Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

So, is it the Five that you don't like or the Four you do like that are perfect and infallible ?

I don't trust any 5-4 decision. None of them are infallible. Just take a gander through the dissenting opinions and tell me when you've ever read such warnings in a supreme court dissension.

Bull crap

If they'd voted 5-4 against lifting bans you'd be in here with a champagne cork on the ground I bet

If two people of the same sex can marry why can't two siblings get married? To me one is just as disgusting as the other.

a reply to: wantsome

Heterosexual Marriage does sound disgusting, i mean years and years of all this straight agenda being shoved down our throats.. please keep in behind your doors straight people...

originally posted by: wantsome
If two people of the same sex can marry why can't two siblings get married? To me one is just as disgusting as the other.

Obvious solutions:

1. Don't marry someone of your own sex.
2. Don't marry one of your siblings.
3. Enjoy your life and let others enjoy theirs.

originally posted by: wantsome
If two people of the same sex can marry why can't two siblings get married? To me one is just as disgusting as the other.

With sibling marriage, there is the problem of what happens to the offspring. Homosexual marriage doesn't have that problem. So the two examples don't exactly correlate.

originally posted by: wantsome
If two people of the same sex can marry why can't two siblings get married?

Before this ruling, why couldn't two siblings (brother and sister) marry? This ruling has NO impact on siblings marrying. Trying to show some connection to incest is not smart.

To me one is just as disgusting as the other.

Then don't participate. Why are you here? Oh, yes. To bring up incest, which is STILL illegal.

So now, we have employers saying that they're doing away with "Domestic Partner" health insurance coverage. The same-sex domestic partners must be/get married in order for both (and any children) to be covered.

ref: www.modernhealthcare.com...

originally posted by: carewemust
So now, we have employers saying that they're doing away with "Domestic Partner" health insurance coverage. The same-sex domestic partners must be/get married in order for both (and any children) to be covered.

ref: www.modernhealthcare.com...

Now that same-sex marriage is legal in every state, more employees will add their same-sex partners to their health plans. But it's also likely that a number of employers will soon drop their domestic partnership benefits and instead require employees to marry if they want to extend coverage to their partners.

I don't have a problem with that.

I love it. Ted Cruz wants to vote out Supreme Court justices over this...

This is like loosing a football game, and wanting the rules of the game changed so that you can win the next game.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Just like they are going to put an amendment that makes i Illegal again... so this ruling is taking away everyone's Religious freedom.. but they are willing to amend the 14th to take away others Freedom..Logic

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JohnFisher

Not foolish at all. Again I bring up the Loving v Virgina ruling in 1967. How many religious liberties have been trampled since then in reference to that ruling?

That's different. Interracial marriage is not against biblical principles, and the churches largely fixed the apostisy within the church thereby mitigating any infringements that might have otherwise come to pass. There is however clear and concise teachings about homosexuality and what marriage is. Though some churches willingly ignore these teachings, it does not negate how obviousvthe teachings are.

HAHAHA! You actually think that is different? Did you miss the article I posted earlier in the thread that showed that literally the EXACT same arguments were used against interracial marriage as are being used against gay marriage? The only reason you think it is a different issue is because you grew up with interracial marriages being legal and acceptable and probably weren't as exposed to the anti-arguments. Just go study history. Heck, I've already posted plenty of links in the thread about it. It shouldn't even be hard to do the research. Just click on all my links.

Pretending like they are different arguments is just straight up cognitive dissonance. Sorry, but you are wrong.

Yes, I DO think they are different. Don't assume that I'm so ignorant of history. You can laugh, and you can point out similarities, but I'm not wrong on this one. I easily could be wrong about a few points, but this is in fact different.

Explain how they are different then. I showed my side of the argument as to why they are the same. You can't just say, "nuh huh! I disagree you are wrong they are different," and think that is acceptable as an argument. If you think they are different arguments, then explain yourself. Where is the difference?

I already did. What's more, you already read it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JohnFisher

Not foolish at all. Again I bring up the Loving v Virgina ruling in 1967. How many religious liberties have been trampled since then in reference to that ruling?

That's different. Interracial marriage is not against biblical principles, and the churches largely fixed the apostisy within the church thereby mitigating any infringements that might have otherwise come to pass. There is however clear and concise teachings about homosexuality and what marriage is. Though some churches willingly ignore these teachings, it does not negate how obviousvthe teachings are.

HAHAHA! You actually think that is different? Did you miss the article I posted earlier in the thread that showed that literally the EXACT same arguments were used against interracial marriage as are being used against gay marriage? The only reason you think it is a different issue is because you grew up with interracial marriages being legal and acceptable and probably weren't as exposed to the anti-arguments. Just go study history. Heck, I've already posted plenty of links in the thread about it. It shouldn't even be hard to do the research. Just click on all my links.

Pretending like they are different arguments is just straight up cognitive dissonance. Sorry, but you are wrong.

Yes, I DO think they are different. Don't assume that I'm so ignorant of history. You can laugh, and you can point out similarities, but I'm not wrong on this one. I easily could be wrong about a few points, but this is in fact different.

Explain how they are different then. I showed my side of the argument as to why they are the same. You can't just say, "nuh huh! I disagree you are wrong they are different," and think that is acceptable as an argument. If you think they are different arguments, then explain yourself. Where is the difference?

in fact, you even replied to it with an intentionally obtuse, "make fun of you" response.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I love it. Ted Cruz wants to vote out Supreme Court justices over this...

This is like loosing a football game, and wanting the rules of the game changed so that you can win the next game.

Sort of like what Harry Reid to get Obamacare thru....huh?

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I love it. Ted Cruz wants to vote out Supreme Court justices over this...

This is like loosing a football game, and wanting the rules of the game changed so that you can win the next game.

Sort of like what Harry Reid to get Obamacare thru....huh?

Harry Reid changed the constitution?

Neat.

originally posted by: carewemust
So now, we have employers saying that they're doing away with "Domestic Partner" health insurance coverage. The same-sex domestic partners must be/get married in order for both (and any children) to be covered.

That's the way it should be. They can't insure every Tom, Dick and Mary that live together. The only reason they had domestic partnership health coverage in the first place is because gay people weren't permitted to be married. Now that they are, there's no need for the interim step of domestic partnership protections.

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JohnFisher

Not foolish at all. Again I bring up the Loving v Virgina ruling in 1967. How many religious liberties have been trampled since then in reference to that ruling?

That's different. Interracial marriage is not against biblical principles, and the churches largely fixed the apostisy within the church thereby mitigating any infringements that might have otherwise come to pass. There is however clear and concise teachings about homosexuality and what marriage is. Though some churches willingly ignore these teachings, it does not negate how obviousvthe teachings are.

HAHAHA! You actually think that is different? Did you miss the article I posted earlier in the thread that showed that literally the EXACT same arguments were used against interracial marriage as are being used against gay marriage? The only reason you think it is a different issue is because you grew up with interracial marriages being legal and acceptable and probably weren't as exposed to the anti-arguments. Just go study history. Heck, I've already posted plenty of links in the thread about it. It shouldn't even be hard to do the research. Just click on all my links.

Pretending like they are different arguments is just straight up cognitive dissonance. Sorry, but you are wrong.

Yes, I DO think they are different. Don't assume that I'm so ignorant of history. You can laugh, and you can point out similarities, but I'm not wrong on this one. I easily could be wrong about a few points, but this is in fact different.

Explain how they are different then. I showed my side of the argument as to why they are the same. You can't just say, "nuh huh! I disagree you are wrong they are different," and think that is acceptable as an argument. If you think they are different arguments, then explain yourself. Where is the difference?

I already did. What's more, you already read it.

No... I just hit quote and I have a listing of our entire conversation. There were no reasons listed as to why I was wrong nor were there links to other places to elaborate on it. You just said I was wrong and left it at that. If your ENTIRE point is about interracial marriage not being against the bible, you are wrong. They used that argument too. There were PLENTY of racists saying that it went against biblical law to interracially marry and citing stupid passages from the bible like the current crop of bigots do for homosexuality.

Why Gay Marriage Really Is Like Interracial Marriage

God Said So

Anti-miscegenation argument:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. (Leon Bazile, Virginia trial court judge, 1965)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

It's pretty simple: marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a historic doctrine driven deep into the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, and it's a perfect example of what I mean by the rise of paganism. (Newt Gingrich on a conference call, 2012)

The Bible Says So

Anti-miscegenation argument:

Isaac was forbidden to marry into the Canaanites and a wife was selected for him from his kindred, Rebekah. Jacob was warned to take a wife from his own kindred. The Israelite tribes descended from Jacob were expressly told not to marry outside of their race, their own kind of people. (SaveYourHeritage.com)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

The Bible is so clear in its support of heterosexual marriage there is little need for us to go through an exhaustive definition of biblical marriage versus the types of unions allowed by law today. All the scriptures in the Bible concerning marriage presuppose heterosexual marriage. (Bishop Henry R. Jackson Jr., for CNN)

I say again, explain yourself. Declaring me wrong doesn't make it so.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JohnFisher

Not foolish at all. Again I bring up the Loving v Virgina ruling in 1967. How many religious liberties have been trampled since then in reference to that ruling?

That's different. Interracial marriage is not against biblical principles, and the churches largely fixed the apostisy within the church thereby mitigating any infringements that might have otherwise come to pass. There is however clear and concise teachings about homosexuality and what marriage is. Though some churches willingly ignore these teachings, it does not negate how obviousvthe teachings are.

HAHAHA! You actually think that is different? Did you miss the article I posted earlier in the thread that showed that literally the EXACT same arguments were used against interracial marriage as are being used against gay marriage? The only reason you think it is a different issue is because you grew up with interracial marriages being legal and acceptable and probably weren't as exposed to the anti-arguments. Just go study history. Heck, I've already posted plenty of links in the thread about it. It shouldn't even be hard to do the research. Just click on all my links.

Pretending like they are different arguments is just straight up cognitive dissonance. Sorry, but you are wrong.

Yes, I DO think they are different. Don't assume that I'm so ignorant of history. You can laugh, and you can point out similarities, but I'm not wrong on this one. I easily could be wrong about a few points, but this is in fact different.

Explain how they are different then. I showed my side of the argument as to why they are the same. You can't just say, "nuh huh! I disagree you are wrong they are different," and think that is acceptable as an argument. If you think they are different arguments, then explain yourself. Where is the difference?

I already did. What's more, you already read it.

No... I just hit quote and I have a listing of our entire conversation. There were no reasons listed as to why I was wrong nor were there links to other places to elaborate on it. You just said I was wrong and left it at that. If your ENTIRE point is about interracial marriage not being against the bible, you are wrong. They used that argument too. There were PLENTY of racists saying that it went against biblical law to interracially marry and citing stupid passages from the bible like the current crop of bigots do for homosexuality.

Why Gay Marriage Really Is Like Interracial Marriage

God Said So

Anti-miscegenation argument:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. (Leon Bazile, Virginia trial court judge, 1965)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

It's pretty simple: marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a historic doctrine driven deep into the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, and it's a perfect example of what I mean by the rise of paganism. (Newt Gingrich on a conference call, 2012)

The Bible Says So

Anti-miscegenation argument:

Isaac was forbidden to marry into the Canaanites and a wife was selected for him from his kindred, Rebekah. Jacob was warned to take a wife from his own kindred. The Israelite tribes descended from Jacob were expressly told not to marry outside of their race, their own kind of people. (SaveYourHeritage.com)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

The Bible is so clear in its support of heterosexual marriage there is little need for us to go through an exhaustive definition of biblical marriage versus the types of unions allowed by law today. All the scriptures in the Bible concerning marriage presuppose heterosexual marriage. (Bishop Henry R. Jackson Jr., for CNN)

I say again, explain yourself. Declaring me wrong doesn't make it so.

AAgain, yes, I already did, but... The church largely fixed its own apostasy before there was ever a chance to see if religious liberties would ever be infringed upon over the issue. Scripture doesn't forbid the Christian from interracial marriage. That was apostate ideology based on misconstrued scripture. There is no question about the issue of homosexuality in the scriptures, thus the church as a whole will not relent. Ergo, we now have an opportunity to see if religious liberties will eventually be infringed based around same-sex marriage. Not saying that it will, but that is a significant difference between the two cases.

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JohnFisher

Not foolish at all. Again I bring up the Loving v Virgina ruling in 1967. How many religious liberties have been trampled since then in reference to that ruling?

That's different. Interracial marriage is not against biblical principles, and the churches largely fixed the apostisy within the church thereby mitigating any infringements that might have otherwise come to pass. There is however clear and concise teachings about homosexuality and what marriage is. Though some churches willingly ignore these teachings, it does not negate how obviousvthe teachings are.

HAHAHA! You actually think that is different? Did you miss the article I posted earlier in the thread that showed that literally the EXACT same arguments were used against interracial marriage as are being used against gay marriage? The only reason you think it is a different issue is because you grew up with interracial marriages being legal and acceptable and probably weren't as exposed to the anti-arguments. Just go study history. Heck, I've already posted plenty of links in the thread about it. It shouldn't even be hard to do the research. Just click on all my links.

Pretending like they are different arguments is just straight up cognitive dissonance. Sorry, but you are wrong.

Yes, I DO think they are different. Don't assume that I'm so ignorant of history. You can laugh, and you can point out similarities, but I'm not wrong on this one. I easily could be wrong about a few points, but this is in fact different.

Explain how they are different then. I showed my side of the argument as to why they are the same. You can't just say, "nuh huh! I disagree you are wrong they are different," and think that is acceptable as an argument. If you think they are different arguments, then explain yourself. Where is the difference?

I already did. What's more, you already read it.

No... I just hit quote and I have a listing of our entire conversation. There were no reasons listed as to why I was wrong nor were there links to other places to elaborate on it. You just said I was wrong and left it at that. If your ENTIRE point is about interracial marriage not being against the bible, you are wrong. They used that argument too. There were PLENTY of racists saying that it went against biblical law to interracially marry and citing stupid passages from the bible like the current crop of bigots do for homosexuality.

Why Gay Marriage Really Is Like Interracial Marriage

God Said So

Anti-miscegenation argument:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. (Leon Bazile, Virginia trial court judge, 1965)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

It's pretty simple: marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a historic doctrine driven deep into the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, and it's a perfect example of what I mean by the rise of paganism. (Newt Gingrich on a conference call, 2012)

The Bible Says So

Anti-miscegenation argument:

Isaac was forbidden to marry into the Canaanites and a wife was selected for him from his kindred, Rebekah. Jacob was warned to take a wife from his own kindred. The Israelite tribes descended from Jacob were expressly told not to marry outside of their race, their own kind of people. (SaveYourHeritage.com)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

The Bible is so clear in its support of heterosexual marriage there is little need for us to go through an exhaustive definition of biblical marriage versus the types of unions allowed by law today. All the scriptures in the Bible concerning marriage presuppose heterosexual marriage. (Bishop Henry R. Jackson Jr., for CNN)

I say again, explain yourself. Declaring me wrong doesn't make it so.

AAgain, yes, I already did, but... The church largely fixed its own apostasy before there was ever a chance to see if religious liberties would ever be infringed upon over the issue. Scripture doesn't forbid the Christian from interracial marriage. That was apostate ideology based on misconstrued scripture. There is no question about the issue of homosexuality in the scriptures, thus the church as a whole will not relent. Ergo, we now have an opportunity to see if religious liberties will eventually be infringed based around same-sex marriage. Not saying that it will, but that is a significant difference between the two cases.

Lol. Revisionist history at its best. For one, being against gay marriage is the same thing, an apostate ideology based on misconstrued scripture. For two, no we DON'T have an opportunity to see if religious liberties will be infringed on because this ruling doesn't allow that in the slightest. It ONLY overturns gay marriage bans. JUST like the Loving v. Virgina ruling. The fact that you think that there is a difference here based on religious interpretation just shows how duped you are. The cognitive dissonance is STRONG in you.

You need a better argument to try to explain why these two issues are different. Also, still no links from you backing up your position. Not even overly biased religious hate websites as is per the usual with these "Christianity is under assault" conversations.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JohnFisher

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JohnFisher

Not foolish at all. Again I bring up the Loving v Virgina ruling in 1967. How many religious liberties have been trampled since then in reference to that ruling?

That's different. Interracial marriage is not against biblical principles, and the churches largely fixed the apostisy within the church thereby mitigating any infringements that might have otherwise come to pass. There is however clear and concise teachings about homosexuality and what marriage is. Though some churches willingly ignore these teachings, it does not negate how obviousvthe teachings are.

HAHAHA! You actually think that is different? Did you miss the article I posted earlier in the thread that showed that literally the EXACT same arguments were used against interracial marriage as are being used against gay marriage? The only reason you think it is a different issue is because you grew up with interracial marriages being legal and acceptable and probably weren't as exposed to the anti-arguments. Just go study history. Heck, I've already posted plenty of links in the thread about it. It shouldn't even be hard to do the research. Just click on all my links.

Pretending like they are different arguments is just straight up cognitive dissonance. Sorry, but you are wrong.

Yes, I DO think they are different. Don't assume that I'm so ignorant of history. You can laugh, and you can point out similarities, but I'm not wrong on this one. I easily could be wrong about a few points, but this is in fact different.

Explain how they are different then. I showed my side of the argument as to why they are the same. You can't just say, "nuh huh! I disagree you are wrong they are different," and think that is acceptable as an argument. If you think they are different arguments, then explain yourself. Where is the difference?

I already did. What's more, you already read it.

No... I just hit quote and I have a listing of our entire conversation. There were no reasons listed as to why I was wrong nor were there links to other places to elaborate on it. You just said I was wrong and left it at that. If your ENTIRE point is about interracial marriage not being against the bible, you are wrong. They used that argument too. There were PLENTY of racists saying that it went against biblical law to interracially marry and citing stupid passages from the bible like the current crop of bigots do for homosexuality.

Why Gay Marriage Really Is Like Interracial Marriage

God Said So

Anti-miscegenation argument:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. (Leon Bazile, Virginia trial court judge, 1965)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

It's pretty simple: marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a historic doctrine driven deep into the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, and it's a perfect example of what I mean by the rise of paganism. (Newt Gingrich on a conference call, 2012)

The Bible Says So

Anti-miscegenation argument:

Isaac was forbidden to marry into the Canaanites and a wife was selected for him from his kindred, Rebekah. Jacob was warned to take a wife from his own kindred. The Israelite tribes descended from Jacob were expressly told not to marry outside of their race, their own kind of people. (SaveYourHeritage.com)

Anti-gay-marriage argument:

The Bible is so clear in its support of heterosexual marriage there is little need for us to go through an exhaustive definition of biblical marriage versus the types of unions allowed by law today. All the scriptures in the Bible concerning marriage presuppose heterosexual marriage. (Bishop Henry R. Jackson Jr., for CNN)

I say again, explain yourself. Declaring me wrong doesn't make it so.

AAgain, yes, I already did, but... The church largely fixed its own apostasy before there was ever a chance to see if religious liberties would ever be infringed upon over the issue. Scripture doesn't forbid the Christian from interracial marriage. That was apostate ideology based on misconstrued scripture. There is no question about the issue of homosexuality in the scriptures, thus the church as a whole will not relent. Ergo, we now have an opportunity to see if religious liberties will eventually be infringed based around same-sex marriage. Not saying that it will, but that is a significant difference between the two cases.

Lol. Revisionist history at its best. For one, being against gay marriage is the same thing, an apostate ideology based on misconstrued scripture. For two, no we DON'T have an opportunity to see if religious liberties will be infringed on because this ruling doesn't allow that in the slightest. It ONLY overturns gay marriage bans. JUST like the Loving v. Virgina ruling. The fact that you think that there is a difference here based on religious interpretation just shows how duped you are. The cognitive dissonance is STRONG in you.

You need a better argument to try to explain why these two issues are different. Also, still no links from you backing up your position. Not even overly biased religious hate websites as is per the usual with these "Christianity is under assault" conversations.

EEh, lol No, I experience cognitive dissonance on many things, but I have zero inner conflict on this issue. No reduction here sir. And no, scripture is rather clear about homosexuality. I also have not said that I think religious liberties will be infringed upon. I do believe it's foolish not to be cautious though. Never mind the dissenting justice opinion over same-sex marriage. There is a trend arising, and we need to be wary. It's not characteristic of our government to disregard the constitution. See American history. Our constitution is little more than a good talking point. So there is a difference in interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. Yes, the position of the church as a whole is significant enough to make it a difference.

a reply to: JohnFisher

Explain to me which part of the constitution was disregarded with this ruling, please.

I'm a little murky on those details.