Same Sex Marriage Legalized

[SUXBNME 1,631]

Gays don't have mouths???

In communist China, dik eats you !@#

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

 

This is the thing I'm a bit concerned about. States had referendums and votes on this, and some States voted against it. The fed decides it knows better than the State and says.... oh we know it was a democratic process... but you know... fock you States... we're the fed. I'm not a fan of big fed.

Democracy means crap when talking about the rights of others. If we were still waiting on legislative or voter action, I guarantee there would still be segregation in some parts of the country.

 

Bottom line... Someone else getting married or not doesn't affect you. Your opinion on it is irrelevant. It's a matter of civil rights.

[wiffleball 4,797]

to answer the previous poster's question God no. It has already started. Now they're going after the fact that employers can't fire game please which I agree with. But no they're not going to stop bitching anytime soon.

 

given a rope, he thinks he's a cowboy.

[Bishop82 61]

I don't follow current events, but from my understanding everyone is upset over this flag.

 

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img197/8271/upex.jpg

[Cloaca du jour 2,160]

USA goes to hell

 

News at 11.

 

If you are happy for this then you are gay or your brain no longer can tell right from wrong. Most likely the latter.

 

The devil abounds and it is scary

 

 

 

 

[Voltaire 5,534]

Well are they finally going to stop bitching about inequality? Done marching for pride week? *slow golf clap* Ok boys.... you did it... now shut the fock up.

Nope. next step is gay adoption, showering with the girls, mandatory 3rd bathrooms for transgendered, allowing phallic floats in parades, and 200 years of guilt tripping everybody over how wrong it is to criticize and not fully embrace them.

[jerryskids 7,202]

Nope. next step is gay adoption, showering with the girls, mandatory 3rd bathrooms for transgendered, allowing phallic floats in parades, and 200 years of guilt tripping everybody over how wrong it is to criticize and not fully embrace them.

 

Put me in the camp of not understanding how it affects me or my marriage if gay people get married. I don't feel any less about my marriage today than I did yesterday.

 

That being said, I do wonder a bit about the slippery slope types of things you describe. But at the end of the day, I can't think of a single legitimate reason that gays can't marry, so I think it was a good move by SCOTUS to get us past this.

[Drizzay 760]

USA goes to hell

 

News at 11.

 

If you are happy for this then you are gay or your brain no longer can tell right from wrong. Most likely the latter.

 

The devil abounds and it is scary

 

 

 

 

My God is clearly better than your God.

[Voltaire 5,534]

Agreed.

 

Obama publicly changed his mind 5+ times since he was first a senator. (on ghey marriage) I assume that this is mainly because of public opinion vs re-election. Just makes him the same as most politicians. Nothing new. Not an Obama sucks dig.

I can understand changing minds on this issue a bit since I personally went from 'Oh, hell no' to 'meh, whatever.'

[porkbutt 897]

Nope. next step is gay adoption, showering with the girls, mandatory 3rd bathrooms for transgendered, allowing phallic floats in parades, and 200 years of guilt tripping everybody over how wrong it is to criticize and not fully embrace them.

truth. nowhere near the end. the gay agenda is vicious.

[Thornton Melon 653]

I'm in the "Your marriage doesn't affect mine" camp, but I'm not one of those getting all "jazz hands" over the decision. I think it would have been hilarious if this had gotten shot down.

[frank 2,355]

Democracy means crap when talking about the rights of others. If we were still waiting on legislative or voter action, I guarantee there would still be segregation in some parts of the country.

 

Bottom line... Someone else getting married or not doesn't affect you. Your opinion on it is irrelevant. It's a matter of civil rights.

This is true. What has always bothered me it that people even care. I don't have the time or energy to give a crap about what other people are doing.

 

It has been less than 20 years since Alabama legalized interracial marriage.

[tubby_mcgee 701]

So, okay, those of you that are okay with gay marriage, are you okay with threesomes getting married? Transgender President of the USA? Siblings getting married? I'm assuming you are okay with all 3, as once you are beyond "man-woman only", and think fair is fair is fair and everyone is equal, that you are okay with these as you would agree that it wouldn't be fair to prevent them. They are people too, ya know.

?????

[jerryskids 7,202]

So, okay, those of you that are okay with gay marriage, are you okay with threesomes getting married? Transgender President of the USA? Siblings getting married? I'm assuming you are okay with all 3, as once you are beyond "man-woman only", and think fair is fair is fair and everyone is equal, that you are okay with these as you would agree that it wouldn't be fair to prevent them. They are people too, ya know.

?????

 

I don't have a problem with polygamy although the logistics of benefits, taxes, decision rights, etc. with >2 makes it unlikely that it will happen.

 

Don't fundamentally care if there was a transgender president.

 

Siblings I kinda struggle with. Ratard-baby-werds. I'm on the fence with that one.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Marriage = 1 + 1

 

Transgender president: I guess. Not likely to happen anytime soon though

 

Brother + sister: did I miss something? Incest is still illegal, right?

 

[vuduchile 1,947]

So, okay, those of you that are okay with gay marriage, are you okay with threesomes getting married? Transgender President of the USA? Siblings getting married? I'm assuming you are okay with all 3, as once you are beyond "man-woman only", and think fair is fair is fair and everyone is equal, that you are okay with these as you would agree that it wouldn't be fair to prevent them. They are people too, ya know.

?????

I'm OK with all of that, but I draw the line at tubby irish dudes

[Mike Honcho 5,553]

 

This is the thing I'm a bit concerned about. States had referendums and votes on this, and some States voted against it. The fed decides it knows better than the State and says.... oh we know it was a democratic process... but you know... fock you States... we're the fed. I'm not a fan of big fed.

 

The feds didn't decide anything, the court did..the court decided that those laws were unconstitutional which is there job. By your logic, if the a state decides that it doesn't need to get a search warrant anymore, creates a law that says that's the way they are going to do things---then it's all good with you that the state made a law ignoring the 4th amendment. I mean it's a state law right? The Supreme Court should just throw up there hands and say "What can we do"?

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I don't care about polygamy, so long as all parties are consenting adults and the tax implications are ironed out.

 

Incestual marriages present problems in terms of reproduction. I don't have a problem with that being prohibited to prevent a bunch of web footed children on the taxpayer dime.

 

Hell, i don't even really give a crap if someone wants to marry a horse. They shouldn't get tax breaks for it though.

[crackattack 520]

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." --Thomas Jefferson

 

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

 

Ayn Rand

 

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

 

Thomas Jefferson

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

Put me in the camp of not understanding how it affects me or my marriage if gay people get married. I don't feel any less about my marriage today than I did yesterday.

 

That being said, I do wonder a bit about the slippery slope types of things you describe. But at the end of the day, I can't think of a single legitimate reason that gays can't marry, so I think it was a good move by SCOTUS to get us past this.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Marriage = 1 + 1

 

Transgender president: I guess. Not likely to happen anytime soon though

 

Brother + sister: did I miss something? Incest is still illegal, right?

 

Yes, but that slope is always slippery to some.

[MDC 8,117]

Incest has a potential victim - the kids. Just look at drobeski.

 

Not sure what is preventing siblings from marrying now or why gay marriage would be a step closed to it.

[NewbieJr 541]

Incest has a potential victim - the kids. Just look at drobeski.

 

Not sure what is preventing siblings from marrying now or why gay marriage would be a step closed to it.

I think it's only same sex siblings that they're worried about

[Magnificent Bastard 192]

Ayn Rand. Sheez, that's still a thing?

[tubby_mcgee 701]

I draw the line at tubby irish dudes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually...I'm not Irish or tubby.

[crackattack 520]

Ayn Rand. Sheez, that's still a thing?

I felt the quote was applicable here

[FeelingMN 273]

and think fair is fair is fair and everyone is equal

 

It's kind of a guiding principle of the country, no?

 

Gays aren't doing anything illegal. They aren't harming anyone. They are similar to heterosexuals in every regard except who they're attracted to.

 

[Bishop82 61]

I'm also OK with a man or a woman who want to marry their guns.

[TimmySmith 2,783]

I nominate this for "dumbest post ever"

You are a fool. It's already been threatened in DC.

[Mike Honcho 5,553]

You are a fool. It's already been threatened in DC.

 

cool...get back to us WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FORCES CHURCHES TO MARRY GAY COUPLES.

[SUXBNME 1,631]

Gays aren't doing anything illegal.

Sodomy is still illegal in 17 states.

[Sho Nuff 720]

You are a fool. It's already been threatened in DC.

Lots of things get threatened. ..again, how to get past the 1st Amendment is the issie that even many ( like me) that are fine with gay marriage will fight govt telling Churches what to do in that area.

its one of the main reasons wven having that Amendment.

[Magnificent Bastard 192]

You are a fool. It's already been threatened in DC.

I think there is a lawsuit to open Area 51 as well. Your point?

[Thornton Melon 653]

Not sure what is preventing siblings from marrying now or why gay marriage would be a step closed to it.

 

I would guess the law in all 50 states.

[JTB 52]

I don't care about polygamy, so long as all parties are consenting adults and the tax implications are ironed out.

Incestual marriages present problems in terms of reproduction. I don't have a problem with that being prohibited to prevent a bunch of web footed children on the taxpayer dime.

Hell, i don't even really give a crap if someone wants to marry a horse. They shouldn't get tax breaks for it though.

1. Agree

2. I don't want my tax dollars paying for 2 worthless pieces of scum procreating like their entire family has done for generations, but i am forced to.

3. Horse, how about Apes?

[Thornton Melon 653]

Sodomy is still illegal in 17 states.

 

Actually, not since 2003

[cbfalcon 828]

I don't understand why it's a slippery slope.

 

Did the legalization of gay marriage happen because of something legalized previously? Did this all start because the judges said "Well, we are letting white people marry black people now, so do we now have to look at the gays?"

 

Official reasoning hogwash aside, I think it was legalized because society was in favor of it being legalized. So if marrying a horse is legalized in 5 years, it will probably be because society is in favor of it.

[Thornton Melon 653]

I don't understand why it's a slippery slope.

 

Did the legalization of gay marriage happen because of something legalized previously? Did this all start because the judges said "Well, we are letting white people marry black people now, so do we now have to look at the gays?"

 

Official reasoning hogwash aside, I think it was legalized because society was in favor of it being legalized. So if marrying a horse is legalized in 5 years, it will probably be because society is in favor of it.

 

Actually, one could argue it happened because of the decision in Lawrence v Texas striking down state sodomy laws. Scalia opined that once sodomy is legalized, what's to prevent gays from marrying. I thought he was making a ridiculous leap at the time, but 5 months after the Lawrence decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in that state.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

 

Actually, one could argue it happened because of the decision in Lawrence v Texas striking down state sodomy laws. Scalia opined that once sodomy is legalized, what's to prevent gays from marrying. I thought he was making a ridiculous leap at the time, but 5 months after the Lawrence decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in that state.

Actually, it all stems from griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court created a right to privacy to legalize birth control.

 

That right has been expanded in roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and now this.

[Frank M 181]

 

I don't have a problem with polygamy although the logistics of benefits, taxes, decision rights, etc. with >2 makes it unlikely that it will happen.

 

Don't fundamentally care if there was a transgender president.

 

Siblings I kinda struggle with. Ratard-baby-werds. I'm on the fence with that one.

Good answer.

 

The prohibition against relatives getting married is for health reasons. Not sure why if I think gays should be able to get married I'd be in favor of close relatives getting married and creating sick offspring.