LOCKED - U-S-A!! U-S-A!!
- Thread starter QuaoarsKing
- Start date
- Status
Indeed. Because we all know the bunch supporting gay marriage and/or the removal of a flag are perfect angels without a hateful bone in their body.
Let's just put it this way: One side of hate won this week.
I believe in Justice Kennedys opinion for the winning side, they agreed that people and groups (churches) are entitled to their beliefs morally and religiously. In other words you can't go sue a church.
I can't seem to find the sacasterics in these stories either.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enter...it-ore-bakery-loses-again.html?DCMP=cfeatures
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aker-sued-refusal-make-gay-marriage-cake.html
http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enter...it-ore-bakery-loses-again.html?DCMP=cfeatures
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aker-sued-refusal-make-gay-marriage-cake.html
Last edited:
This is next. The goverment will force churches to marry homoesexual couples because if they don't they are infringing on their constitutional rights. Count on it.
Whether you like gay marriage or not, the thought of two dudes kissing and making out just makes me want to puke!! And if you like to see that then your gay too.
Yeah, there is. Certainly this ruling has left open the question of whether other types of marriages might be equally considered a "right" protected by the Constitution, but there are still legal grounds to prevent it. Today's opinion went though a long iteration of the social importance of TWO people committing their lives to each other. Although polygamy has popped up throughout history, and legally exists in some countries today, it does not have the same historical significance in our society as two people getting married. Its not a slam dunk argument either way, I'm just saying there is still plenty of room to deny polygamous marriages.
That's truly sad. What's worse is many people can't see that they're being trampled over.
I'd be willing to bet, at the very least, this will be looked at. The blood is in the water, and the "oppressed" can smell it. These types of "issues" are no longer about equality. It's about the "oppressed" forcing changes that cater to their WANTS, not needs, and just because they can.
No church has ever been forced by the U.S. or state government to marry interracial (or both black, like the case in Hazelhurst a few years ago) couples if they don't want to, nor divorced-and-remarrying couples, nor interfaith couples, nor couples who cohabitated beforehand, or who didn't meet whatever other rules that denomination put on marriage.
But now you think all that precedent will just get thrown out over the gays? That's just silly fearmongering. If your denomination (not religion -- many Christian churches perform gay marriages and the anti-marriage equality denominations don't have a monopoly on what's "Christian" and what isn't) wants to continue making rules about who can and can't get married, that's your choice. The government would never be able to prevent that, short of a Constitutional amendment (which likely wouldn't pass any state legislatures, much less 38 legislatures)
I'm undecided on how I feel about polygamy personally (I've never met any, so I wouldn't really know where to start), but it should absolutely be legal in the sense that the extra spouses need government protection.
There have been many cases in Utah where a man had multiple wives and children with all of them, but legally he was only married to the first wife. Then the man dies, and Wife #1 takes everything and throws extra wives and kids out on the streets, even though it was against the man's wishes, and she legally can do it.
Just as nationwide gay marriage was needed for proper legal protection, these extra wives need recognition for that purpose too.
They really need to crack down on the common (maybe not really common, but just media-portrayed?) problem of polygamist men forcing marriage on a bunch of 14-year-old girls who can't say no, though. Get rid of that and make it entirely adult/consensual, and people would probably be more open to allowing it.
There have been many cases in Utah where a man had multiple wives and children with all of them, but legally he was only married to the first wife. Then the man dies, and Wife #1 takes everything and throws extra wives and kids out on the streets, even though it was against the man's wishes, and she legally can do it.
Just as nationwide gay marriage was needed for proper legal protection, these extra wives need recognition for that purpose too.
They really need to crack down on the common (maybe not really common, but just media-portrayed?) problem of polygamist men forcing marriage on a bunch of 14-year-old girls who can't say no, though. Get rid of that and make it entirely adult/consensual, and people would probably be more open to allowing it.
Wait and see....wait and see. I'm not saying it WILL be changed, but that doesn't mean it won't be attacked. And you're severely underestimating the power of the "oppressed", as well as the government's eagerness to coddle them. They just want their inches, man. Just a few miserable inches, not miles.
So much hysteria in this thread, but I choose yours
I've been to a gay wedding. In Texas of all places. And it was even in a church. He was a friend from college. The look of pure joy on his face through out that day was incredible. Seeing him and his soon to be husband hold hands, recite their vows, take communion, and then kiss at the end was every bit as emotional and wonderful as any other wedding of close straight friends I have attended. I loved being there for their special day, and it's something I'll never forget. The reception was freaking amazing, too. Gays know how to throw a hell of a party after all, amirite? However, there was something that was off about that day, and it was that the state of Texas was not going to legally recognize them as spouses. Federally? They were married because they had traveled to a place it was legal and gotten a license. In the eyes of God and the Episcopal church they were married as well. But where they called home, where they lived and worked... their marriage did not exist. Today it does, and he broke down crying for joy. Hell, I got emotional for him. I got emotional knowing my neighbor won't have to go through some dumb legal process to adopt her child because her spouse, not her, was the birth mother. She actually couldn't even do that since she lives in Mississippi. Today, that boy is just as much hers as it is her wife's in the eyes of the law. I'm also laughing at one of my best friends who's been dating a guy for good while now and just lost one good excuse to not tie the knot.
If your mind is going straight to two dudes kissing, maybe it's you that has some things to work out. And you know what? That's ok. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I know many people that have tried to hide who they are, or even change who they are, because of outside pressures from what they are told about being gay from their friends, family, co-workers, and church. It's sad and terrifying that so many have had to live a double life, and even if they did find the courage to come out, couldn't fully enjoy the benefits of a marriage and family that straight people could. Now they can, and it is just so 17ing awesome. Hell of a good day.
I've been to a gay wedding. In Texas of all places. And it was even in a church. He was a friend from college. The look of pure joy on his face through out that day was incredible. Seeing him and his soon to be husband hold hands, recite their vows, take communion, and then kiss at the end was every bit as emotional and wonderful as any other wedding of close straight friends I have attended. I loved being there for their special day, and it's something I'll never forget. The reception was freaking amazing, too. Gays know how to throw a hell of a party after all, amirite? However, there was something that was off about that day, and it was that the state of Texas was not going to legally recognize them as spouses. Federally? They were married because they had traveled to a place it was legal and gotten a license. In the eyes of God and the Episcopal church they were married as well. But where they called home, where they lived and worked... their marriage did not exist. Today it does, and he broke down crying for joy. Hell, I got emotional for him. I got emotional knowing my neighbor won't have to go through some dumb legal process to adopt her child because her spouse, not her, was the birth mother. She actually couldn't even do that since she lives in Mississippi. Today, that boy is just as much hers as it is her wife's in the eyes of the law. I'm also laughing at one of my best friends who's been dating a guy for good while now and just lost one good excuse to not tie the knot.
If your mind is going straight to two dudes kissing, maybe it's you that has some things to work out. And you know what? That's ok. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I know many people that have tried to hide who they are, or even change who they are, because of outside pressures from what they are told about being gay from their friends, family, co-workers, and church. It's sad and terrifying that so many have had to live a double life, and even if they did find the courage to come out, couldn't fully enjoy the benefits of a marriage and family that straight people could. Now they can, and it is just so 17ing awesome. Hell of a good day.
Why would the government force churches to marry homosexual couples when they can funnel all of it to the Justice of the Peace and make new revenues off court fees?
They won't even have to force churches, because most of them will just adopt it on their own in the next couple decades.
50 years ago, it would have been nearly impossible to find a Southern Baptist church in Mississippi to marry an interracial couple. Nowadays, there are still some holdouts, but most of them will do it. Similarly, as the years go by and the leadership of these anti-marriage equality churches die or retire, they'll be replaced by younger people who support marriage equality in their churches.
Within 20 years you'll see most denominations allowing gay marriages, or at least "gay blessing ceremonies" that aren't technically called marriage (letting some older people save face) but serve the same purpose. That's just the way public opinion is going -- the government won't have to force anything.
I'm with Shmuley. Of the two types under discussion, polygamy at least has some historical significance in our society thanks in main part to the Mormons. Gay marriage had zero historical significance within living memory. I would not that they are tied together by DOMA, which banned federal recognition of both.
On top of that, many of the original supporting arguments in favor of banning polygamy were moral ones linked to religion. Modern American society has shown that such arguments are now all but meaningless.
On top of that, many of the original supporting arguments in favor of banning polygamy were moral ones linked to religion. Modern American society has shown that such arguments are now all but meaningless.
I think the fear (or supposed fear -- hard to tell whether it's real or just thrown out for effect) of the government forcing churches to alter their dogma is silly, childish, ridiculous, etc. However, I am very certain that no gay marriage ceremony will be performed within the Roman Catholic faith. However, renegade strains of Catholicism may arise and have same-sex marriages, but they would only be calling themselves catholic as they would not be under the umbrella of the pope's church.
Many of the non-denominational churches will get into the gay marriage business. It'll be interesting to see what the national organizations of the Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, etc. do. I'm not sure how many national divisions of Baptists there are, but I'm fairly certain that the Southern Baptists are decades away from gay marriage. We'll see. Basically, I think a lot of gay marriages will be performed in a lot of different non-denominational churches. The courts will only force a church to perform a gay marriage if that is the only standard that church has on whether to allow the ceremony. Most churches expect that people married in that church adhere to its beliefs. That is a reasonable and constitutional position.
I'm not a fan of it, but it won't offend me more than any other pda. It's a little immature to say it makes you puke. Just sayin'. But keep a barf bag handy just in case.
The "two" is directly in line with religious beliefs. It is exactly like the one man one woman issue.
Two things that make Obama far worse than Jimmy Carter: (1) Jimmy Carter only got four years; the electorate had not been sufficiently brain washed back them to give him another term. (2) Obama is an unapologetic socialist communist while Carter was just plain dumb.
A Christian Baker was sued, (and lost), in Oregon because they refused a gay couple. They were sent to sensitivity training as part of the settlement. It is not hard to see how a pastor who refuses a gay couple will be held to the same standard along with the Church in question. It's coming.
The baker in question singled out gays, but was willing to make cakes for divorced remarriers, cohabitants, etc., so the argument that he was just following his denominational beliefs, rather than some kind of bias against gays in particular, doesn't exactly hold water, does it?
Sure it holds water if the baker believes gay marriage is wrong. That was the whole point of the case.
Where in the Bible does it say remarriage is a sin? Certainly marrying a cohabitant is deciding to not live in sin any longer. Gay marriage on the other hand...I'm sure you won't see the difference.
The fact is that Oregon has sexual preference protection laws on the books and that is why he lost.
The fact is that Oregon has sexual preference protection laws on the books and that is why he lost.
Disagree on this one. American Catholics have given over 50% support for gay marriage for years, and it's legal across in lots of large Latin American countries like Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico, where most of the world's Catholics live anyway. Expect most future popes to be Latin Americans (that just makes sense numerically), coming from countries where gay marriage is "normal." It may take the Catholic Church a little longer because bishops and cardinals continue to lead the church in their 70s and 80s, and but they'll definitely come around in the next few decades. Remember there's no "objective truth" in doctrinal matters of any church. Whatever the decisionmakers believe is decided to be true is put into the rules, and the Catholic Church (like every other denomination) has changed the rules constantly over the centuries to fit with the times.
Hell, if the current pope makes it another 20 years, which isn't likely since he's 78, he might at least get them to the intermediate "gay blessing" stage himself.
- Status