Gay marriage (finally) legalized in the US
- Thread starter joepie91
- Start date
-
- Tags
- equality gay marriage yay
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Munzy
Active Member
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.
drmike
100% Tier-1 Gogent
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.
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
100% Tier-1 Gogent
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
Yet another 14th Amendment based case...
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
lbft
Active Member
Lies, everyone knows Fran's already married to his work.
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
Bad Goy
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
k0nsl
Bad Goy
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
DomainBop
Dormant VPSB Pathogen
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.k0nsl said:
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
Last edited by a moderator:
k0nsl
Bad Goy
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.
@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.
