was never any official gay marriage.  People survived and conducted their affairs mostly in private, where such usually belongs.

Why do people give two f-cks about their personal dealings of who engages in sexual activities with who being legitimated in eyes of government? I mean even 'special' privileges given to married couples can be achieved by non married couples. Yes it takes structuring and isn't as easy, but it is doable ---- JUST ASKED UNMARRIED PARTNERS - those who care not about marriage whatsoever.   Commitment and seriousness of such contract is between two human beings.  It isn't the domain of the church who stole from individuals nor is it the domain of the government who stole this power structure from the church who stole it from the individual humans engaging in such.

It's like fringe groups worship at the altar of government with things like this.  The new church of State.


----------



## joepie91 (Jun 26, 2015)

drmike said:


> Good to have different environments where certain types of folks are drawn due to the government leadership thing.  This includes state(s) where gay rights get elevated status.


There's a big problem with this idea, and that is that you don't choose the state (or country) where you are born and grow up. For the first two decades of your life, you're likely going to be _completely_ unable to do _anything_ about living in a state or country that doesn't tolerate you - either you are dependent on your parents, or on your job, or on any other factors that might keep you somewhere, out of your own control. Moving to a different place often isn't a matter of just hopping into a car, plus the whole host of other issues with linking policy/legislation to land mass (which, frankly, is a retarded idea to begin with).

This is why there are such things as human rights conventions - to ensure that no matter where you are born, a minimum level of living standards and social tolerance is guaranteed. And this kind of acceptance certainly falls into that category. Frankly, it's just a matter of human decency.


----------



## Kalam (Jun 26, 2015)

Between this and upholding Obamacare, this has definitely been a good week for Supreme Court rulings. Now if only they'd get around to repealing Citizens United.

Sorry, but equality and discrimination shouldn't be a "State's right (*cough* southern strategy)" issue.


----------



## drmike (Jun 26, 2015)

joepie91 said:


> There's a big problem with this idea, and that is that you don't choose the state (or country) where you are born and grow up. For the first two decades of your life, you're likely going to be _completely_ unable to do _anything_ about living in a state or country that doesn't tolerate you - either you are dependent on your parents, or on your job, or on any other factors that might keep you somewhere, out of your own control. Moving to a different place often isn't a matter of just hopping into a car, plus the whole host of other issues with linking policy/legislation to land mass (which, frankly, is a retarded idea to begin with).
> 
> 
> This is why there are such things as human rights conventions - to ensure that no matter where you are born, a minimum level of living standards and social tolerance is guaranteed. And this kind of acceptance certainly falls into that category. Frankly, it's just a matter of human decency.



The country boundary concept and the limitations, especially today being stuck in said place I fully understand.  Ask the Palestinians in Gaza about borders and being cooped up like chickens and made to jump and do whatever upon command (oh another hot button topic).  Same applies to residents of the 50 individual United States who today might want to migrate elsewhere as their ancestors did, but in no shape or form can.  Perhaps the Native American would like to ride his horse to town as his people did for eons.  How well does the government accept this? Barely at best and often with conflict.  I do agree that  this locking people into land mass by force and declaring them Citizens by force and limiting their ability to come and go is barbaric.  Even the cost and rubbish process these days for passport can be challenging to folks of limited means (which is most people).


There has to be nation states until some evolution of humanity happens.  Otherwise some wimpy idealistics would get run over by marauding masses from afar who would divide the idealistics from their life, liberty and possessions.   This is sort of the scenario we have in growing list of countries and where the US gets called in to be the US bully military brunt ( I shall not go shame naming these little twerps).


People deserve the right to be left alone, even if their ideas originated in pre-historic times. linking policy/legislation to land mass and said people is part of this.  Or identities shall be lost and history shall be forgotten (and usually repeated) for the fashionable short-lived pursuits of the modern youth. 


Relating to human rights, yes I agree.  But calling acceptance a right is where it breaks down as many things through the legal view of government go awry isn't ahh right.  I think most people are tolerant and just don't want to be socially submerged in what they deem degenerate behavior, which their beliefs warn of.  To victimize people due to their gay sexual preferences is unacceptable.  But where is the line?  Do we say all sexuality is a right and being against it is discrimination?  Who am I to be so liberal as to blindly not care if man lays with man or man lays with beast?  I say I don't care, but I see where this all leads to and that's not a good path for society.  We had not that many moons ago MABLA (sp?) the man-boy sex cultists pushing force of law to legitimate their naughty behavior. Eventually they'll be back with hybrid arguments that everything under the sun just is natural.  To some extent it is,  some fringe of society always has deviated into fringe.


To chop up marriage and mock the whole institution of it is something churches and other centers of belief should have been after for a long time.  Government has ZERO legitimate reason to be in such.  Marriage isn't a task of government.  Church folks lost this argument eons ago (1950's) by allowing their institutions (especially in the US) to be lorded over by the IRS via then new 501©(?) regulations about non-profits and churches.  They failed to tell government to go to hell and get out of the temple, so they must suffer for their inaction.



joepie91 said:


> This is why there are such things as human rights conventions - to ensure that no matter where you are born, a minimum level of living standards and social tolerance is guaranteed. And this kind of acceptance certainly falls into that category. Frankly, it's just a matter of human decency.


I agree with basic human rights, but unsure what at convention prior was spelled out.  Who one contracts with is basically the crux of the debate.  Civil marriages via government are the matter.  Can people contract together and involve the government in their contracting.  There exists inherently the right to enter contracts and surely should be covered in human rights guarantees for civilized people.   Government as-is is violating everything though conceptually.  They should deny no marriage license for anyone to marry any thing be it human, non human, inanimate object or figment of their imagination, because in essence governments role is as a record keeper of contracts for people who may I say are delusional.


----------



## KuJoe (Jun 26, 2015)

Yay! Now the LGBT community can enjoy the tax breaks the rest of us miserable people get (J/K, being married is more fun than any rollercoaster I've ever been on and that's the best way to describe marriage, a rollercoaster).


----------



## joepie91 (Jun 26, 2015)

drmike said:


> <snip>


I think the problem here, is that we're trying to discuss a multitude of separate issues with separate rationale, as if it's a single issue.

Dividing them up yields these arguments from my side:


*Same-sex relationships (incl. sex):* None of anybody's business. This should be respected, it's a private thing that nobody else should be meddling with. This also applies to other 'unusual' or controversial topics in the same category - as long as nobody is being harmed, this is not anybody's business. Harm should be provable. More an ethical point than anything else.
*Same-sex* marriage: Marriage being a legal thing rather than a religious thing (certain legal/tax benefits are associated with it, etc.), it should be unconditionally possible. Regardless of sexual orientation, gender, or any other metric that doesn't directly relate to the benefits provided. If marriage were a purely religious thing (but even historically it wasn't), then things would be different, of course. It's the fact that it's backed by an organization with power of enforcement (a government) that makes equality critical here.
*Same-sex adoption:* Again, a legal thing. There exists no evidence that this in any way impairs the development of a child (says the American Psychological Association, and other relevant organizations), thus there is no valid reason to prevent this from occurring.
A government has the obligation to care for its citizens equally - it's the obligation that comes with their power to enforce legislation. Thus, where it concerns legal matters, it's not acceptable for a government to treat same-sex couples differently. A church is - in a properly church-and-state-separated nation - a private religious organization, and thus carries different obligations. This is pretty much the entire point of that separation.


----------



## Kalam (Jun 26, 2015)

drmike said:


> But where is the line?  Do we say all sexuality is a right and being against it is discrimination?  Who am I to be so liberal as to blindly not care if man lays with man or man lays with beast?  I say I don't care, but I see where this all leads to and that's not a good path for society.  We had not that many moons ago MABLA (sp?) the man-boy sex cultists pushing force of law to legitimate their naughty behavior. Eventually they'll be back with hybrid arguments that everything under the sun just is natural.  To some extent it is,  some fringe of society always has deviated into fringe.


The word you're looking for is *consent*. Animals and children cannot give consent. I don't quite understand why this concept is so hard for the religious and right-wingers to comprehend. Your slippery slope argument falls woefully short drmike.


----------



## Munzy (Jun 26, 2015)

I would now like to ask for @Francisco's hand in marriage.


----------



## KuJoe (Jun 26, 2015)

Did anybody else read the actual ruling? I got a little lost so I'm wondering if they actually made same sex marriage legal in the US, from the looks of it all they did was make it illegal to enforce laws against same sex marriage. Churches and such can still refuse to marry same sex partners but state governments can't refuse to issue marriage certificates from what I can tell. I still think businesses should be allowed to operate however they see fit (regardless of how wrong or ignorant they are). As long as the government isn't telling a private company how to operate I'm fine.


----------



## Munzy (Jun 26, 2015)

KuJoe said:


> Did anybody else read the actual ruling? I got a little lost so I'm wondering if they actually made same sex marriage legal in the US, from the looks of it all they did was make it illegal to enforce laws against same sex marriage. Churches and such can still refuse to marry same sex partners but state governments can't refuse to issue marriage certificates.



By my guess, you would be correct. This does make sense due to things such as Prop 8 (same this as jim crow laws but for partners, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws) in California. It's the right move by the Supreme court.


----------



## KuJoe (Jun 26, 2015)

Munzy said:


> By my guess, you would be correct. This does make sense due to things such as Prop 8 (same this as jim crow laws but for partners, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws) in California. It's the right move by the Supreme court.


If my interpretation of the ruling is correct then this is the safest ruling SCOTUS could make and bravo to them.


----------



## MannDude (Jun 26, 2015)

I don't believe government should be involved in marriages to begin with, gay or straight, but whatever. Just go find someone to be with and be happy you found someone to love regardless what the law says is my take on it.

They're really trying hard right now to push out things that are keeping us distracted from the TPP. "Oh no, gotta ban this flag. Gotta take this monument now. Huh? They're losing interest? Fuck it, legalize gay marriage... that'll keep them talking/distracted for a few days."


----------



## Munzy (Jun 26, 2015)

MannDude said:


> I don't believe government should be involved in marriages to begin with, gay or straight, but whatever. Just go find someone to be with and be happy you found someone to love regardless what the law says is my take on it.
> 
> They're really trying hard right now to push out things that are keeping us distracted from the TPP. "Oh no, gotta ban this flag. Gotta take this monument now. Huh? They're losing interest? Fuck it, legalize gay marriage... that'll keep them talking/distracted for a few days."


Marriage is not a "Christian"  only thing. It is completely universal and many religions proctor it. The fact of the matter is that some people do not have a religion and so marry via the state. All this ruling does in essence is say that you can't make laws limiting a certain groups rights because of a choice in a partner, which is the right decision. Otherwise we are back to the whole Jim Crow laws as I mentioned before.


----------



## Premiumn (Jun 26, 2015)

Munzy said:


> Marriage is not a "Christian"  only thing. It is completely universal and many religions proctor it.


Of course, but would you agree that life is sacred? Life, formed by the mother and father is sacred - that is the essence of our life on earth.


----------



## MartinD (Jun 26, 2015)

Nice to see it happening in other countries at long last.


I think folk need to get over their ridiculous, pious views on the subject. No matter what religion or 'belief' system you have, the overriding concept is 'love'. If your religion or beliefs have caveats to that then it is instantly flawed.


But then, all religions are by default so it makes no difference.


----------



## raindog308 (Jun 26, 2015)

AuroraZero said:


> Can't think of anything hotter, except maybe banning the rebel flag and the Revolutionary War from the history books.


And app stores.  This is so stupid.

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/apple-removes-civil-war-games-featuring-confederate-flag-from-appstore-20150625-ghy26q.html


----------



## raindog308 (Jun 26, 2015)

Munzy said:


> I would now like to ask for @Francisco's hand in marriage.


Back off, you cheap hussy.  @Francisco wants *me.*







(And besides, he's Canadian).


----------



## ChrisM (Jun 26, 2015)

I stole this from someone else but I agree completely with it:

If you believe in traditional marriage, have a traditional marriage. If you believe in gay marriage, have a gay marriage.

If you believe in flying a Rebel flag, hoist that bad boy up. If you believe that flag is racist, don't look at it.

The absolute beauty of a free society is that sometimes you have to tolerate things you may not agree with in order to enjoy the freedom to enjoy things that someone else does not care for.


----------



## Munzy (Jun 26, 2015)

Has anyone ever thought that the more laws our government makes, the less freedom we have?


----------



## raindog308 (Jun 26, 2015)

Munzy said:


> Has anyone ever thought that the more laws our government makes, the less freedom we have?


"The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state."

  -- Tacitus (55-117 AD)


----------



## KuJoe (Jun 26, 2015)

Munzy said:


> Has anyone ever thought that the more laws our government makes, the less freedom we have?


I agree but in this case no actual law was passed and the ruling prevents governments from making more laws so this provides more freedoms and less laws which is a step in the right direction regardless what side you're on.


----------



## Munzy (Jun 26, 2015)

KuJoe said:


> I agree but in this case no actual law was passed and the ruling prevents governments from making more laws so this provides more freedoms and less laws which is a step in the right direction regardless what side you're on.



I know, in actuality I think they got rid of a few laws (thus making more freedom). My point was around the fact that every law that is made, we loose more of our freedom.


----------



## Geek (Jun 26, 2015)




----------



## drmike (Jun 26, 2015)

joepie91 said:


> I think the problem here, is that we're trying to discuss a multitude of separate issues with separate rationale, as if it's a single issue.
> 
> Dividing them up yields these arguments from my side:
> 
> ...


Again marriage isn't a religious thing, unless you are religion adherent.  It's something religious institutions stole from individuals under terror terms of hell and control.

Again marriage isn't a legal thing, unless you are a worshiper of the State.  This nonsense of government "marrying" people is legal non sense.  It's akin to registering a dog.  It's an inventory.

Marriage is a personal contract between two people and historically between a male and a female.   But it could be between a person and a sandwich, who am I to judge who a person loves?

_* This also applies to other 'unusual' or controversial topics in the same category - as long as nobody is being harmed, this is not anybody's business. Harm should be provable. More an ethical point than anything else.*_

It's extended on unusual side to absolutely every abstract deviant idea you could create and more you never imagined.  Mark my words this decision will march the fringe folks into demanding 'rights' and being recognized as 'normal' just cause otherwise such is discrimination.   Much of law is based upon discrimination and victimizing people who at liberty should be left alone by the State.



Kalam said:


> The word you're looking for is *consent*. Animals and children cannot give consent. I don't quite understand why this concept is so hard for the religious and right-wingers to comprehend.


Sure they can and do, which further complicates the issue.  How many times have I heard teenagers say about how unfair something is and how they are discriminated against them?  Daily thing.  You know what?  I agree with them.   Plenty of ageism.   Arbitrary numbers equal graduating to be allowed to give consent is more government nonsense in the lives of people stuck with their jurisdiction and forced to be subjects of the State.  Minors can enter contracts and are able to do at various ages.  It's not very common, but exists.

Go back in time and people were teens and on their way having families and all sorts of stuff.  So this oddness of like 15-18 we put children through is insanity and ageism.  Parents and State ganging up on kids. Animals if they aren't interested, surely are capable of defending themselves and are capable of inflicting grave harm on a silly human.  Surely, hospitals probably see many cases of deviant behavior cured through by the force of an angry animal.

Consent is never given from non speaking entities and objects under such a tight definition / view.   As such I suspect they are unable to testify and claim victimhood except in the  insane cases where the blind can see the brutality of what occurred.  Speaking here of sheer violence.

 

See I don't agree with the fringe behavior, but I see the logic and slippery slope of government butting in on such matters.  Figuratively prying Pandora's box wide open.

At law, to have a crime it always has been the need to have a victim, for the accused to have right to face the accuser.  This recent decades of proxy by the government standing in and representing the interests in lieu of victim has led to mass horrors.  The drug war is a prime example of victim lacking often, yet people remain harshly punished for what may amount to self harm and well within their human rights to self medicate.  Slippery slope again where one allows government an inch and they fit a mile in.

There is no real need for marriage and both church and state should be out of the business of marriage but both profit handsomely from their rituals.  I don't even think marriage by local government is even called marriage.  This is a recent redressing of the ugly bride.  Forever I recall it being called Civil Matrimony.  This likely has a distinct legal definition and implications that are not 1-for-1 overlay of marriage.

There are also among the States of the United States and elsewhere various forms of Common Law Marriage that exist.  The most shocking in places is the government deems a couple (male and female) to be Common Law Married after a period of cohabitation.  In some places this time is woefully low.  Two people of opposite sex playing roommate could be wrongly roped into such labeling in as little as a portion of a year.

PS: I don't support special status and tax gimmicks for married folks either cause that's discrimination against unmarried people.


----------



## drmike (Jun 26, 2015)

Decision over here if anyone wants to read it....

Yet another 14th Amendment based case... 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf


----------



## lbft (Jun 26, 2015)

raindog308 said:


> Back off, you cheap hussy.  @Francisco wants *me.*


Lies, everyone knows Fran's already married to his work.


----------



## raindog308 (Jun 26, 2015)

drmike said:


> Again marriage isn't a religious thing, unless you are religion adherent.  It's something religious institutions stole from individuals under terror terms of hell and control.


That's not true. The idea that religion/culture/state/law were to be separate spheres is very new in human thinking - not more than a couple hundred years.


While marriage stretches back to antiquity, there are numerous ancient cultures (particularly in Western civ, which is where we're talking about) in which you couldn't get married "outside of religion" because the idea that culture wasn't thoroughly integrated into all society would have been very strange.  


(Heck, it _is_ very strange, but that's a different conversation  )


----------



## k0nsl (Jun 27, 2015)

Next up, paedophilia. This is getting normalised more and more, especially where I am. As for me, I'm opposed to it. Always have been, always will be. Why should we promote sickness/mental issues and make it appear "normal"? If you're okay with homosexuality, you should have no issue with paedophilia. It's quite common for "homosexual couples" to adopt a child; many of those children are sexually abused and grow up and become really messed. Not cool.

Blergh.


----------



## Geek (Jun 27, 2015)

k0nsl said:


> Next up, paedophilia. This is getting normalised more and more, especially where I am. As for me, I'm opposed to it. Always have been, always will be. Why should we promote sickness/mental issues and make it appear "normal"? If you're okay with homosexuality, you should have no issue with paedophilia. It's quite common for "homosexual couples" to adopt a child; many of those children are sexually abused and grow up and become really messed. Not cool.
> 
> Blergh.


I'm unclear.  Are you associating homosexuality with an abnormal sickness/mental illness, or is it your contention that a child raised in a same-sex household is at more risk of physical abuse?  Both?  What about the Lesbian couple who adopts a son?  The two fellows who adopt a daughter?  I'd have to respectfully disagree with some of your opinion. I would never be in favor of any abuse of a child, but I don't know if I'd go as far as to blame it on homosexuality.  I do, however, agree with you that pedophilia is awful, and anyone who would hurt a child is obviously out of their mind.  It's sad to think such has become "normal" in any part of the world.


----------



## k0nsl (Jun 27, 2015)

I'm really tired and may have been unclear. I will maybe expound on it later after I've slept. At any rate, I'm not a big fan of it. I'm not religious either, so none of my views are entangled due to some religious influence.

I've just thought it to be wrong, probably since I was 15 or so. In the 80s here in Sweden homosexuality was classified as a mental illness. I could give many examples where homosexual couples adopt a child and abuse it sexually. I'm pretty sure anyone could find such information easily. A child growing up with two men...it has to leave undesired issues for the child later on in life.

I'm probably going to take some flack for my stance on this, but so be it. I respect you for disagreeing with me, that's your right. Therefore I should be OK to hold my views on the issue as well. Right?

Here in Sweden they parade with kids, men and women naked, dildos and all sorts of perversions. It cannot be healthy for a child to go through any of that. If they want to be together, fine. But why do they have to flaunt it the way they do? They can just live normally as we do. No need for perverted parades. You should really search YouTube for those parades in Sweden. It's pretty sickening stuff.

I suppose my main objection to all of it is due to children and what they may endure mentally. It cannot be healthy for a child to live through such stuff. The parallels to paedophilia and homosexuality is an interesting subject. There's a Swedish documentary, forgot the name, but basically homosexuality is often used as an excuse, when in fact the persons wanting to adopt children have strong paedophile tendencies....a man in the documentary said his homosexuality was basically just a "gateway" for his paedophilia.

I'll cut off here. Will browse around until I get tired enough to be able to sleep....

Best wishes.



Geek said:


> I'm unclear.  Are you associating homosexuality with an abnormal sickness/mental illness, or is it your contention that a child raised in a same-sex household is at more risk of physical abuse?  Both?  What about the Lesbian couple who adopts a son?  The two fellows who adopt a daughter?  I'd have to respectfully disagree with some of your opinion. I would never be in favor of any abuse of a child, but I don't know if I'd go as far as to blame it on homosexuality.  I do, however, agree with you that pedophilia is awful, and anyone who would hurt a child is obviously out of their mind.  It's sad to think such has become "normal" in any part of the world.


----------



## MartinD (Jun 27, 2015)

There is no basis at all in any science or psychology that homosexuality is an 'illness' or 'mental issue'. To suggest that is an insult to those who do have mental illness.


It's also deeply insulting to homosexuals.


----------



## Geek (Jun 27, 2015)

> I respect you for disagreeing with me, that's your right. Therefore I should be OK to hold my views on the issue as well. Right?


Of course k0nsl.  If everyone shared the same opinion, life would be boring as a box of rocks. Scroll back a page, note the image I posted.  If you're nice to me, then I'll be just as nice to you.  I understand that many of our views are on _very_ opposite ends of the spectrum, and while we might not always agree, but I'm not going to pass judgment on anyone for their beliefs. It's my belief that each person will have to answer for their own life decisions when passing into death.

Doesn't mean I'm gonna hate on it, I just don't really agree with it.


----------



## DomainBop (Jun 27, 2015)

MartinD said:


> There is no basis at all in any science or psychology that homosexuality is an 'illness' or 'mental issue'. To suggest that is an insult to those who do have mental illness.
> 
> 
> It's also deeply insulting to homosexuals.





k0nsl said:


> In the 80s here in Sweden homosexuality was classified as a mental illness.


Homosexuals who are middle aged or older probably still remember when the psychiatric industry in the US and many European countries misclassified it as a mental illness.


One of the textbooks for a psychology class I took in college in the 80's ('83 or '84) still listed it as a mental illness so I just did a quick google search to see the timeline for the classification change in the USA:


1973: the American Psychiatric Association (AMA) removed Homosexuality from its  _Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders__ (DSM_) 

1980 AMA invents a new illness "_ego-dystonic homosexuality"_  and adds it back to the DSM (_added to the DSM for political reasons to appease those who had been opposed to the 1973 removal_)


1986 Homosexuality is completely removed from the DSM


dates from here: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html


----------



## k0nsl (Jun 27, 2015)

I know. Anyway, yeah I'm done with the topic. I've given my stance on the subject, and that's enough.

@MartinD: whatever you say. It's your view. I got mine. That's it. We won't agree so it's no point for me to continue. I'll rather opt out of the topic. That's why I don't often even pay any attention to these and other topics, because I apparently have the "wrong views". So I stay out of it most of the time and focus on stuff which makes me happy, or is relevant to what I do. I just wanted to share my opinion on the subject.

Have a good day.



Geek said:


> Of course k0nsl.  If everyone shared the same opinion, life would be boring as a box of rocks. Scroll back a page, note the image I posted.  If you're nice to me, then I'll be just as nice to you.  I understand that many of our views are on opposite sides of the spectrum, and while we might not always agree, but I'm not going to pass judgment on anyone for their beliefs.  On this issue, we might not agree overall, it doesn't mean I'm gonna hate on it.


----------



## William (Jun 27, 2015)

> I know. Anyway, yeah I'm done with the topic. I've given my stance on the subject, and that's enough.


To be honest - your "opinion", especially comparing pedophilia to homosexuality, is entirely bullshit and you are an idiot in my book.


----------



## MartinD (Jun 27, 2015)

It's not about having the wrong views or opinions. You can't claim someone's opinion is wrong as its exactly that, an opinion.


What I am saying is that it is not a mental illness and this has been the view of the scientific and psychological community for over 20 years. So while you have an opinion, which is good, you have to accept factual information too.


----------



## Coastercraze (Jun 27, 2015)

Good for them. I would like to see less PDA though. The nice rule applies as well, be nice and I'll be nice too.

In the matter of homosexuality on a scientific or psychological level, more research is obviously needed to make a better understanding and conclusion as to define what it really is.

My opinion (warning may offend some) is that it's a form of population control since it doesn't contribute to the survival of the species. Yes they can adopt kids, but they can't reproduce amongst each other.


----------



## fixidixi (Jun 27, 2015)

It's always funny to hear such *good* things coming out of the US: 

- love of peace  :wub:

- tolearance ^_^

etc.

It's always stuff they are referring to as something they already master however the rest of the world is behind em. But moving there for a short while or even living there 15 years most of the ppl told me that there are very few countries with that much aggression and hatred.. ..and about tolerance.. .. .. ..  so reading through the story what ive relazied that most states already allowed this, and this passed with ~30ish against ~70ish % :

so in my opinion the stuff most ppl are happy about is that ~70ish % of voters could force their will on the rest.

so about that... .. ill shut up now..


----------



## AuroraZero (Jun 27, 2015)

raindog308 said:


> And app stores.  This is so stupid.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/apple-removes-civil-war-games-featuring-confederate-flag-from-appstore-20150625-ghy26q.html


This is starting to become a real problem and something is going to have be done about this soon. That flag has nothing to do with slavery at all. It represents something entirely different and if people would educate themselves they would know this and they might actually learn something.

As for the gay right thing, I am a Christian and I believe that what goes behind closed doors is between you and God. I have no right to judge someone for anything. That is His place. The only thing I do not care for is the fact that people think they have throw it my face all the time. I do not go around throughing my religion in people's faces, or my heteorsexuality for matter. I just ask for the same courtoesy in return is all.

I live by two rules when it comes to my religion to love my God with all my heart, body, mind, and soul, and treat my neighbor as I would treat myself. If those two rules do not get violated then I am good with things. I know I can not hold others to this standard, but there is always room for hope.


----------



## tonyg (Jun 27, 2015)

AuroraZero said:


> That flag has nothing to do with slavery at all.


You sound like a brainwashed person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech


Excerpt:


"the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition"


----------



## texteditor (Jun 27, 2015)

AuroraZero said:


> This is starting to become a real problem and something is going to have be done about this soon. That flag has nothing to do with slavery at all. It represents something entirely different and if people would educate themselves they would know this and they might actually learn something.



Here is a line-by-line comparison of the US Constitution and the Confederate constitution. Spoiler alert: the CSA constitution is basically a word-for-word ripoff, but with lots of little clauses about the 'right to own slaves'

http://www.jjmccullough.com/CSA.htm

After the civil war the confederate flag mostly disappeared but was repopularized by anti-civil rights movements after WW2 (not a big shocker)

So the flag isn't just about slavery, it's about institutionalized racism


----------



## raindog308 (Jun 27, 2015)

One could argue that the US flag represents the genocide and subjugation of the native American populations.

I play Panzer Corps on my iPad.  As a WWII game, not surprisingly, there are plenty of Nazi flags in it.  And there are certainly WWII apps with Imperial Japanese flags.

I'm pretty sure I could find an app with a Belgian flag, which represents a history of cruelty the worst American slave owner could never dream of.

I played an app called Roads of Rome yesterday.  Didn't really care for it, but I don't think anyone would defend the Roman empire as a model of enlightened equality.

The point is that the Confederate flag is history.  We could argue about whether it belongs flying over state capitals but to remove it from a *historical wargame* is lunacy.  You want to pull an app from the store that is some sick exploitative game where you get to whip slaves or something, fine...but saying "whoa, a Gettysburg simulation is WRONG!" is just nuts.

For pity's sake, how many fantasy games *celebrate* racism - all that "orcs vs. elves" crap is racism, no?  OMG.

Separately, people have seized on the Confederate flag as an evil and that's absurd.  Yes, slavery was bad.  But that was 150 years ago and in the interim, the Confederate flag has become a popular symbol of the South.  Not everyone who has a pair of stars-and-bars underwear or plays with a General Lee car is a racist.

Of course, the real problem is not the flag but rather reconstruction.  Why did we ever let the conquered peoples of the Southern states back into the Union?  Why aren't Alabamans and Georgians paying me special taxes and doing my yardwork?  Americans don't understand how wars work.


----------



## texteditor (Jun 27, 2015)

truthfully we should have made William Tecumseh Sherman's birthday into a national holiday


----------



## AuroraZero (Jun 27, 2015)

This is why I rarely say anything. I am certainly not brainwashed. I have my own mind and it just does not happen to agree with what you seem to think it should. Yes maybe at one time the flag was flown for the greater glory of the States that condoned slavery. That much is very true, and yes rascism is very alive today, I will not argue at all. But to ban that flag, and remove a part of the history of this country from history books is censorship. I DO NOT care what you say that is what it is.

Now to be fair about this, and since this all stemmed from that video from the kid that shot up the church, and since he burned an American in said video does that mean we go ahead and ban that one also? Or because Russia was mean to the Ukraine recently does that mean we ban the Russian flag from flying here? When does this stop? Does it stop with just flying the flags? Wait since BinLaden wore a turben let's ban those next right?

See how stupid this all sounds? I do not agree with Neo Nazis or the KKK but they have the right to say and believe how they want. If they take that right away from us it is only a matter of time before the rest fall as well.

*I may not agree with what you have to say, or believe, but I will defend your right to say, or believe it to the death.*

Don't forget that line when some one tries to take one your rights away and you do not like it. With that I am out of this discussion and will retreat back to my solitude.

Have a wonderful weekend all and God bless.


----------



## tonyg (Jun 27, 2015)

AuroraZero said:


> But to ban that flag, and remove a part of the history of this country from history books is censorship.


What?

Who is banning the flag from being flown by private citizens?

Who is removing the flag from history books?


----------



## k0nsl (Jun 27, 2015)

Somebody asked for sources on another page. I'll just copy and paste my reply from the same topic on LET.

Mark Regnerus made a famous study, here is an interactive site presenting the results: http://www.familystructurestudies.com/outcomes/ I don't know if it's exactly about children adopted by homosexuals, but it's about children who grew up with a father or mother that had same-sex relationships (and other family structures). as you can imagine, people are bitching about this study, saying it's "flawed", etc. I haven't looked into that. 

Regnerus study also says, among other bad outcomes for children growing up with a homosexual parent, that they are significantly more likely to become homosexuals themselves, which is curious indeed

There is also this study: _*"In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, [homosexual] men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women"*_

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11501300


----------



## MannDude (Jun 27, 2015)

Please move flag discussion here:


----------



## Aldryic C'boas (Jun 27, 2015)

There is no gay marriage.  There is no straight marriage.  There is simply *marriage*.  A union of spouses.  What constitutes a marriage or a spouse is for you to interpret, and other people's interpretations are none of your business, regardless of anything contrary some invisible man might tell you.  If you wish to align your interpretations with those of a group for the sake of community and solidarity, that's perfectly fine.  Your group still cannot force those views on any other unwilling person.

The government's financial system is complex - likely far more than it has to be, but that's a discussion for a different time.  HOWEVER, certain financial rules apply only to unmarried persons, and some apply only to married persons.  Therefore, the government must have a solid definition of what constitutes a marriage - both to clearly define when said rules should apply and to prevent unscrupulous persons from taking advantage of holes in the system.  The government is NOT telling you what is and is not a "real" marriage, they are telling you what they will and will not accept as a "legal" marriage for the purposes of US Law.

This really isn't that hard to grasp, people.


----------



## William (Jun 27, 2015)

I never thought the US would change that before Austria/Germany - We are still far from that. Though we have "civil union" and "registered partnership" which gives some of the marriage tax/gov benefits (but not 100% like marriage).

I don't have plans to marry currently (or in the near future), but it'd be nice to have the option.


----------



## raindog308 (Jun 27, 2015)

Aldryic C said:


> Your group still cannot force those views on any other unwilling person.


On a related note, there was a case here in Oregon where a bakery refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.  They were in a jurisdiction with an anti-discrimination law (I forget if it was local or state) and so the couple sued and won $250,000 or something outrageous like that.  I say outrageous because the couple suffered no actual damages because there are a hundred other bakeries they could go to, and they did - it's not like their wedding day was ruined.

The bakery went bankrupt and closed.

I thought that was ridiculous.  There are a hundred bakeries in Portland where you could get your cake.  Likewise, I don't think people should be suing photographers who don't want to do gay weddings.

I firmly believe freedom swings both ways.

And yes, I am consistent - I would say the same thing about a shop that discriminated against specific races, for example.  I wouldn't patronize a shop that put up a sign that said "WE DON'T SERVE BLACKS" but I think that's their right.


----------



## k0nsl (Jun 28, 2015)

One more additional study, as was requested by somebody on a page or so back: this study says many homosexual men (35.5% of their sample) were molested by older men as children http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1997.012004250.x/pdf6:23pm

It is a mighty strange coincidence, if they are all, as people claim, _*"born that way"*_.


----------



## Aldryic C'boas (Jun 28, 2015)

Perhaps instead of relying on third-hand 'studies', many of which will surely be biased one way or another given how volatile a topic this is, you should conduct your own and learn from the results.  "Collaborated Evidence" on sensitive topics should always be regarded with considerable skepticism, and first-hand study is always the best route to go.

Otherwise, you're doing nothing more than believing what someone else wants you to believe.  Or worse, you're validating only information that already agrees with preformed notions you had beforehand, and using that as a reason to stop.


----------



## k0nsl (Jun 28, 2015)

Yes, of course. However, somebody requested it from me. Either way, if I don't post the sources requested of me, I get flack for that. So I obliged.



Aldryic C said:


> Perhaps instead of relying on third-hand 'studies', many of which will surely be biased one way or another given how volatile a topic this is, you should conduct your own and learn from the results.  "Collaborated Evidence" on sensitive topics should always be regarded with considerable skepticism, and first-hand study is always the best route to go.
> 
> Otherwise, you're doing nothing more than believing what someone else wants you to believe.  Or worse, you're validating only information that already agrees with preformed notions you had beforehand, and using that as a reason to stop.


----------



## Vega (Jun 28, 2015)

As a gay male, I am happy for this ruling. It's long overdue and America finally reached year 2007.

For the rebel flag thing, can we please ban it. Not even just for the racist connotation but the fact it represents an ideology that had this country divided. There's only one flag I acknowledge and that is the actual United States of America flag.


----------



## Aldryic C'boas (Jun 28, 2015)

Oh, true enough, and I wasn't trying to be condescending.  Just speaking from experience on how easy it is to validate your own beliefs by only acknowledging those gathered facts that support it, and ignoring the ones that do not.

Personally, I think it's a bunch of crap.  If molestation was the cause of homosexuality, then contrived excuses would have to be found for every sexual orientation.  I don't think I'd want to hear the one that explains why furries can't be "normal like the rest of us".


----------



## Aldryic C'boas (Jun 28, 2015)

Vega said:


> As a gay male, I am happy for this ruling. It's long overdue and America finally reached year 2007.
> 
> 
> For the rebel flag thing, can we please ban it. Not even just for the racist connotation but the fact it represents an ideology that had this country divided. There's only one flag I acknowledge and that is the actual United States of America flag.


That's a little short sighted.  I hope your positing that the LGBT flag be done away with as well, by that logic.  After all, it's representing an ideal that seperates some folks from others.


----------



## Vega (Jun 28, 2015)

Aldryic C said:


> That's a little short sighted.  I hope your positing that the LGBT flag be done away with as well, by that logic.  After all, it's representing an ideal that seperates some folks from others.


Sure why not. It's not short-sighted at all. I am an American and I've stood doing my pledge allegiance to that flag(which is asinine but not the topic at hand). When they do the world conference meetings with United Nations, there is no flag for LGBT, Rebels, etc etc you have the US flag.
I acknowledge the official flag because it is our flags. I grew up in the south(before moving north and now west) and I don't see the rebel flag as representing southern pride. I see it representing an antiquated and outdated mindset of people who need to let go of the past so our present and future can be better.

The LGBT flag is not the rebel flag. There is no comparison. For starters, one flag is not tinged in a history of wanting to oppress others(blacks).


----------



## Aldryic C'boas (Jun 28, 2015)

Out of curiosity, where in the South?  I've spent a good bit of time now in SW Louisiana, and out of every individual I've met that sported the old confederate flag in one form or another, I can honestly say that not a single one was a bigot.  And exactly what mindset does having a Confederate flag make you have?


----------



## Aldryic C'boas (Jun 28, 2015)

Actually, nevermind.  The last line of your last reply just hit me, and I realize now you already have a preconceived notion of everything the Confederate flag stands for in your mind.  We will merely be wasting each others time with discussion, as I highly doubt you're willing to realize you are generalizing just as harshly (and incorrectly) about the ol' rebel flag as many people do against.. gays.  And as beautifully ironic as that is, I doubt any discussion would be meaningful enough to be worth the effort.


----------



## DomainBop (Jun 28, 2015)

Vega said:


> Sure why not. It's not short-sighted at all. I am an American and I've stood doing my pledge allegiance to that flag(which is asinine but not the topic at hand). When they do the world conference meetings with United Nations, there is no flag for LGBT, Rebels, etc etc you have the US flag.
> 
> 
> I acknowledge the official flag because it is our flags. I grew up in the south(before moving north and now west) and I don't see the rebel flag as representing southern pride. I see it representing an antiquated and outdated mindset of people who need to let go of the past so our present and future can be better.
> ...



You want to ban the rebel flag because of its history, and yet one of the flags you want to keep is tinged in a history of being an active participant in the biggest genocide in history that wiped out 10-100 million (depending on which historian you read, death totals include both North and South America) indigenous Americans and oppressed the survivors by turning them into second class citizens in their native land (and according to a 2012 report by the UN Human Rights Council conditions for indigenous Americans continue to be worse than for other ethnic groups in the US).  Interesting.

Using your reasoning for wanting to ban the rebel flag, a case could probably be made for banning every national flag because there is a good chance that at some time in history the people who proudly waved the flag of nation x,y, or z oppressed others or supported their government's oppression of others.



> For the rebel flag thing, can we please ban it. Not even just for the racist connotation but the fact it represents an ideology that had this country divided.





> I don't see the rebel flag as representing southern pride. I see it representing an antiquated and outdated mindset of people who need to let go of the past so our present and future can be better.


It's ironic that you as a gay male would say that because the desire to dictate how others should act and think (what "mindset" is permissible) is exactly the same mindset that anti-LGBT groups have used over the years to try to prevent LGBT people from enjoying life as LGBT people, and it is the same flawed reasoning that other groups have used over the years to try to stifle political dissent, suppress minority viewpoints, and justify discrimination against others.


----------



## Vega (Jun 29, 2015)

DomainBop said:


> You want to ban the rebel flag because of its history, and yet one of the flags you want to keep is tinged in a history of being an active participant in the biggest genocide in history that wiped out 10-100 million (depending on which historian you read, death totals include both North and South America) indigenous Americans and oppressed the survivors by turning them into second class citizens in their native land (and according to a 2012 report by the UN Human Rights Council conditions for indigenous Americans continue to be worse than for other ethnic groups in the US).  Interesting.
> 
> Using your reasoning for wanting to ban the rebel flag, a case could probably be made for banning every national flag because there is a good chance that at some time in history the people who proudly waved the flag of nation x,y, or z oppressed others or supported their government's oppression of others.
> 
> It's ironic that you as a gay male would say that because the desire to dictate how others should act and think (what "mindset" is permissible) is exactly the same mindset that anti-LGBT groups have used over the years to try to prevent LGBT people from enjoying life as LGBT people, and it is the same flawed reasoning that other groups have used over the years to try to stifle political dissent, suppress minority viewpoints, and justify discrimination against others.


As a gay male, It's not ironic at all. When did Racism/ignorance become permissible exactly? It's kind of why we have laws to protect minorities? The LGBT community is nothing like or remotely similar to the supporters of the rebel flag. On any grounds.


----------



## William (Jun 29, 2015)

> When did Racism/ignorance become permissible exactly?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


----------

