Gay marriage (finally) legalized in the US
- Thread starter joepie91
- Start date
-
- Tags
- equality gay marriage yay
AuroraZero
Active Member
Can't think of anything hotter, except maybe banning the rebel flag and the Revolutionary War from the history books.Well here we go with a hot button topic
HostMayo-WK
Member
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
100% Tier-1 Gogent
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
drmike
100% Tier-1 Gogent
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kalam
New Member
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Munzy
Active Member
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.
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."
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
Active Member
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.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."
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
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.
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.