Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

a reply to: Fromabove

Yes, you can finally marry your Animal... i know that is what everyone secretly wants when they bring up that argument because logic says

Heterosexual marriage = 2 consenting adults

Homosexual Marriage = 2 consenting adults

Hetro-Animal Marriage = 1 consenting adult and one animal

Sigh..

Well, i'm interested if anyone has witnessed any aggression or verbal comments from people... nothing violent here, i was at a restaurant in a Rainbow Equal sign Shirt and someone complained to the manager.. luckily the manager was fine and told him he couldn't kick us out for not doing anything wrong so i paid for his meal.

other than that i haven't witnessed anything violent yet

What I don't understand is that before yesterday, same sex marriage was already legal in all but 13 states. For those that are so full of doom and gloom and end of the world predictions, I'd say a good share of you are likely to already live in a state that has marriage equality and probably didn't even know it?

The decision handed down affects:
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Missouri
Arkansas
Texas
Michigan
Ohio
Kentucky
Tennessee
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi

If you live in any other state, bans on gay marriage were previously struck down as unconstitutional. How 'bout that? This "earth shattering" decision just tells those remaining states to get with the program.

Now, each state has their own anti-discrimination laws. In my state, in the areas of employment and housing it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, age, sex, national origin and disability following Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It is completely legal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It is perfectly legal to get married on Sunday and go to work on Monday and get fired for being gay in states and jurisdictions that haven't added their own additions above those required by Title VII.

To me, all the hoopla over the decision on same sex marriage equality is giving something that people in 37 states already had. As far as I'm concerned, the victory for the big mean gay agenda won't be won until federal law anti-discrimination statutes include sexual orientation and gender identity making it the law of the land.

In twenty states in this great country of ours, it is completely legal to discriminate against homosexuals and those with gender identity issues. Does that make all you haters happy now?

Does that make the rest of you a little sick to your stomach? It does me.

►eKay◄

a reply to: Darth_Prime

The slippery slop argument is all people have if they don't go the religious route.

When you have to turn to a logical fallacy to defend your stance, that should tell you something.

a reply to: EKron

Exactly, like i and other have been saying this is a step but we have many more to go.. the States that allow open discrimination is a must next step. we under the GLBTQ umbrella should get the same protections.. no one is asking for anything special, just the same

originally posted by: xuenchen
Has anyone considered why the LGBTQ lobby isn't going after the whole "identity" thing?

What identity thing? You mean transgender? And "going after" what? I think the LGBT lobby is addressing transgender issues as we speak and making marriage available to all citizens includes transgendered individuals, so that's done. If you mean something else with "identity thing", please explain what you mean.

Maybe they should be targeting the entire big government system of classification.

I'm sure they are. Many want LGBT added to the federal anti-discrimination laws (civil rights act, etc) that protect race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. etc... LGBT is the last group of people that it's perfectly legal to discriminate against. So, adding that to the federal laws would help a LOT!

Why even have a male-female class on government documents in the first place?

What do you mean?

If people want religious recognition, why even have a government legal classification?

So they can get the legal benefits. If religious people want to be married only by a preacher, without the state involved, they can, they just wouldn't get any of the tax breaks or legal protections.

[quote
Where did the government legal classification of marriage originate.


You mean the US government? That's a LOT of information, but you could start here: Marriage in the US

If you mean worldwide, this is a decent (very basic) article. Source

originally posted by: Sremmos80
The slippery slop argument is all people have if they don't go the religious route.

Slippery slop? LOL! I love that! It's a perfect description of a "sloppy slippery slope"! Sy that 6 times...

EKron, you make great points! The next steps are probably going to get protection from discrimination on a federal level, as it should be.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
so i paid for his meal.

You're such a sweetheart! I'm convinced that's the way to handle that sort of thing. Good for you!

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Same, there is a time to stand up for yourself and be vocal and loud if needed, but violence is never the answer

a reply to: grandmakdw

Oh dear, so you are terrified of the extremists. I'm not going to answer your post in it's entirety because it goes well off the subject of gay marriage.

However, extremists become extreme because their voice is ignored and / or repressed. Old ladies lose their businesses if they refuse service based on prejudice, bakeries get sued etc. It's a nasty affair and one I don't like either. However, if old ladies would just treat everyone the same, bakers just bake wedding cakes for everyone etc then there wouldn't be a problem.

Let me give you a real life example of why you simply can't refuse service to people. I manage a medium sized retail store that sells among other things footwear. We had a one legged lady come into our store and demand that we sell her a single shoe (Remember now that shoes are shipped to us directly from the factory in pairs only) My sales assistant tried to inform the lady that we could not sell a single shoe because they only come in pairs. The lady went away and called our head office, who also told her that shoes only come in pairs, but we could offer her a discount.

By the time I knew anything about it, she was back in my store waving around a letter from her lawyer. I spoke to her and managed to calm her down and find a solution by finding a pair of shoes she liked, selling it to her for a ridiculously cheap price and suggesting she donate the shoe she could not use to charity.

If I had followed down the line of 'sorry, we only sell pairs at the price of a pair' line, we would have been sued and I'll bet everyone would have been crying discrimination at us and telling us what terrible people we are for treating a lady with a disability like that.

So, gay people aren't the only ones who find themselves dissatisfied at the service they receive and they are not the only ones prepared to sue. The difference in that one situation is that I was bright enough to see where this would end up and worked out a deal to give the customer what she wanted. After we had done the deal she also revealed to me that she had recently sued a salon for refusing service to her on a pedicure.

For every 70 year old that has lost her flower shop, I could show you 10 broken families who have lost their son or daughter to suicide because they cannot handle their sexuality, I could show you another 5 homeless teens who have been callously thrown out because their parents have disowned them.

originally posted by: Gemwolf
a reply to: Seamrog

You know, the God I know and worship, and the God that knows and cares for me, is a God of LOVE. Perhaps I could introduce my God of Love to your "god of wrath" - maybe he can learn a thing or two...

This is a popular position today..."Your God is not like my god!"

Crafting a god to suit your image is one way to deal with unrepentant sin, and many go that route.

Fortunately, Jesus gave the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter, and established his Church upon him, and not 30someoddthousand particular interpretations of who God 'ought to be.'

The greatest tragedy of the outcome of the faux marriage movement will be the loss of souls to Hell.

The God of love is exactly who he has revealed himself to be. Sadly, that does not gel with you pleasure at the promotion of sin.

a reply to: Seamrog

People around here don't like such dictators that much. The god you describe seems no better than Hitler to me.

a reply to: Seamrog

Crafting a god to suit your image is one way to deal with unrepentant sin, and many go that route.

Yes.

Yes they most certainly do...

Methodist
Southern Methodist
Anglican
Evangelical
Episcopalian
Lutheran
Baptist
Seventh Day Baptist
Southern Baptist
Calvinism
Pentecostal
United
Presbyterian
Orthodox
Greek Orthodox
Russian Orthodox
Ukrainian Orthodox
Chinese Orthodox
Catholic
Roman Catholic
Catholic Apostolic
Protestant
Mormon
Byzantine
Hussite
Mennonite
Hutterite
Amish
Unitarian
Christian Science


So....

Which "true" interpretation of god's word and sect of christianity are you ?

originally posted by: Seamrog

The greatest tragedy of the outcome of the faux marriage movement will be the loss of souls to Hell.

The God of love is exactly who he has revealed himself to be. Sadly, that does not gel with you pleasure at the promotion of sin.

Oh for the love of Pete, what a ridiculous statement you make!

1) According to your same belief system a.k.a the dusty old bible, gay people are going to hell anyway. Marriage does not affect that one bit. What you are playing is double jeopardy. You want for gay folk to suffer in this life and the next

2) The bible is as always contradictory on the subject of homosexuality anyway. One minute it says to stone any man who lays with another man as he would a woman, the next it is telling the terribly romantic gay love story of Saul and David. (I just KNOW you'll dispute that one)

3) If you can show me a single human being walking this earth that has not committed a single sin I will show you my collection of Unicorn hoofs.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Ya that wasn't a typo.... I meant to do that

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: JadeStar

Avatar

Who is she?

I think it really all comes down to sharing, caring, giving and being with another human being and having all the legal rights ( good and bad) of what was called "marriage" between man and woman. And possibly "love", I say this now, because many around the world can die because of their sexuality and will now try to get to the USA and ask for amnesty or what ever they are going to call it nowadays; the good ole USA will now welcome a new breed of human beings that can not have a natural human offspring. And this will add more confusion to the growth of economic problems that go with the supply and demand side of economics. China is a good example on a one child family, (it has changed now, as I understand) and also countries with more deaths than births. Just add it up and think about this. The best way an enemy can destroy another enemy is to... story will unfold soon, so stay tune.

Actually if they would just call marriage now between man and woman another legal binding name, the world would be free of the old ways of their beliefs and thinking.

originally posted by: musicismagic
I think it really all comes down to sharing, caring, giving and being with another human being and having all the legal rights ( good and bad) of what was called "marriage" between man and woman. And possibly "love", I say this now, because many around the world can die because of their sexuality and will now try to get to the USA and ask for amnesty or what ever they are going to call it nowadays; the good ole USA will now welcome a new same sex breed of legally married human beings that can not have a natural human offspring. And this will add more confusion to the growth of economic problems that go with the supply and demand side of economics. China is a good example on a one child family, (it has changed now, as I understand) and also countries with more deaths than births. Just add it up and think about this. The best way an enemy can destroy another enemy is to... story will unfold soon, so stay tune.

Actually if they would just call marriage now between man and woman another legal binding name, the world would be free of the old ways of their beliefs and thinking.

originally posted by: musicismagic

originally posted by: musicismagic
I think it really all comes down to sharing, caring, giving and being with another human being and having all the legal rights ( good and bad) of what was called "marriage" between man and woman. And possibly "love", I say this now, because many around the world can die because of their sexuality and will now try to get to the USA and ask for amnesty or what ever they are going to call it nowadays; the good ole USA will now welcome a new same sex breed legal relationship of human beings that can not have a natural human offspring. And this will add more confusion to the growth of economic problems that go with the supply and demand side of economics. China is a good example on a one child family, (it has changed now, as I understand) and also countries with more deaths than births. Just add it up and think about this. The best way an enemy can destroy another enemy is to... story will unfold soon, so stay tune.

Actually if they would just call marriage now between man and woman another legal binding name, the world would be free of the old ways of their beliefs and thinking.

a reply to: markosity1973

Sweetie,
I clearly said I did not approve of discrimination.

I am saying that the people you defend
go out of their way to find people and goad
them into inappropriate behavior,
and then follow that up with hate mail
and death threats after setting the people
up, knowing that if they set them up
they can "guide" them into discriminating
for the express purpose
of making an example of them
and punishing them
through death threats and hate mail.

Yes this has a great deal to do with the SCOTUS
decision, because hunting down people
and goading them into inappropriate behavior
has become part of the popular culture,
My darling,
the popular culture that you say should
have the say about what should be
the law of the land
is now into hunting down people
to persecute because they know if
they try hard they can get the people
with differing ideas to behave
in inappropriate ways,
and then set out to destroy the people
they hunted.

As part of the popular culture,
SCOTUS, if consistent with this ruling,
must endorse tricking people into
behaving inappropriately for the
express purpose of destroying the
people's lively hood and lives in general.

That could easily be an unintended
consequence of this ruling.