PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Validates Same-Sex Marriage


Pages : [1] 2 3

Overlay
06-26-2015, 10:20 AM
No details or link yet, but a news flash has indicated that the Supreme Court has upheld the legality of same-sex marriages, applying nationwide.

horses4courses
06-26-2015, 10:21 AM
Welcome to the 21st century :ThmbUp:
Slowly but surely, we are making progress.

Tom
06-26-2015, 10:30 AM
No, we are not.
As a species, the goal is to continue through breeding.
Although the thought of liberals becoming extinct is titillating.

Serendipity, baby!

horses4courses
06-26-2015, 10:38 AM
No surprise that you would discriminate against homosexuals.

Next........

DJofSD
06-26-2015, 10:43 AM
Validates is the wrong word.

classhandicapper
06-26-2015, 10:45 AM
This is really a non event.

Religious people should not really care that the "government" is willing to marry gays. Religions will have their own distinct "sacrament" of marriage that they consider a joining in the eyes of "God" as opposed to what amounts to being a "government contract" between 2 people of any sex. They are two separate and distinct things even if the government and gays want to call them the same thing. I have no problem with this at all.

The only concern for religious people would be that the government decides to try to force all churches and religions to perform their religious sacrament for gays against their will. That should be up to individual religions to decide.

If the government gets so emboldened that it thinks it has the right to tell religions what they can or cannot do given thousands of years of tradition (or under the threat of financial damage) it will be time for me to concede that given everything else going on, we are getting to the point where this government will have to be overthrown eventually (hopefully while I'm out of the country watching the economic and social collapse from afar).

Overlay
06-26-2015, 10:50 AM
Validates is the wrong word.
What about "rules that same-sex couples have the right to marry", then, or "upholds the legality of" (as I said in the body of my post)? (As I indicated, I only had a single headline to work from.)

Tom
06-26-2015, 10:55 AM
No surprise that you would discriminate against homosexuals.

Next........

Not me, nature.

Ocala Mike
06-26-2015, 11:03 AM
Obama pretty much ran the table this week, didn't he? The trade bill, the ACA, and now this in support of his "evolved into" position. Very bad week for Obama-bashers, regressives, and Fox News watchers; I think O'Reilly's ready to be put into restraints by the men in the white coats any day now.

horses4courses
06-26-2015, 11:09 AM
Obama pretty much ran the table this week, didn't he? The trade bill, the ACA, and now this in support of his "evolved into" position. Very bad week for Obama-bashers, regressives, and Fox News watchers; I think O'Reilly's ready to be put into restraints by the men in the white coats any day now.

Yep, the pot's bubbling and about to boil over. :eek:

Ocala Mike
06-26-2015, 11:10 AM
Not me, nature.

Tom, the decision is about MARRIAGE, not homosexuality itself. Nature didn't create marriage, Tom, humans did. To deny couples the right to marriage because it is "unnatural" that they can't produce offspring means that you would have to believe that childless couples, by choice. are "unnatural."

horses4courses
06-26-2015, 11:12 AM
Tom, the decision is about MARRIAGE, not homosexuality itself. Nature didn't create marriage, Tom, humans did. To deny couples the right to marriage because it is "unnatural" that they can't produce offspring means that you would have to believe that childless couples, by choice. are "unnatural."

Quit being logical, OM.
It only upsets him.

Clocker
06-26-2015, 11:12 AM
Religious people should not really care that the "government" is willing to marry gays. Religions will have their own distinct "sacrament" of marriage that they consider a joining in the eyes of "God" as opposed to what amounts to being a "government contract" between 2 people of any sex. They are two separate and distinct things even if the government and gays want to call them the same thing. I have no problem with this at all.



If this truly was the 21st Century of enlightenment, the government would realize that it has no business in the issue of marriage. Marriage is a religious ritual which became part of government concern when the state and the church were one and the same.

There is certainly no mention of marriage in the Constitution, and the notion that marriage is a constitutional right is absurd. There is even less logic in the notion that the federal government has any authority in the matter. And there is nothing in the Constitution allowing the government to treat "married" and single people differently, such as for tax purposes.

The government needs to get out of the marriage business. The states should register civil contracts, and should recognize any marriage performed by a legally established church as also being a valid civil contract.

Saratoga_Mike
06-26-2015, 11:20 AM
Obama pretty much ran the table this week, didn't he? The trade bill, the ACA, and now this in support of his "evolved into" position. Very bad week for Obama-bashers, regressives, and Fox News watchers; I think O'Reilly's ready to be put into restraints by the men in the white coats any day now.

1) Trade bill passed thanks to Reps

2) ACA - held up thanks to a GWB and Reagan appointee

3) Gay marriage - swing vote was Kennedy (not an Obama appointee)

What any of this has to do with Obama's leadership (as implied) is beyond me.

Greyfox
06-26-2015, 11:23 AM
Welcome to the 21st century :ThmbUp:
Slowly but surely, we are making progress.

Anything goes eh? A world with topsy turvy values.
A white woman claims to be a black leader. So what.
An Olympian senior changes his sex. So what.
A Secretary of State says "What difference does it make now?" So what.
A President doesn't comment on Iran's parliaments chants for "Death to America." So what.

Anything goes. It's a "so what age."
That's progress. We're enlightened now.

Robert Goren
06-26-2015, 11:24 AM
If this truly was the 21st Century of enlightenment, the government would realize that it has no business in the issue of marriage. Marriage is a religious ritual which became part of government concern when the state and the church were one and the same.

There is certainly no mention of marriage in the Constitution, and the notion that marriage is a constitutional right is absurd. There is even less logic in the notion that the federal government has any authority in the matter. And there is nothing in the Constitution allowing the government to treat "married" and single people differently, such as for tax purposes.

The government needs to get out of the marriage business. The states should register civil contracts, and should recognize any marriage performed by a legally established church as also being a valid civil contract.I think I mostly agree with you. But as long as anybody gives special treatment to married people(as a single person, it gripes me to no end. But I know it isn't go to change), it probably is the government's to make sure all marriages are treated the same.

DJofSD
06-26-2015, 11:25 AM
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/26/417720924/roberts-celebrate-todays-decision-but-do-not-celebrate-the-constitution

FantasticDan
06-26-2015, 11:26 AM
What any of this has to do with Obama's leadership (as implied) is beyond me.In lieu of credit for those, just head over to the overseas terrorist threads created this morning and dispense some blame.. :ThmbUp:

Robert Fischer
06-26-2015, 11:30 AM
the TV says this is about 'dignity' and 'liberty'.


i generally try not to question the TV

zico20
06-26-2015, 11:31 AM
If this truly was the 21st Century of enlightenment, the government would realize that it has no business in the issue of marriage. Marriage is a religious ritual which became part of government concern when the state and the church were one and the same.

There is certainly no mention of marriage in the Constitution, and the notion that marriage is a constitutional right is absurd. There is even less logic in the notion that the federal government has any authority in the matter. And there is nothing in the Constitution allowing the government to treat "married" and single people differently, such as for tax purposes.

The government needs to get out of the marriage business. The states should register civil contracts, and should recognize any marriage performed by a legally established church as also being a valid civil contract.

Excellent analysis! I am not surprised by this. Since states can't suppress two people getting married, does that mean a brother and sister can't get married. Seems unconstitutional to NOT allow a brother/sister to marry.

Tom
06-26-2015, 11:32 AM
Tom, the decision is about MARRIAGE, not homosexuality itself. Nature didn't create marriage, Tom, humans did. To deny couples the right to marriage because it is "unnatural" that they can't produce offspring means that you would have to believe that childless couples, by choice. are "unnatural."

God created marriage.
Man is free to create unions that would give same sex couples the same benefits as married couples. But that is not good enough. To call it marriage disrespects the sacrament.

boxcar
06-26-2015, 11:34 AM
Not me, nature.

Close. But more specifically, Natural Law.

Clocker
06-26-2015, 11:35 AM
1) Trade bill passed thanks to Reps


What any of this has to do with Obama's leadership (as implied) is beyond me.

This appears to be a GOP abdication of Congressional authority, although that remains to be seen. At the moment, it seems to be inexplicable. And it is not a passage of the trade bill, it puts the eventual trade bill, which doesn't exist yet, on a fast track. It means that when Obama comes to agreement with the other nations on a trade deal, he will submit it to Congress for an immediate straight up or down vote with no possibility of amending it.

In a way, that makes sense. If Congress amended a trade agreement, Obama would have to go back to the other parties and try to get them to agree to the amendments, which would essentially kill it. It may just be that the GOP knows that they are not going to pass any agreement Obama comes up with, and would just as soon give it a quick death.

Among other things, any agreement would be opposed by labor. If the GOP kills a deal labor hates, that would put them in a stronger position for the elections.

Greyfox
06-26-2015, 11:36 AM
God created marriage.
Man is free to create unions that would give same sex couples the same benefits as married couples. But that is not good enough. To call it marriage disrespects the sacrament.

It certainly depreciates the traditional meaning of marriage as I've understood it.
But perhaps heterosexuals have done that themselves considering the high rate of divorce.
I agree with you Tom, they should have called them Civil Unions and given the same benefits.

Saratoga_Mike
06-26-2015, 11:37 AM
In lieu of credit for those, just head over to the overseas terrorist threads created this morning and dispense some blame.. :ThmbUp:

I was being objective. You've seen me trash Reps before (GWB was a disaster on foreign policy - happy?). What was unfair about my points?

Saratoga_Mike
06-26-2015, 11:39 AM
This appears to be a GOP abdication of Congressional authority, although that remains to be seen. At the moment, it seems to be inexplicable. And it is not a passage of the trade bill, it puts the eventual trade bill, which doesn't exist yet, on a fast track. It means that when Obama comes to agreement with the other nations on a trade deal, he will submit it to Congress for an immediate straight up or down vote with no possibility of amending it.
.

Fast-track trade authority isn't new. I'm fine with it.

Tom
06-26-2015, 11:42 AM
Fast track job loss.

Clocker
06-26-2015, 11:42 AM
Fast-track trade authority isn't new. I'm fine with it.

As a practical matter, it doesn't seem to make any difference. If Congress doesn't give a trade deal an up or down vote, it would be dead anyway. Maybe this is actually a win for the GOP.

reckless
06-26-2015, 11:46 AM
Tom, the decision is about MARRIAGE, not homosexuality itself. Nature didn't create marriage, Tom, humans did. To deny couples the right to marriage because it is "unnatural" that they can't produce offspring means that you would have to believe that childless couples, by choice. are "unnatural."

Why did the US Supreme Court even make a decision about MARRIAGE in the first place?

To Ocala Mike and those others here that might agree with this ruling, where in the US Constitution is the act of MARRIAGE a Constitutional right?

I looked and I couldn't find it.

Actually, I didn't look because I already know that there is no Constitutional right to marriage at all.

So, according to the US Constitution, since it is not a right in the first place to get (or be) married, why is it now a Constitutional right for homosexuals to get married??

horses4courses
06-26-2015, 11:48 AM
God created marriage.

Did he, now?

Close. But more specifically, Natural Law.

Here endeth the first lesson....... :rolleyes:

Tom
06-26-2015, 11:55 AM
Yes, He did.

Robert Goren
06-26-2015, 11:58 AM
Fast track job loss.So you agree with Elizabeth Warren? Be careful! Somebody might think have become a liberal in your old age.

classhandicapper
06-26-2015, 12:01 PM
The government needs to get out of the marriage business. The states should register civil contracts, and should recognize any marriage performed by a legally established church as also being a valid civil contract.

I hear what you are saying.

IMO, being "married" by the government (any level of government) is nothing more than a civil contract. Both churches and government are using the same word to describe what they are doing, but they aren't doing the same thing "except for the legal implications".

Religious people should simply accept that governments will allow civil contracts between gays and will call it a marriage. So churches should call what religions are doing something else. What they are doing goes beyond legality anyway. It's a religious ceremony blessed by God etc... The government contracts have nothing to do with God.

People are getting hung up on a word.

Gays want the word marriage and religious people don't want to give it up.

It's all BS. They are two different institutions that are legally the same to the government but not EQUAL.

No one is forcing churches to "marry" gays in a religious ceremony "yet". So this is no biggie.

boxcar
06-26-2015, 12:06 PM
Why did the US Supreme Court even make a decision about MARRIAGE in the first place?

To Ocala Mike and those others here that might agree with this ruling, where in the US Constitution is the act of MARRIAGE a Constitutional right?

I looked and I couldn't find it.

Actually, I didn't look because I already know that there is no Constitutional right to marriage at all.

So, according to the US Constitution, since it is not a right in the first place to get (or be) married, why is it now a Constitutional right for homosexuals to get married??

Chalk another decision up to judicial tyranny. This nation's freedoms are rapidly dying.

Now that the highest court in the land has called evil good, the next step is for the legislature to give same-sex marriage civil rights status. This will be the wedge that the government will use to persecute conservative, evangelical Christians. But as odd as this may sound, I welcome the wedge because it will define who the "wheat" and the "chaff" are in the Church.

dartman51
06-26-2015, 12:11 PM
This is really a non event.



The only concern for religious people would be that the government decides to try to force all churches and religions to perform their religious sacrament for gays against their will. That should be up to individual religions to decide.

If the government gets so emboldened that it thinks it has the right to tell religions what they can or cannot do given thousands of years of tradition (or under the threat of financial damage) it will be time for me to concede that given everything else going on, we are getting to the point where this government will have to be overthrown eventually (hopefully while I'm out of the country watching the economic and social collapse from afar).

Fear not, it's coming. It's only a matter of time. :mad:

Overlay
06-26-2015, 12:13 PM
Here's a link to a story on the ruling:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-gay-marriage-nationwide/ar-AAcaBM5

elysiantraveller
06-26-2015, 12:15 PM
People are getting hung up on a word.

Ya think...?

I've always found this issue pretty stupid but then again I'm a moderate.

elysiantraveller
06-26-2015, 12:18 PM
1) Trade bill passed thanks to Reps

2) ACA - held up thanks to a GWB and Reagan appointee

3) Gay marriage - swing vote was Kennedy (not an Obama appointee)

What any of this has to do with Obama's leadership (as implied) is beyond me.

No kidding! However I suspect a football spiking... Oh wait he already did it...

dartman51
06-26-2015, 12:20 PM
Why did the US Supreme Court even make a decision about MARRIAGE in the first place?

To Ocala Mike and those others here that might agree with this ruling, where in the US Constitution is the act of MARRIAGE a Constitutional right?

I looked and I couldn't find it.

Actually, I didn't look because I already know that there is no Constitutional right to marriage at all.

So, according to the US Constitution, since it is not a right in the first place to get (or be) married, why is it now a Constitutional right for homosexuals to get married??

Forget about it. The Constitution means nothing anymore. If you adhered to the Constitution, Obama would not be President, ACA would not be a law, and neither would same sex marriage. Might as well forget about using the Constitution to define legality. SCOTUS will interpret it for you, and inform you of the HIDDEN meanings. :rolleyes:

LottaKash
06-26-2015, 12:21 PM
Here's a link to a story on the ruling:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-gay-marriage-nationwide/ar-AAcaBM5

excerpt:

In a blistering dissenting opinion, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision shows the court is a "threat to American democracy." The ruling "says that my ruler and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," Scalia added.

Robert Fischer
06-26-2015, 12:23 PM
This is the beginning of the end. :ThmbDown:

DJofSD
06-26-2015, 12:25 PM
excerpt:

In a blistering dissenting opinion, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said the decision shows the court is a "threat to American democracy." The ruling "says that my ruler and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," Scalia added.
I'm just waiting for Supremes to start dictating fashion trends and musical taste. But then we already know that basic black is de rigor.

horses4courses
06-26-2015, 12:25 PM
Chalk another decision up to judicial tyranny. This nation's freedoms are rapidly dying.

Wrong.
Chalk one up today for expanded personal freedom.
It's not only the blind who cannot see.

Greyfox
06-26-2015, 12:26 PM
People are getting hung up on a word.



Yes they are and with good reason.
Before if a man told me he was married, I'd assume that he had a wife, of the opposite sex.

One can't make that assumption any more.
I'm old fashioned.
I like the idea of the term marriage being reserved for a husband and a wife.
If gays want a civil union, so be it. But why the need to call it marriage?
Gays weren't content with calling it a civil union.

DJofSD
06-26-2015, 12:29 PM
Well, what will be the next battle the LGBT sector will fight? Unisex toilets? Gender neutral clothes? Banning gender-specific names?

delayjf
06-26-2015, 12:29 PM
does that mean a brother and sister can't get married. Seems unconstitutional to NOT allow a brother/sister to marry.

We're getting there, the slippery slope continues. Ten years from now there will be a simular ruling regarding "multiple couples marriages".

DJofSD
06-26-2015, 12:31 PM
We're getting there, the slippery slope continues. Ten years from now there will be a simular ruling regarding "multiple couples marriages".
That and a revival of sheep ranching.

Saratoga_Mike
06-26-2015, 12:34 PM
Yes they are and with good reason.
Before if a man told me he was married, I'd assume that he had a wife, of the opposite sex.

One can't make that assumption any more.
I'm old fashioned.
I like the idea of the term marriage being reserved for a husband and a wife.
If gays want a civil union, so be it. But why the need to call it marriage?
Gays weren't content with calling it a civil union.

Oh the horror. Beyond this minor inconvenience, how does it impact you?

I see both sides of the constitutional argument, but as a practical matter I don't care. The ruling could jeopardize the not-for-profit status of certain religious institutions, though, which isn't right, imo.

Robert Fischer
06-26-2015, 12:34 PM
On the bright side, this does triple the mathematical combinations of wedding cake toppers.

DJofSD
06-26-2015, 12:37 PM
On the bright side, this does triple the mathematical combinations of wedding cake toppers.
And all of the losses related to the removal of stars and bars flags can now be made up by sales of the LGBT rainbow flag.

delayjf
06-26-2015, 12:39 PM
Why did the US Supreme Court even make a decision about MARRIAGE in the first place?

To Ocala Mike and those others here that might agree with this ruling, where in the US Constitution is the act of MARRIAGE a Constitutional right?

I looked and I couldn't find it.

Actually, I didn't look because I already know that there is no Constitutional right to marriage at all.

So, according to the US Constitution, since it is not a right in the first place to get (or be) married, why is it now a Constitutional right for homosexuals to get married??

I believe marriage was established as a right in the Loving vs Virginia decision by the Supreme Court.

Gays weren't content with calling it a civil union.
Gays will not be happy until their life style is seen by society as the moral equivilant of the heterosexual life style.

JustRalph
06-26-2015, 12:39 PM
The trade issue is the only item of the week that means anything.

And idiot Repubs pushed it over the finish line.

In reading the dissenting opinion by Scalia on both the ACA and Gay Marriage you should be able to see the complete and utter disassembly of both "legal meaning" in any law that is passed, and the limits of where the courts may go to render a decision, or in these cases conjure one up. The court this week stepped onto a trail in which it believed it should follow as opposed to trailblazing based on the constitution

The writings of the majority in the gay marriage case are reaching in not only manner but in effect. Two early opinions that I've seen, point to opening the door to multiple party marriages (3 or more people) being valid now. Apparently only because of the way the majority worded their decision. I haven't read it all yet, but that should be interesting. The one thing that guarantees is more cases landing in front of the court. Which means today's decision could be modified on the future.

Once again, I think this boils down to states rights. When a State referendum passes that outlaws gay marriage, and a state invalidates the referendum through administrative action or by championing a court case, think California, then that same State Government has proven itself an enemy of the people for which it serves. Just as plain, the Federal high courts including the Supreme Court become an accomplice to that enemy state. The will of the people being severed at the hands of those who think they know better is the height of activism, and undermines the nature of governing subject to the will of the people.

Nobody ends up with a changed mind today. If you were against gay marriage yesterday, you will be today. In fact it's a huge waste of time. Now the fun starts. There will be an official backlash in some places. When you force someone to do something, there always is

Greyfox
06-26-2015, 12:50 PM
Oh the horror. Beyond this minor inconvenience, how does it impact you?



Oh I agree it is a minor inconvenience.
But it's part of a larger disease where words are shifted from their original meanings and new meanings replace them.

I remember when it was great to be "gay."
It meant you were having fun, happy, and joyous.
But the homosexual community absconded with that word.
When I was younger we used to say "Guys and Dolls."
Now I hear women saying "Come on Guys" to each other.
At one time the term "senile" referred to being in old age.
Now that word refers to dementia.
At one time, when government put a tax on something you knew it.
Now they put a fee on and call that tax another name.
It's a disease I say.
The word "marriage" was associated with a highly precious holy occasion where a man and wife joined for life.
Today it is just two people getting together for legal reasons.
(It will be interesting in the long run to see how the divorce rates of heterosexuals (which is high) compares the the divorce rates of homosexuals.)

Tom
06-26-2015, 12:54 PM
So you agree with Elizabeth Warren? Be careful! Somebody might think have become a liberal in your old age.

Unlike most dems and libs, I am capable of making decisions based on reality, not my morning emails.

LottaKash
06-26-2015, 12:55 PM
AleisterCrowley’s philosophy was as follows (which is the exact same philosophy of all Witches and Satanists today):


“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

“Lust, enjoy all things of sense and rapture. Fear not that any God shall deny thee for this.”

--------------------------------
“Crowley finished his life as a sick, wasted heroin addict given to black rages and doubts about the value of his life’s work. His last words as he passed into a coma on December 1, 1947, were, “I am perplexed…”

TJDave
06-26-2015, 01:03 PM
Nobody ends up with a changed mind today. If you were against gay marriage yesterday, you will be today. In fact it's a huge waste of time. Now the fun starts. There will be an official backlash in some places. When you force someone to do something, there always is

Good. It will be fun to watch bigots get their comeuppance.

Ocala Mike
06-26-2015, 01:09 PM
TJ, with apologies to Dylan Thomas, they will not go gently into that good night.

Battles are won and lost, but there is no prohibition over fighting them over and over again.

Bill O'Reilly's hair is on fire, and he's ready for open warfare.

Clocker
06-26-2015, 01:13 PM
Oh the horror. Beyond this minor inconvenience, how does it impact you?



As a legal principle, this is another nail in the coffin of the Constitution. Every time this happens, and there is no way to stop it, SCOTUS is cutting its own throat and ceding more power to the other two branches of government. And those two branches have shown that they are not capable of acting responsibly or protecting human rights.

As a practical matter, this ruling will make it easier and more common for civil rights suits to be brought by people who get their feelings hurt. Don't want to photograph a gay wedding? Off with your head. Don't want to decorate a wedding cake for 3 LGBTQQs and a German Shepard? Shut down the bakery. Don't want to perform a wedding ceremony for all of the above? Shut down your church.

Clocker
06-26-2015, 01:15 PM
Good. It will be fun to watch bigots get their comeuppance.

Why am I a bigot if I refuse to do something against my morality?

delayjf
06-26-2015, 01:16 PM
Good. It will be fun to watch bigots get their comeuppance.
Indeed - the bigots vs the perverts - should be fun.

Tom
06-26-2015, 01:16 PM
The problem here is that court had no right to define marriage. They could decide if a law passed by Congress defining it was constitutional, but that is all.
Now, this ruling can only apply to the states, not Churches. This will get interesting.

IT is the end of us being a nation of laws and becoming one of whims.
The USA was probably dealt a death blow today by an outlaw court. The rule of law ended today and the fodder dictators was spread about.

Rookies
06-26-2015, 01:20 PM
Ho Hum. :sleeping:

As the month turns over, it'll be the 20th Anniversary of same in Canada.

What has happened since? Absolutely nada. :sleeping:

Always great to see America catching up to the 21st. Century! :jump:

DJofSD
06-26-2015, 01:20 PM
We have crossed the line from a nation of laws to a nation of men -- and their opinions, feelings, predilections, biases and fears.

TJDave
06-26-2015, 01:23 PM
TJ, with apologies to Dylan Thomas, they will not go gently into that good night.

Battles are won and lost, but there is no prohibition over fighting them over and over again.

Bill O'Reilly's hair is on fire, and he's ready for open warfare.

It's just a matter of time. The younger generations have no problem with gays or gay marriage. Let Bill scream. He'll be dead soon enough.

Tom
06-26-2015, 01:23 PM
Ho Hum. :sleeping:

As the month turns over, it'll be the 20th Anniversary of same in Canada.

What has happened since? Absolutely nada. :sleeping:

Always great to see America catching up to the 21st. Century! :jump:

Just what we need, another Canada.:bang:

horses4courses
06-26-2015, 01:26 PM
I hear that Excedrin has doubled their Fox News advertising.

TJDave
06-26-2015, 01:28 PM
Why am I a bigot if I refuse to do something against my morality?

Because your morality is bigoted.

Clocker
06-26-2015, 01:32 PM
Because your morality is bigoted.

So if I don't care if two guys want to get married, but I think it is wrong for me to participate in the ceremony, I am a bigot?

classhandicapper
06-26-2015, 01:34 PM
If gays want a civil union, so be it. But why the need to call it marriage?

Do you want the honest answer?

It's because they want to feel that what they are doing is equal to what a husband and wife are doing? It hurts them to not feel equal. I have sympathy, but a marriage performed by some judge is not equal to a religious sacrament performed by some priest, minister, rabbi, or cleric. It's not even equal when it's done by some breakaway religion. The others won't accept it as equivalent because of they believe their teachings are the word of God.

Tom
06-26-2015, 01:34 PM
It's just a matter of time. The younger generations have no problem with gays or gay marriage. Let Bill scream. He'll be dead soon enough.

So will the justices.
Not soon enough, though.

The younger generations will never know what it meant to be a strong nations as this one circles the toilet bowl. Our constitution and legal system is what set us apart for the other miserable POS countries of the world. Now that is gone and we are just another Canada. It has nothing to do with same sex marriage. It has everything to do with a total breakdown of the system of laws that made us what we once were.

They will get used to meatless Sundays in time.

TJDave
06-26-2015, 01:38 PM
So if I don't care if two guys want to get married, but I think it is wrong for me to participate in the ceremony, I am a bigot?

As of this morning, yes.

Clocker
06-26-2015, 01:38 PM
They will get used to meatless Sundays in time.

There will always be Soylent Green, thanks to SCOTUScare.

Greyfox
06-26-2015, 01:40 PM
I have sympathy, but a marriage performed by some judge is not equal to a religious sacrament performed by some priest, minister, rabbi, or cleric.

I agree.
But if that Judge is morally opposed to gay marriage, there's a good chance that he'll be fired if he refuses to perform it.
I've seen nurses who were against abortion fired for not assisting with the procedure.

classhandicapper
06-26-2015, 01:41 PM
Indeed - the bigots vs the perverts - should be fun.

I think we should let God settle this one. :lol:

DJofSD
06-26-2015, 01:45 PM
As of this morning, yes.
Really?

So, some how a ruling about the legality of same sex marriages is now dictating what people think and feel about them?

Where's my arm band?

Saratoga_Mike
06-26-2015, 01:45 PM
So will the justices.
Not soon enough, though.

The younger generations will never know what it meant to be a strong nations as this one circles the toilet bowl. Our constitution and legal system is what set us apart for the other miserable POS countries of the world. Now that is gone and we are just another Canada. It has nothing to do with same sex marriage. It has everything to do with a total breakdown of the system of laws that made us what we once were.

They will get used to meatless Sundays in time.

Worry about the horrible educational system. Worry about fatherless children. Worry about the country's competitiveness. Worry about the over indebtedness of the country. Worry about terrorism. All legit worries. This decision shouldn't worry you.

"Breakdown of the system of laws." That's a complete non-sequitur. Marbury v Madison. It's exactly how the system works. You're free to disagree with the outcome, but it's silly to describe it as a "breakdown of the system of laws."

Clocker
06-26-2015, 01:46 PM
We have crossed the line from a nation of laws to a nation of men -- and their opinions, feelings, predilections, biases and fears.

Another SCOTUS decision slipped under the radar this week. The Court ruled that claims of racial discrimination in housing cases shouldn't be limited by questions of intent. This includes any law, policy, or practice that results in disparate impact, i.e., unequal outcome, regardless of whether or not that was the intent.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/25/417433460/in-fair-housing-act-case-supreme-court-backs-disparate-impact-claims

Clocker
06-26-2015, 01:48 PM
Where's my arm band?

You will be issued the appropriate insignia by the Thought Police.

Tom
06-26-2015, 01:52 PM
Worry about the horrible educational system. Worry about fatherless children. Worry about the country's competitiveness. Worry about the over indebtedness of the country. Worry about terrorism. All legit worries. This decision shouldn't worry you.

"Breakdown of the system of laws." That's a complete non-sequitur. Marbury v Madison. It's exactly how the system works. You're free to disagree with the outcome, but it's silly to describe it as a "breakdown of the system of laws."

Read Scalia's descending opinon.
The court overstepped it's authority.
The 14th amendment was ignored.

Tom
06-26-2015, 01:55 PM
As of this morning, yes.

Himmler would have loved you.
March along, little lemming.
Snell! Snell!

classhandicapper
06-26-2015, 01:55 PM
I agree.
But if that Judge is morally opposed to gay marriage, there's a good chance that he'll be fired if he refuses to perform it.
I've seen nurses who were against abortion fired for not assisting with the procedure.

I have a major problem when people have their lives and livelihoods damaged because of their long held religious beliefs. I have no solution. It's one of the few things that provokes extreme anger on my part and I'm not even religious.

Seriously, this comment may be in the "marriage" thread, but it has very little to do with that.

If I could get a very long term bet down, I'd say the chances of an economic and social collapse of the US within 75 years due to the political left are approximately equal to the chances of American Pharoah winning a 2K claimer at Finger Lakes. It's a done deal. I just fear it could happen within 5-10 years and start with a banking or currency crisis leading to social unrest. All these brain damaged assholes on the left can do whatever they want. My only concern is protecting myself, my family, and the fruits of decades of labor from them.

classhandicapper
06-26-2015, 02:00 PM
I have no legal background, but for me, when I read pretty much anything that Scalia says, it screams intellectual honesty and brilliance. When I read some of the others, it's like some little children want their way and will say whatever it takes to get it even though they know they are being bad little boys and girls.

TJDave
06-26-2015, 02:02 PM
So, some how a ruling about the legality of same sex marriages is now dictating what people think and feel about them?


Not what they think or feel but how that thought is defined through action.

DJofSD
06-26-2015, 02:06 PM
Not what they think or feel but how that thought is defined through action.
Your response does not jive with the your initial post.

rastajenk
06-26-2015, 02:06 PM
Gays will not be happy until their life style is seen by society as the moral equivilant of the heterosexual life style.

Gays will not be happy until their life style is seen by society as morally superior to the heterosexual life style...

TJDave
06-26-2015, 02:12 PM
Your response does not jive with the your initial post.

How?

TJDave
06-26-2015, 02:14 PM
Gays will not be happy until their life style is seen by society as morally superior to the heterosexual life style...

You mean like heterosexuals feel about gays...now? ;)

Clocker
06-26-2015, 02:18 PM
"Breakdown of the system of laws." That's a complete non-sequitur. Marbury v Madison. It's exactly how the system works. You're free to disagree with the outcome, but it's silly to describe it as a "breakdown of the system of laws."

The system of laws breaks down when it violates the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights. The left forgets, or chooses to ignore, the fact that the Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it enumerates human rights that no legitimate government can take away. These are rights that transcend the law.

This decision is a farce because it construes a constitutional right to marriage when it is obvious that no such thing exists or was contemplated. That is not the danger of the decision. The danger is that enforcement of it must ultimately lead to the violation of the rights of others.

Equal treatment under the law is one thing, but the left wants equal treatment in the mind of everyone. As already discussed above, the left feels that the constitutional right to gay marriage trumps the constitutional freedom of religion for someone to refuse to be a participant in a gay wedding. Eliminating disparate treatment of gays is not enough for the libs. The goal is to eliminate disparate thought about it.

Tom
06-26-2015, 02:20 PM
Your response does not jive with the your initial post.

Some people need to be told what to think.
It is easier on them.

Clocker
06-26-2015, 02:33 PM
You mean like heterosexuals feel about gays...now? ;)

Everyone feels morally superior to anyone that thinks differently. Some of us can live with that as basic human nature. Others want to make it a thought crime.

delayjf
06-26-2015, 02:36 PM
I hear that Excedrin has doubled their Fox News advertising.
Good marketing strategy, I wonder what the OTC pain med of choice is in the gay community. Can't wait for those advertisements - perhaps on the next Super Bowl. :D

OntheRail
06-26-2015, 02:37 PM
Wrong.
Chalk one up today for expanded personal freedom.
Bull Shit... on a shingle.

It's not only the blind who cannot see.
....

Robert Fischer
06-26-2015, 02:38 PM
Hopefully this means that my gay neighbors will stop living in sin, and get married.

Saratoga_Mike
06-26-2015, 02:47 PM
Read Scalia's descending opinon.
The court overstepped it's authority.
The 14th amendment was ignored.

His and your opinion of course - it just isn't lawlessness.

BTW, square your opposition to gay marriage with your support for gays in the military. I'm not saying it can't be done, just surprised with your position on this matter.

TJDave
06-26-2015, 02:54 PM
Everyone feels morally superior to anyone that thinks differently. Some of us can live with that as basic human nature. Others want to make it a thought crime.

Thoughts aren't criminal. Discriminatory laws against gays weren't thoughts. Gays didn't file suit because someone thought they shouldn't have the right to marry.

TJDave
06-26-2015, 02:57 PM
Hopefully this means that my gay neighbors will stop living in sin, and get married.

Yes. Then they can sodomize each other with God's blessing. ;)

Show Me the Wire
06-26-2015, 03:00 PM
His and your opinion of course - it just isn't lawlessness.

BTW, square your opposition to gay marriage with your support for gays in the military. I'm not saying it can't be done, just surprised with your position on this matter.

Not difficult at all. Gays are people, the purpose of the military is to defend the nation, as people who live in the nation they should be able to participate in its defense. Gays also have the right to all things which are needed for subsistence.

Marriage's purpose is supposedly to produce children. By definition same sex couples cannot produce children through a marital union as a man and woman can reproduce,

FantasticDan
06-26-2015, 03:11 PM
I was being objective. You've seen me trash Reps before (GWB was a disaster on foreign policy - happy?). What was unfair about my points?Nothing at all, my response was just a general recommendation for everyone.. ;)

Tom
06-26-2015, 03:21 PM
His and your opinion of course - it just isn't lawlessness.

BTW, square your opposition to gay marriage with your support for gays in the military. I'm not saying it can't be done, just surprised with your position on this matter.

I am not opposed to gay marriage, but I do not support it - it is what it is.
But when push comes to shove, I will defend any church's right to refuse to perform them. Country comes second, always. This one, maybe now 5th or 6th.

And the court's ruling today was just opinions as well, not based in law. As was the one yesterday. the court is useless.

TJDave
06-26-2015, 03:32 PM
But when push comes to shove, I will defend any church's right to refuse to perform them.

How?

Clocker
06-26-2015, 03:38 PM
Thoughts aren't criminal. Discriminatory laws against gays weren't thoughts. Gays didn't file suit because someone thought they shouldn't have the right to marry.

I am not talking about gay marriage. I am talking about people being sued for refusing to participate in gay marriage services because they think that it is immoral for them to participate.

You said that such a morality is bigoted. I say that is a judgement beyond the scope of the government.

TJDave
06-26-2015, 03:44 PM
You said that such a morality is bigoted. I say that is a judgement beyond the scope of the government.

I have always believed it bigoted.

Today, the court confirmed my beliefs.

Greyfox
06-26-2015, 03:44 PM
I am not talking about gay marriage. I am talking about people being sued for refusing to participate in gay marriage services because they think that it is immoral for them to participate.

You said that such a morality is bigoted. I say that is a judgement beyond the scope of the government.

People who are already serving as Justices of the Peace should be "grand-fathered" to allow their right of refusal to participate in any new changes in the law.
Future Judges should not take the job if it's against their moral principles.

Clocker
06-26-2015, 03:49 PM
People who are already serving as Justices of the Peace should be "grand-fathered" to allow their right of refusal to participate in any new changes in the law.
Future Judges should not take the job if it's against their moral principles.

I am talking about photographers or caterers who will not participate in gay weddings because of their religious beliefs.

TJDave
06-26-2015, 03:55 PM
I am talking about photographers or caterers who will not participate in gay weddings because of their religious beliefs.

I think they'll have to come up with a better excuse. ;)

Greyfox
06-26-2015, 03:55 PM
I am talking about photographers or caterers who will not participate in gay weddings because of their religious beliefs.

If they are private business people, they should have right of refusal to anyone without having to state their beliefs or reasons why.

Clocker
06-26-2015, 03:59 PM
I think they'll have to come up with a better excuse. ;)

A better "excuse" than the 1st Amendment? Is Islam a "bigoted" morality? Do we force Muslims to cater to Christian ceremonies?

senortout
06-26-2015, 04:01 PM
So if I don't care if two guys want to get married, but I think it is wrong for me to participate in the ceremony, I am a bigot?

I think if one, or both of the two guys are friends of yours(is this even possible?) then you damn sure better be there.

classhandicapper
06-26-2015, 04:02 PM
I have always believed it bigoted.

Today, the court confirmed my beliefs.

And others believe it is sinful and expect that to be confirmed by God at a later date.

To me, the point is this government is moving in a totalitarian direction. I would find that distasteful even if I agreed with all the rulings. But since I disagree with much of what's been going on over the last 7 years, secession or leaving the country seem like the only long term alternatives assuming no radical change in direction.

TJDave
06-26-2015, 04:03 PM
If they are private business people, they should have right of refusal to anyone without having to state their beliefs or reasons why.

Don't think so. If someone refused to serve me I would ask why. As a business owner you'd better have a good answer or it's lawsuit city.

Marshall Bennett
06-26-2015, 04:04 PM
Yes. Then they can sodomize each other with God's blessing. ;)
Have an idea judgement day won't go well for them, nor for the 5 justices that gave the green light. Once again morality takes a huge hit.

JustRalph
06-26-2015, 04:07 PM
I think if one, or both of the two guys are friends of yours(is this even possible?) then you damn sure better be there.


What the hell does that mean?

TJDave
06-26-2015, 04:08 PM
Have an idea judgement day won't go well for them, nor for the 5 justices that gave the green light. Once again morality takes a huge hit.

It's good to have ideas.

And...it's your morality that took a hit. Mine is doing just fine, thanks.

horses4courses
06-26-2015, 04:11 PM
....

I feel sorry for you.
I really do.

Good human beings, like yourself or myself,
and you can't see fit to treat them as equals.

Anyone have gay family members?
Siblings, children, cousins?
You treat them differently?
Are they black sheep within the clan, or do you love them just the same?

Heck, we all play the percentages every day.
What are the odds that every poster on PA is straight?

Clocker
06-26-2015, 04:12 PM
Once again morality takes a huge hit.

According to some here, and on the Court, political correctness trumps morality. Everyone has the right to equal outcomes and to not be offended.

JustRalph
06-26-2015, 04:12 PM
Have an idea judgement day won't go well for them, nor for the 5 justices that gave the green light. Once again morality takes a huge hit.

I think Dave will probably think of you in the same vein as Clocker. The point not being that you're a bigot, although for some reason Dave seems to think so, though I would more think of you and Clocker as principled. Standing on principle is foreign concept nowadays.

Making moral judgements is even more rare. Moral judgements whether they be religious in nature or for other reasons is a huge no no on the left side of the aisle. There was a time when morality mattered. Not anymore.

horses4courses
06-26-2015, 04:15 PM
There was a time when morality mattered. Not anymore.

Who are you to judge what is moral?

senortout
06-26-2015, 04:17 PM
What the hell does that mean?

It means, you cannot read, or cannot interpret what I meant, and that puts you near the bottom of your class.

TJDave
06-26-2015, 04:23 PM
The point not being that you're a bigot, although for some reason Dave seems to think so.

He admits to being prejudiced. What would you call it?

Saratoga_Mike
06-26-2015, 04:25 PM
Not difficult at all. Gays are people, the purpose of the military is to defend the nation, as people who live in the nation they should be able to participate in its defense. Gays also have the right to all things which are needed for subsistence.

Marriage's purpose is supposedly to produce children. By definition same sex couples cannot produce children through a marital union as a man and woman can reproduce,

Weak argument - a 75-year-old woman marries a 75-year-old man - she can't have children (obviously). So let's ban her from marrying?

Clocker
06-26-2015, 04:26 PM
Who are you to judge what is moral?

At the risk of putting words in his mouth, he didn't judge what is moral, he said that morality matters. That is the crux of the issue here.

Dave says some morality is bigoted, and therefore does not justify behavior based on that morality. I say that any morality should be respected to the extent that it does not infringe on the rights of others. There is no natural human right to have the caterer or wedding photographer of your choice, particularly if that infringes on that person's religious freedom.

Conflict of wants, as opposed to rights, requires compromise. That is the basis of the social contract. The Thought Police in modern society do not believe in compromise.

Saratoga_Mike
06-26-2015, 04:28 PM
I am not opposed to gay marriage, but I do not support it - it is what it is.
But when push comes to shove, I will defend any church's right to refuse to perform them. Country comes second, always. This one, maybe now 5th or 6th.

And the court's ruling today was just opinions as well, not based in law. As was the one yesterday. the court is useless.

It is what it is. I think that's sums it up for me, too.

Agree with your church point of course.

Every Supreme Court ruling is an interpretation (one's opinion) of the law, though.

Robert Fischer
06-26-2015, 04:29 PM
Seems like there are at least 2 sides here, each with a lot of reasonable ideas and concerns.

I honestly don't know how I feel about everything, and I probably will not until the Supreme Court tells me how to feel.

_______
06-26-2015, 04:29 PM
Not difficult at all. Gays are people, the purpose of the military is to defend the nation, as people who live in the nation they should be able to participate in its defense. Gays also have the right to all things which are needed for subsistence.

Marriage's purpose is supposedly to produce children. By definition same sex couples cannot produce children through a marital union as a man and woman can reproduce,

I'm 58 and will marry my 60 year old girlfriend next February. How do you feel about our sure to be childless union?

If your only objection to gay marriage is that it cannot produce offspring, I have to assume you also oppose marriage for any couple unable to do so.

Do I have that right?

Greyfox
06-26-2015, 04:37 PM
I'm 58 and will marry my 60 year old girlfriend next February. How do you feel about our sure to be childless union?


The possibility of kids is still there. :D

http://www.people.com/article/65-year-old-woman-gives-birth-quadruplets

Show Me the Wire
06-26-2015, 04:42 PM
I'm 58 and will marry my 60 year old girlfriend next February. How do you feel about our sure to be childless union?

If your only objection to gay marriage is that it cannot produce offspring, I have to assume you also oppose marriage for any couple unable to do so.

Do I have that right?

It is not my objection, it is natures. The only biological purpose for sperm is to fertilize the egg produced by the female. Ask any biologist, it is a scientific fact. Marriage, is supposedly, for the purpose of producing children in accordance with this biological fact.

If nature during, its course, makes it biologically impossible for a union between a man and woman, well that is nature. You and your gal are in tune with nature for your ages, however, if you are still fully functional there is no guarantee you cannot produce offspring in your union. There are cases of 60 year old woman producing offspring.

Same sex couples cannot biologically produce offspring as heterosexual couples.

What you are really arguing is marriage should be about companionship and not about reproduction of human life.

BTW for your marriage to be valid you need to consummate it. ;)

delayjf
06-26-2015, 04:43 PM
Who are you to judge what is moral?

Society is the judge, and this has been put to a vote all over the US. Most states that have left the decision to the people have voted it down - liberal CA voted it down twice.

TJDave
06-26-2015, 04:51 PM
There is no natural human right to have the caterer or wedding photographer of your choice, particularly if that infringes on that person's religious freedom.

Could you define what you mean by religious freedom?

Religious doctrine which accommodates prejudice against gays is not religious freedom. It is bigotry, plain and simple

JustRalph
06-26-2015, 04:52 PM
Who are you to judge what is moral?

Therein lies the rub and the typical liberal response.

I know immoral when I see it (that's a joke, did you get it?) and morals are based on standard acceptable behavior etc. morals have been watered down to the point where we have none. Everything goes.

Do you think the Kardashian girls are moral? Not me.

Do you think Bernie Madoff was a moral man? Not me

Now, there was a time when the church helped us set our moral compass. The bible was a written reference for morals. It worked pretty well. Christian principals made for a pretty good country and prosperity and happiness was derived from this setting. We all know that the truth was something different, and in reality we hid and shamed immoral acts and actors more than we do now. Then came the sixties. It became hip and cool to no longer judge your fellow man. Free Love and drugs were accepted.

Things were great. In reality I believe it was the real start of the downfall of the country. But that would be making a moral judgement. When we made single mothers heroes and baby daddy'the norm.......things got even worse. We had a President who openly told us that sexual antics with the hired help was nothing to worry about. Fellatio wasn't sex and giving away state secrets to the Chinese was ok, because "who am I to judge?"

We are marching towards Gomorrah ........ And nobody has the right to judge :ThmbUp: :rolleyes:

JustRalph
06-26-2015, 04:55 PM
It means, you cannot read, or cannot interpret what I meant, and that puts you near the bottom of your class.

Sorry, I thought you were trying to actually say something, add to the conversation, as opposed to a non sequitur quip.

Yep.....drowning down here at the bottom of my class

boxcar
06-26-2015, 04:59 PM
Could you define what you mean by religious freedom?

Religious doctrine which accommodates prejudice against gays is not religious freedom. It is bigotry, plain and simple

So, if "religious doctrine" says it's immoral to molest little boys that would in your world be an expression of prejudice against pedophiles?

horses4courses
06-26-2015, 05:00 PM
Therein lies the rub and the typical liberal response.

I know immoral when I see it (that's a joke, did you get it?) and morals are based on standard acceptable behavior etc. morals have been watered down to the point where we have none. Everything goes.

Do you think the Kardashian girls are moral? Not me.

Do you think Bernie Madoff was a moral man? Not me

Now, there was a time when the church helped us set our moral compass. The bible was a written reference for morals. It worked pretty well. Christian principals made for a pretty good country and prosperity and happiness was derived from this setting. We all know that the truth was something different, and in reality we hid and shamed immoral acts and actors more than we do now. Then came the sixties. It became hip and cool to no longer judge your fellow man. Free Love and drugs were accepted.

Things were great. In reality I believe it was the real start of the downfall of the country. But that would be making a moral judgement. When we made single mothers heroes and baby daddy'the norm.......things got even worse. We had a President who openly told us that sexual antics with the hired help was nothing to worry about. Fellatio wasn't sex and giving away state secrets to the Chinese was ok, because "who am I to judge?"

We are marching towards Gomorrah ........ And nobody has the right to judge :ThmbUp: :rolleyes:

Sorry I asked........

classhandicapper
06-26-2015, 05:01 PM
Who are you to judge what is moral?

Asking this question is the very reason western civilization is spiraling down a cesspool.

Some assume no one has the right to judge what is moral for others. Unfortunately no objective definitions of morality will encourage everyone to do whatever they want and will eventually lead to all hell breaking loose. That's our current path.

Some assume that their own God has defined moral for them. This goes against freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

IMO, the answer is to look at the various possible life choices and their results and be realistic enough to acknowledge that some life choices produce superior results to others. Those that provide superior results should be strongly encouraged by the society and vice versa without making things illegal (as long as no one is harmed, it's consenting adults etc..). That pushes us in the right direction, but without bringing God into it or limiting people's freedom.

TJDave
06-26-2015, 05:02 PM
So, if "religious doctrine" says it's immoral to molest little boys that would in your world be an expression of prejudice against pedophiles?

Grow up.

senortout
06-26-2015, 05:10 PM
Sorry, I thought you were trying to actually say something, add to the conversation, as opposed to a non sequitur quip.

Yep.....drowning down here at the bottom of my class

Well, that was enlightening. I remarked to a post by Clocker, which was by the way,deleted. Strange coincidence. Luckily, I quoted the post in its entirety. I will go on and explain now. There are many interpretations to postings here on the subject of same-sex marriage. I simply stated that, although Clocker may choose not to participate in that marriage (participate could easily mean only attending the marriage, or baking the cake for the reception, or many other things...giving wedding gifts, and etc.); were he personal FRIENDS with either of the two guys....he had damn well better participate! Carrying this one stop forward, why can't we all be friends? We all know this just isn't possible but still..........................it'd be a start.

PhantomOnTour
06-26-2015, 05:19 PM
All these horse players on here crying about morality and God's word.
What does the good book say about gambling?

Clocker
06-26-2015, 05:23 PM
Could you define what you mean by religious freedom?

Religious doctrine which accommodates prejudice against gays is not religious freedom. It is bigotry, plain and simple

One example from a while back. A photographer was sued by a gay couple because the photographer refused to shoot their wedding. The photographer stated that according to her religious beliefs, it was immoral for her to shoot, i.e., participate in, the wedding.

I am not religious, and I have no knowledge of her religion, but it seems perfectly logical to me that she could feel that job would violate her morals. I also feel that the impact of accommodating the moral views of a few people like this is trivial.

Bigotry means intolerance. This woman is not trying to change or challenge or restrict the behavior of others, she just doesn't want to participate. I would say that not accommodating her religious beliefs is bigotry.

MikeH
06-26-2015, 05:26 PM
God created marriage.
Man is free to create unions that would give same sex couples the same benefits as married couples. But that is not good enough. To call it marriage disrespects the sacrament.

I agree 100%.

Show Me the Wire
06-26-2015, 05:26 PM
All these horse players on here crying about morality and God's word.
What does the good book say about gambling?

Enlighten us.

boxcar
06-26-2015, 05:39 PM
All these horse players on here crying about morality and God's word.
What does the good book say about gambling?

Nothing.

TJDave
06-26-2015, 05:39 PM
A good friend and one of the smartest people I know posted this today. Thought it deserves to be shared.


I am overwhelmed with emotion today, reflecting on the days leading up to this moment in history. Remembering the terrified little boy who was so afraid of being himself, the young friends in high school who took their own lives rather being subjected to the shame and scorn of their families and community. The beatings that occurred for being different. Losing jobs simply for identifying as something other than acceptable.
We lived in the 'ghetto' to try and ensure safety for ourselves and have a place to belong. We left our families and all we knew to venture into a land unknown that held the faint glimmer of a promise. We were scared. We were tired and beaten down. We were hopeful.
Our created families created communities, and those communities are now desired by most. We held on to our passion for freedom. Our desire to simply live and love without shame or fear. Together, with our friends, we helped a new world emerge.
A world of love and hope.
I am so very grateful to all who have worked so hard to make this a reality. I am humbled by love and support I never felt was possible. I sing in gratitude for all who have made my home a place where I never again have to live in fear. I weep for those we have lost in the struggle.
Love wins. Always...

boxcar
06-26-2015, 05:43 PM
One example from a while back. A photographer was sued by a gay couple because the photographer refused to shoot their wedding. The photographer stated that according to her religious beliefs, it was immoral for her to shoot, i.e., participate in, the wedding.

I am not religious, and I have no knowledge of her religion, but it seems perfectly logical to me that she could feel that job would violate her morals. I also feel that the impact of accommodating the moral views of a few people like this is trivial.

Bigotry means intolerance. This woman is not trying to change or challenge or restrict the behavior of others, she just doesn't want to participate. I would say that not accommodating her religious beliefs is bigotry.

Tolerance is strictly a one-way street that says that everyone should tolerate that which is evil. One is never called upon to tolerate what is known to be good.

boxcar
06-26-2015, 05:44 PM
A good friend and one of the smartest people I know posted this today. Thought it deserves to be shared.


I am overwhelmed with emotion today, reflecting on the days leading up to this moment in history. Remembering the terrified little boy who was so afraid of being himself, the young friends in high school who took their own lives rather being subjected to the shame and scorn of their families and community. The beatings that occurred for being different. Losing jobs simply for identifying as something other than acceptable.
We lived in the 'ghetto' to try and ensure safety for ourselves and have a place to belong. We left our families and all we knew to venture into a land unknown that held the faint glimmer of a promise. We were scared. We were tired and beaten down. We were hopeful.
Our created families created communities, and those communities are now desired by most. We held on to our passion for freedom. Our desire to simply live and love without shame or fear. Together, with our friends, we helped a new world emerge.
A world of love and hope.
I am so very grateful to all who have worked so hard to make this a reality. I am humbled by love and support I never felt was possible. I sing in gratitude for all who have made my home a place where I never again have to live in fear. I weep for those we have lost in the struggle.
Love wins. Always...

But love never rejoices in unrighteousness. You might want to pass this truth on to your friend.

Show Me the Wire
06-26-2015, 05:48 PM
A good friend and one of the smartest people I know posted this today. Thought it deserves to be shared.


I am overwhelmed with emotion today, reflecting on the days leading up to this moment in history. Remembering the terrified little boy who was so afraid of being himself, the young friends in high school who took their own lives rather being subjected to the shame and scorn of their families and community. The beatings that occurred for being different. Losing jobs simply for identifying as something other than acceptable.
We lived in the 'ghetto' to try and ensure safety for ourselves and have a place to belong. We left our families and all we knew to venture into a land unknown that held the faint glimmer of a promise. We were scared. We were tired and beaten down. We were hopeful.
Our created families created communities, and those communities are now desired by most. We held on to our passion for freedom. Our desire to simply live and love without shame or fear. Together, with our friends, we helped a new world emerge.
A world of love and hope.
I am so very grateful to all who have worked so hard to make this a reality. I am humbled by love and support I never felt was possible. I sing in gratitude for all who have made my home a place where I never again have to live in fear. I weep for those we have lost in the struggle.
Love wins. Always...

Yes, he doesn't have to be afraid someone will beat his ass, because same sex marriages are legal in the U.S. Perfect example when emotions are viewed as superior to logic.

Show Me the Wire
06-26-2015, 05:50 PM
Nothing.


Why did you ruin the fun?

TJDave
06-26-2015, 05:53 PM
But love never rejoices in unrighteousness. You might want to pass this truth on to your friend.

I know there are many like you so it's unlikely but I hope that when you go you are the last of your breed. You are the worst possible example of what it means to be religious. A poster boy for hate and intolerance.

JustRalph
06-26-2015, 05:53 PM
Yes, he doesn't have to be afraid someone will beat his ass, because same sex marriages are legal in the U.S. Perfect example when emotions are viewed as superior to logic.

Home run! To centerfield!

Btw, I had a buddy who was the "fat kid" growing up. He could have written Dave's quote too....yet he still deals with it.....no court can change the heart.

TJDave
06-26-2015, 05:54 PM
Yes, he doesn't have to be afraid someone will beat his ass, because same sex marriages are legal in the U.S. Perfect example when emotions are viewed as superior to logic.

That's what you got out of that?

Shallow

TJDave
06-26-2015, 05:59 PM
Home run! To centerfield!

Btw, I had a buddy who was the "fat kid" growing up. He could have written Dave's quote too....yet he still deals with it.....no court can change the heart.

"Fat kids" can lose fat. "Gay kids" can't lose gay.

Show Me the Wire
06-26-2015, 06:01 PM
"Fat kids" can lose fat. "Gay kids" can't lose gay.

There are people, ex-gays who disagree with you.

TJDave
06-26-2015, 06:06 PM
There are people, ex-gays who disagree with you.

You're smarter than that. There are no ex-gays. Don't be insulting.

Show Me the Wire
06-26-2015, 06:08 PM
You're smarter than that. There are no ex-gays. Don't be insulting.

Well if someone believes he was gay and lived the lifestyle, I believe him.

ArlJim78
06-26-2015, 06:11 PM
The ruling sweeps aside the gender aspect of marriage, as being between a man and a woman. There was never anything in the definition about love or sexual orientation. All this talk about love, will this ruling cause more people to love each other? I don't think so.
To me it makes a complete mockery of marriage. Again since its all about gender it doesn't only affect gays. Same sex hetero's are now able to participate in this free for all as well.

TJDave
06-26-2015, 06:13 PM
Well if someone believes he was gay and lived the lifestyle, I believe him.

Did you know I'm originally from Mars?

Really, it's true.

Show Me the Wire
06-26-2015, 06:16 PM
Did you know I'm originally from Mars?

Really, it's true.

I have no problem believing you, based on your posts. :) Alien life is within the realm of possibility.

zico20
06-26-2015, 06:19 PM
You're smarter than that. There are no ex-gays. Don't be insulting.

So you are saying there are no ex heterosexuals also. You know, the person who has sex for 30-40 years and then switches sides. Are they now just confused going gay or not? Are were they always gay and didn't know it for decades.

Show Me the Wire
06-26-2015, 06:20 PM
Seriously, TJDAVE, tell us the settled science. Is same sex attraction based solely in genetics or solely a product of environment?

TJDave
06-26-2015, 06:31 PM
were they always gay and didn't know it for decades.

They knew it or at least suspected it. It's not unusual for a man or woman to pretend for most of their lives. Raise families, hide in the shadows.

I recently attended a wedding for two men in their late 60's. Both had raised families. Their children and ex-wives were there. Very supportive. I know women who mirrored the experience.

TJDave
06-26-2015, 06:40 PM
Seriously, TJDAVE, tell us the settled science. Is same sex attraction based solely in genetics or solely a product of environment?

I know several gay men. To a man they tell me it's genetic. They all knew at an early age. What do I know from science? If the environment plays a part then it's at a very early developmental stage.

Men don't choose to be gay. Why would anyone want that grief? Read that posting again.

Show Me the Wire
06-26-2015, 06:46 PM
I know several gay men. To a man they tell me it's genetic. They all knew at an early age. What do I know from science? If the environment plays a part then it's at a very early developmental stage.

Men don't choose to be gay. Why would anyone want that grief? Read that posting again.

And you believe them? Did I tell you I am from Venus and its true.

Fager Fan
06-26-2015, 06:52 PM
Tom, the decision is about MARRIAGE, not homosexuality itself. Nature didn't create marriage, Tom, humans did. To deny couples the right to marriage because it is "unnatural" that they can't produce offspring means that you would have to believe that childless couples, by choice. are "unnatural."

What if two single heteros get a civil union so they can get all the benefits of married couples?

Those benefits were created to support the family unit which at the time was a stay-at-home mother raising the kids. The world has changed. I see no reason for married couples to get any governmental benefits.

TJDave
06-26-2015, 06:53 PM
And you believe them? Did I tell you I am from Venus and its true.

You know the difference. Stop playing.

Gay men have hidden in the closet for centuries... Even professed to be cured. All for the same reason...fear.

TJDave
06-26-2015, 06:55 PM
What if two single heteros get a civil union so they can get all the benefits of married couples?

If Bill Gates got divorced I'd consider it. ;)

Show Me the Wire
06-26-2015, 07:02 PM
You know the difference. Stop playing.

Gay men have hidden in the closet for centuries... Even professed to be cured. All for the same reason...fear.

I am not playing. Well maybe a little with your "believe" them comment.

If it is learned behavior it can be unlearned and replaced with different behavior, if there are biological factors those factors may possibly be treated too.

classhandicapper
06-26-2015, 07:07 PM
A good friend and one of the smartest people I know posted this today. Thought it deserves to be shared.


I am overwhelmed with emotion today, reflecting on the days leading up to this moment in history. Remembering the terrified little boy who was so afraid of being himself, the young friends in high school who took their own lives rather being subjected to the shame and scorn of their families and community. The beatings that occurred for being different. Losing jobs simply for identifying as something other than acceptable.
We lived in the 'ghetto' to try and ensure safety for ourselves and have a place to belong. We left our families and all we knew to venture into a land unknown that held the faint glimmer of a promise. We were scared. We were tired and beaten down. We were hopeful.
Our created families created communities, and those communities are now desired by most. We held on to our passion for freedom. Our desire to simply live and love without shame or fear. Together, with our friends, we helped a new world emerge.
A world of love and hope.
I am so very grateful to all who have worked so hard to make this a reality. I am humbled by love and support I never felt was possible. I sing in gratitude for all who have made my home a place where I never again have to live in fear. I weep for those we have lost in the struggle.
Love wins. Always...

Tugging at people's hearts over the clear cut intolerance suffered by gays in the past has nothing to do with this debate. I don't see anyone here advocating any of the things your friend had to deal with. Thank God most of that is in the past.

This is about relationships.

That a relationship between a man and a woman is different than a relationship between a man and man or woman and woman is a biological certainty. IMO, thinking they should be defined differently is a reasonable position as long as it's not accompanied by intolerance.

Like I said previously, religious marriages and marriages done by government are different by definition anyway. One is a religious ceremony and the other is not. So this should really be no big deal. What gays can now do is not the same as what I can do if I decide to propose to my girlfriend tonight and get married in a Catholic Church. They can't get the blessing of the church. We use one word (marriage), but they are two different things.

This is the big deal. When you force people to defy their own long held religious beliefs by saying they must participate in things they consider sinful (like a gay wedding), well, that's a very big deal because that's intolerance of religion and we are supposed to have freedom of religion.

Show Me the Wire
06-26-2015, 07:08 PM
What if two single heteros get a civil union so they can get all the benefits of married couples?

Those benefits were created to support the family unit which at the time was a stay-at-home mother raising the kids. The world has changed. I see no reason for married couples to get any governmental benefits.


Made a great plot on Boston Legal.

TJDave
06-26-2015, 07:22 PM
If it is learned behavior it can be unlearned and replaced with different behavior, if there are biological factors those factors may possibly be treated too.

How about accepting them for who they are?

Why are you trying to change their behavior?

Of course I know the answer. I'd just like to hear it from you. :rolleyes:

Saratoga_Mike
06-26-2015, 07:29 PM
The ruling sweeps aside the gender aspect of marriage, as being between a man and a woman. There was never anything in the definition about love or sexual orientation. All this talk about love, will this ruling cause more people to love each other? I don't think so.
To me it makes a complete mockery of marriage. Again since its all about gender it doesn't only affect gays. Same sex hetero's are now able to participate in this free for all as well.

Yes, soon the divorce rate for new heterosexual marriages will hit 50%. And the out-of-wedlock birth rate will total 25% or 30%. ALL because of gay marriage.

Saratoga_Mike
06-26-2015, 07:34 PM
Bobby "I supported Common Core before I opposed it" Jindal suggested doing away with the Supreme Court after this decision was released. When you're polling at 0% nationally (latest WSJ poll), you'll say just about anything to get attention.

Show Me the Wire
06-26-2015, 07:36 PM
How about accepting them for who they are?

Why are you trying to change their behavior?

Of course I know the answer. I'd just like to hear it from you. :rolleyes:

Being a little off base here. Taking after boxcar in constructing a straw man to attack, using the guilt or bigot card?

Nudge back to topic. It is about ex-gay people disagreeing with your opinion about possible change.

Saratoga_Mike
06-26-2015, 07:43 PM
Being a little off base here. Taking after boxcar in constructing a straw man to attack, using the guilt or bigot card?

Nudge back to topic. It is about ex-gay people disagreeing with your opinion about possible change.

Earlier you suggested if a 60-yr-old poster and his 58-yr-old girlfriend were to get married, they just might have a child, which made the marriage acceptable in your mind. In that context, not much is off base!

Show Me the Wire
06-26-2015, 07:48 PM
Earlier you suggested if a 60-yr-old poster and his 58-yr-old girlfriend were to get married, they just might have a child, which made the marriage acceptable in your mind. In that context, not much is off base!


Total non sequitur.

I suggested nothing, but stated biological fact and the supposed reason for marriage. Yes, I must be a bigot since I understand a biological fact, that same sex couples cannot naturally reproduce offspring. :bang:

nearco
06-26-2015, 07:50 PM
Marriage's purpose is supposedly to produce children. By definition same sex couples cannot produce children through a marital union as a man and woman can reproduce,

A large number of my married friends are childless, by choice. Are they flouting the institution of marriage?

Show Me the Wire
06-26-2015, 07:53 PM
A large number of my married friends are childless, by choice. Are they flouting the institution of marriage?

If you noticed the wording of my posts I used the word "supposed".

boxcar
06-26-2015, 07:55 PM
I know there are many like you so it's unlikely but I hope that when you go you are the last of your breed. You are the worst possible example of what it means to be religious. A poster boy for hate and intolerance.

And you're a poster for the Great Pretender. You shouldn't talk about things (such as love) when you don't have the first clue what it means to love. You don't even know that love is a virtue!

Saratoga_Mike
06-26-2015, 07:57 PM
Total non sequitur.

I suggested nothing, but stated biological fact and the supposed reason for marriage. Yes, I must be a bigot since I understand a biological fact, that same sex couples cannot naturally reproduce offspring. :bang:

I love the "I must be a bigot" line. I suggested no such thing. You just did a poor job defending heterosexual marriage. Don't blame me for your logic - one could drive a truck through the hole in it. A 90-yr-old man and a 90-yr-old woman COULD have a child. Therefore, you're ok with their marriage.

And yeah it all follows, except for your logic.

nearco
06-26-2015, 07:58 PM
If you noticed the wording of my posts I used the word "supposed".

Stop playing semantics. Is marriage for the purpose of producing children, yes or no?
If yes, then should hetero couples that have no intention of reproducing, are can't reproduce for biological reasons, be denied the right to marry?

Greyfox
06-26-2015, 07:58 PM
How about accepting them for who they are?



That would be homosexuals. Right?
Even they don't like accepting themselves as that so they absconded the labels gay and gay pride.
And...the vast majority of posters here have not used the word homosexual.

boxcar
06-26-2015, 08:00 PM
That's what you got out of that?

Shallow

An effect can't be greater than its cause -- which in this case was your smart friend's bleeding heart drivel.

Show Me the Wire
06-26-2015, 08:00 PM
Stop playing semantics. Is marriage for the purpose of producing children, yes or no?
If yes, then should hetero couples that have no intention of reproducing, are can't reproduce for biological reasons, be denied the right to marry?

Semantics. Marriage is supposedly to procreate.

Saratoga_Mike
06-26-2015, 08:00 PM
Stop playing semantics. Is marriage for the purpose of producing children, yes or no?
If yes, then should hetero couples that have no intention of reproducing, are can't reproduce for biological reasons, be denied the right to marry?

Your point is the only logical conclusion one could draw from SMTW's position.

Show Me the Wire
06-26-2015, 08:04 PM
I love the "I must be a bigot" line. I suggested no such thing. You just did a poor job defending heterosexual marriage. Don't blame me for your logic - one could drive a truck through the hole in it. A 90-yr-old man and a 90-yr-old woman COULD have a child. Therefore, you're ok with their marriage.

And yeah it all follows, except for your logic.

I did, aw shucks. If you want to argue marriage is only about companionship, that is a different ballgame. Society has historically viewed marriage and promoted marriage as the vehicle for procreation.

boxcar
06-26-2015, 08:04 PM
"Fat kids" can lose fat. "Gay kids" can't lose gay.

And you know this how?

But even if homosexuality and lesbianism were genetic, this still wouldn't make it natural or healthy anymore than someone born with a club foot. So what is your point?

Saratoga_Mike
06-26-2015, 08:08 PM
And you know this how?

But even if homosexuality and lesbianism were genetic, this still wouldn't make it natural or healthy anymore than someone born with a club foot. So what is your point?

First "gays in the military" and now "gay marriage" - you remind me a whole lot of those ministers who preach against gay people and then.... Oh never mind.

horses4courses
06-26-2015, 08:09 PM
even if homosexuality and lesbianism were genetic, this still wouldn't make it natural or healthy anymore than someone born with a club foot

Ding, ding, ding, ding........

Yes, sir.....you just did it.....come on downnnnnnn

You have won

Bigot of the day award!!!!!!!!!!

Saratoga_Mike
06-26-2015, 08:12 PM
I did, aw shucks. If you want to argue marriage is only about companionship, that is a different ballgame. Society has historically viewed marriage and promoted marriage as the vehicle for procreation.

I just think you could put forth a stronger defense of hetero marriage than you did. I don't think you're a bigot. I don't know you, and I haven't read anything that makes me think that. If you're saying you are, I will take your word for it, but I assume the "I did" was sarcasm.

Saratoga_Mike
06-26-2015, 08:15 PM
Ding, ding, ding, ding........

Yes, sir.....you just did it.....come on downnnnnnn

You have won

Bigot of the day award!!!!!!!!!!

...but his heart is filled with love for all.

Show Me the Wire
06-26-2015, 08:21 PM
I just think you could put forth a stronger defense of hetero marriage than you did. I don't think you're a bigot. I don't know you, and I haven't read anything that makes me think that. If you're saying you are, I will take your word for it, but I assume the "I did" was sarcasm.

Yes, it was sarcasm, pointed at the so-called defenders of marriage who do not practice what they preach.

FYI in certain religious traditions, theoretically, you cannot be married in the tradition, if you express an intent or desire not to procreate.

My board buddy, TJDave, suggested I was a bigot, so I was just being sarcastic again. I know sarcasm does not translate well on the keyboard. :)

Fager Fan
06-26-2015, 08:21 PM
I have always believed it bigoted.

Today, the court confirmed my beliefs.

And you think the government should legislate bigotry? Meaning you want the government to legislate our thoughts and beliefs? You do realize that any dogma a government forces upon its citizens is no different than having a state religion.

Saratoga_Mike
06-26-2015, 08:27 PM
Yes, it was sarcasm, pointed at the so-called defenders of marriage who do not practice what they preach.

FYI in certain religious traditions, theoretically, you cannot be married in the tradition, if you express an intent or desire not to procreate.

My board buddy, TJDave, suggested I was a bigot, so I was just being sarcastic again. I know sarcasm does not translate well on the keyboard. :)

Will the Catholic Church marry a 90-yr-old man and 90-yr-old woman? I suspect yes?

classhandicapper
06-26-2015, 08:28 PM
And you think the government should legislate bigotry? Meaning you want the government to legislate our thoughts and beliefs? You do realize that any dogma a government forces upon its citizens is no different than having a state religion.

lmao. Liberals don't care about principals. They only care about getting their own way and protecting their own freedoms.

Show Me the Wire
06-26-2015, 08:30 PM
Will the Catholic Church marry a 90-yr-old man and 90-yr-old woman? I suspect yes?

I suppose some priest would and some priest would marry a couple that expressed their desire not to procreate. That is why I said theoretically. Not being sarcastic this time about using the qualifier "theoretically".

Saratoga_Mike
06-26-2015, 08:31 PM
lmao. Liberals don't care about principals. They only care about getting their own way and protecting their own freedoms.

Whereas libertarians don't care about protecting their own freedoms?

zico20
06-26-2015, 08:31 PM
They knew it or at least suspected it. It's not unusual for a man or woman to pretend for most of their lives. Raise families, hide in the shadows.

I recently attended a wedding for two men in their late 60's. Both had raised families. Their children and ex-wives were there. Very supportive. I know women who mirrored the experience.

I have to disagree with you on this. They didn't know it or suspect it. It is most likely they got tired of being with women and needed sex so they switched sides.

As far as your other post, environment plays a huge part why a teen boy likes other boys. They were emotionally and mentally messed up at some point coupled with the fact that they were shy of girls or girls who made fun of them. Put that same boy and let him grow up on a deserted island with an ugly, fat obnoxious, mean other boy and a sweet, beautiful girl. I can guarantee you which one he will have sex with eventually.

Saratoga_Mike
06-26-2015, 08:32 PM
I suppose some priest would. That is why I said theoretically. Not being sarcastic this time about using the qualifier "theoretically".

You would oppose OR support said marriage? Please answer straight out.

Saratoga_Mike
06-26-2015, 08:33 PM
I have to disagree with you on this. They didn't know it or suspect it. It is most likely they got tired of being with women and needed sex so they switched sides.

As far as your other post, environment plays a huge part why a teen boy likes other boys. They were emotionally and mentally messed up at some point coupled with the fact that they were shy of girls or girls who made fun of them. Put that same boy and let him grow up on a deserted island with an ugly, fat obnoxious, mean other boy and a sweet, beautiful girl. I can guarantee you which one he will have sex with eventually.

Amazing post.

reckless
06-26-2015, 08:45 PM
All these horse players on here crying about morality and God's word. What does the good book say about gambling?

When I read your post I called a parish priest that I know very well. I asked him about the good book and gambling.

He suggested we meet at the rectory to discuss this issue. When I asked him what's the best time to meet, the priest said:

"How about Saturday night, after Bingo."

boxcar
06-26-2015, 08:50 PM
Ding, ding, ding, ding........

Yes, sir.....you just did it.....come on downnnnnnn

You have won

Bigot of the day award!!!!!!!!!!

You're the biggest fool of the day if you think that to say that someone with a clubfoot has an unnatural trait is bigoted? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: That's all you lamebrains have when someone calls it like it is: Bigoted or homophobic? What a great two-prong argument! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Show Me the Wire
06-26-2015, 08:50 PM
You would oppose OR support said marriage? Please answer straight out.


What is an impediment to marriage is the inability to have vaginal intercourse, per the Catholic Church's teaching.

§1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of canon 1098.

Code of Canon law 1084.

If the man was impotent or the woman unable to participate in sexual intercourse I would not support a Church marriage.

Secular marriage requires that the marriage must be consummated to be valid.

No, I don't support marriages just to obtain secular benefits.

classhandicapper
06-26-2015, 08:50 PM
When I read your post I called a parish priest that I know very well. I asked him about the good book and gambling.

He suggested we meet at the rectory to discuss this issue. When I asked him what's the best time to meet, the priest said:

"How about Saturday night, after Bingo."

That's a good one.

Many parishes are desperate for money, but those Vegas nights they used to run at my old parish were a little over the top. :lol:

Fager Fan
06-26-2015, 08:51 PM
Therein lies the rub and the typical liberal response.

I know immoral when I see it (that's a joke, did you get it?) and morals are based on standard acceptable behavior etc. morals have been watered down to the point where we have none. Everything goes.

Do you think the Kardashian girls are moral? Not me.

Do you think Bernie Madoff was a moral man? Not me

Now, there was a time when the church helped us set our moral compass. The bible was a written reference for morals. It worked pretty well. Christian principals made for a pretty good country and prosperity and happiness was derived from this setting. We all know that the truth was something different, and in reality we hid and shamed immoral acts and actors more than we do now. Then came the sixties. It became hip and cool to no longer judge your fellow man. Free Love and drugs were accepted.

Things were great. In reality I believe it was the real start of the downfall of the country. But that would be making a moral judgement. When we made single mothers heroes and baby daddy'the norm.......things got even worse. We had a President who openly told us that sexual antics with the hired help was nothing to worry about. Fellatio wasn't sex and giving away state secrets to the Chinese was ok, because "who am I to judge?"

We are marching towards Gomorrah ........ And nobody has the right to judge :ThmbUp: :rolleyes:

Great post, Ralph.

boxcar
06-26-2015, 08:52 PM
Oh never mind.

Fear not. I rarely do when it comes to your posts.

classhandicapper
06-26-2015, 09:05 PM
Whereas libertarians don't care about protecting their own freedoms?

Libertarians worry about protecting all freedoms including those of others based on principle - even when they find those freedoms repulsive, counter productive to society, immoral etc..

Liberals pick and choose which vices and behaviors should be illegal and which you should attack conservatives for trying to discourage (which usually comes down to being able to have sex with anyone and everyone and leaving the consequences of increased disease, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, crime etc... for conservative Christians to pay for).

Steve 'StatMan'
06-26-2015, 09:08 PM
Good marketing strategy, I wonder what the OTC pain med of choice is in the gay community. Can't wait for those advertisements - perhaps on the next Super Bowl. :D

Preparation H?

Fager Fan
06-26-2015, 09:26 PM
Ding, ding, ding, ding........

Yes, sir.....you just did it.....come on downnnnnnn

You have won

Bigot of the day award!!!!!!!!!!

Point your finger right back at yourself. This is exactly how liberals succeed. They put hateful labels on people. It'd be amusing for its irony if it weren't so effective. So that is why I hand your label back to you.

horses4courses
06-26-2015, 09:42 PM
Point your finger right back at yourself. This is exactly how liberals succeed. They put hateful labels on people. It'd be amusing for its irony if it weren't so effective. So that is why I hand your label back to you.

Because I approve of equal rights for a
section of society that you and yours choose not to?
I'm quite happy being a bigot in your eyes.

Gays just happen to be different to your "norm".
They don't have leprosy.

Fager Fan
06-26-2015, 10:41 PM
Because I approve of equal rights for a
section of society that you and yours choose not to?
I'm quite happy being a bigot in your eyes.

Gays just happen to be different to your "norm".
They don't have leprosy.

You continue to show your hatred and bigotry. I and no one here said a word likening a gay person to someone with leprosy.

Unless you show the same understanding and respect that you expect others to show to gays, you're just as bigoted as those you point at. Tolerance goes both ways.

JustRalph
06-26-2015, 11:28 PM
You continue to show your hatred and bigotry. I and no one here said a word likening a gay person to someone with leprosy.

Unless you show the same understanding and respect that you expect others to show to gays, you're just as bigoted as those you point at. Tolerance goes both ways.

Great post, Fager! :ThmbUp: ;)

He's not showing hatred, or bigotry. He is using the lefts tactic of pushing the agenda no matter what. Consistently add flames to the fire until you're calling them a nazi or facist.

I've had several gay friends over the years. I've even shared my home with a few for months. We've had some serious discussions about gay rights and other things. Not one ever told me that they thought getting married would change anything. In fact one said it would make things worse due to what she called "the lifestyle of changing partners" I never thought nor cared about gays getting married that much. I don't think they walk around pining for marriage either. I think it's more of a political movement.

Either way I don't care. But I do care about governmental encroachment on things they should not be involved in. But that makes for a very long list of grievances.

JustRalph
06-27-2015, 12:03 AM
Uh oh, somebody is jealous

http://twitchy.com/2015/06/26/does-the-blacklivesmatter-movement-have-a-problem-with-todays-focus-on-gay-marriage-sure-looks-like-it/

Politics......

whodoyoulike
06-27-2015, 12:08 AM
...
Secular marriage requires that the marriage must be consummated to be valid.

No, I don't support marriages just to obtain secular benefits.


I think they're being consummated.

Do you have a problem with that?

Show Me the Wire
06-27-2015, 12:21 AM
I think they're being consummated.

Do you have a problem with that?

What two consenting people do in privacy is their business. What some do not understand, I do not want to impress my will upon anyone nor do I want anyone to impress their will upon me.

I am a Christian and my Lord did not make anyone do his will or force anyone to follow is teachings. I follow his example.

Marriage is not a Christian invention, but a societal convention throughout history to encourage procreation.

ReplayRandall
06-27-2015, 12:26 AM
What two consenting people do in privacy is their business. What some do not understand, I do not want to impress my will upon anyone nor do I want anyone to impress their will upon me.

I am a Christian and my Lord did not make anyone do his will or force anyone to follow is teachings. I follow his example.

Marriage is not a Christian invention, but a societal convention throughout history to encourage procreation.

So you're taking a Swiss neutral position on this issue, Show Me?

Show Me the Wire
06-27-2015, 12:31 AM
So you're taking a Swiss neutral position on this issue, Show Me?

No. I already said I don't support certain kinds of marriages. However, we should not force our will upon anyone. Everyone has free will to make their own choices.

With that said, the Court has stated same sex marriage is legal in the U.S. What I support is irrelevant to the secular law.

ReplayRandall
06-27-2015, 12:34 AM
No. I already said I don't support certain kinds of marriages. However, we should not force our will upon anyone. Everyone has free will to make their own choices.

At what point would you say free will has it's limitations, perhaps multiple partnered marriages?

Show Me the Wire
06-27-2015, 12:38 AM
At what point would you say free will has it's limitations, perhaps multiple partnered marriages?

Nope. Free will has its limitations when it infringes on the rights of other people or results in physical harm to others or property rights of others.

whodoyoulike
06-27-2015, 12:41 AM
I have to disagree with you on this. They didn't know it or suspect it. It is most likely they got tired of being with women and needed sex so they switched sides.

As far as your other post, environment plays a huge part why a teen boy likes other boys. They were emotionally and mentally messed up at some point coupled with the fact that they were shy of girls or girls who made fun of them. Put that same boy and let him grow up on a deserted island with an ugly, fat obnoxious, mean other boy and a sweet, beautiful girl. I can guarantee you which one he will have sex with eventually.


Now, I think you're just messing with us.

Show Me the Wire
06-27-2015, 12:43 AM
ReplayRandall,

Actually, I fully expect, based on this decision, multiple partner marriages will at some future time will be deemed a legal marriage.

johnhannibalsmith
06-27-2015, 01:24 AM
ReplayRandall,

Actually, I fully expect, based on this decision, multiple partner marriages will at some future time will be deemed a legal marriage.

I've always wondered if you would file divorce from both spouses or just one if that can salvage the (amended) marriage or if fights that can actually be decided by majority is good or bad. This stop down the slippery slope of debauchery might be worth it for the crazy shenanigans.

mostpost
06-27-2015, 01:27 AM
Read Scalia's descending opinon.
The court overstepped it's authority.
The 14th amendment was ignored.
Scalia cannot issue a descending opinion. All his opinions are from the bottom of the barrel.

ReplayRandall
06-27-2015, 01:34 AM
Scalia issued a scathing dissent of opinion. All his opinions are from the correct interpretation of the Constitution.

FTFY.....

mostpost
06-27-2015, 01:50 AM
No, we are not.
As a species, the goal is to continue through breeding.
Although the thought of liberals becoming extinct is titillating.

Serendipity, baby!
Look around you. You share the planet with 7.000.000.000 other human beings. Five or ten percent of those people are gay. Plenty of people left to procreate. Marriage means gay people can raise a family-with all the legal benefits-either through adoption, or surrogates or donors.

Conservatives are just as likely to be gay as liberals.

mostpost
06-27-2015, 01:59 AM
Tom, the decision is about MARRIAGE, not homosexuality itself. Nature didn't create marriage, Tom, humans did. To deny couples the right to marriage because it is "unnatural" that they can't produce offspring means that you would have to believe that childless couples, by choice. are "unnatural."
Marriage was not created so couples could have children. Marriage was created so that when they did have children, those children would enjoy the protections of society; both legal and emotional. It bound the parent to the child. As society evolved it provided for inheritance of property from parent to child. Now, those benefits can be enjoyed by children of gay parents as well.

mostpost
06-27-2015, 02:19 AM
There is certainly no mention of marriage in the Constitution, and the notion that marriage is a constitutional right is absurd.
If you had read the decision, or even the syllabus, you would not have made such a foolish statement. No one said anything about marriage being a constitutional right; at least no one who knows what they are talking about.

The majority opinion was based on the fourteenth amendment which states:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I its simplest terms it means if you are a citizen, there can't be one set of rules for one group of people and a different set of rules for another.

This applies whether the difference is race religion or sexual identity. So, while there may be no right to marry; there is a right to be treated equally.

mostpost
06-27-2015, 02:25 AM
FTFY.....

Sometimes the "FTFY" trick can be very clever, changing a word or two to change the meaning totally. Changing almost every word is just dumb.

Tom does not know the difference between descending-moving downward-and dissenting-disagreeing.

Hoofless_Wonder
06-27-2015, 03:30 AM
As is often the case these days, the Supremes missed the whole point of the problem. Marriage simply needs to be "de-legalized".

There is no middle ground on gay marriage, and this will just add fuel to the fire when the "Great Backlash" begins. Think Nazi Germany, 1935, and how gays were treated. When other problems provide the opportunity for a different flavor of "Hope and Change" to come to power, extreme measures on such moral issues will come to pass....

lamboguy
06-27-2015, 03:40 AM
we have to congratulate all our leaders and courts for bringing us same sex mariages. even though we have the Al Qaeda and Isis trying to rip our real ends apart and chop our heads off, same sex marriage and rotten health care take precedence.

boxcar
06-27-2015, 07:59 AM
Because I approve of equal rights for a
section of society that you and yours choose not to?
I'm quite happy being a bigot in your eyes.

Gays just happen to be different to your "norm".
They don't have leprosy.

They are no more normal than a person with leprosy. You might want to study up on Natural Law.

Robert Goren
06-27-2015, 08:00 AM
we have to congratulate all our leaders and courts for bringing us same sex mariages. even though we have the Al Qaeda and Isis trying to rip our real ends apart and chop our heads off, same sex marriage and rotten health care take precedence. Fix the things we can fix. Anybody who thinks we can fix the Middle East has been getting "CARE" packages from a Colorado address.

Robert Goren
06-27-2015, 08:17 AM
I have to disagree with you on this. They didn't know it or suspect it. It is most likely they got tired of being with women and needed sex so they switched sides.

As far as your other post, environment plays a huge part why a teen boy likes other boys. They were emotionally and mentally messed up at some point coupled with the fact that they were shy of girls or girls who made fun of them. Put that same boy and let him grow up on a deserted island with an ugly, fat obnoxious, mean other boy and a sweet, beautiful girl. I can guarantee you which one he will have sex with eventually. Spoke like heterosexual, but you are just plain wrong. Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. Until a few years ago, the world thought it was. Like on so many other things, we have discovered what we thought about sexual orientation a few years ago was wrong. Welcome to the twenty first century, where real knowledge is taking the place of made up reasons for bigotry. Just because something was believed since the beginning of time does not make true.

tucker6
06-27-2015, 08:48 AM
Spoke like heterosexual, but you are just plain wrong. Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. Until a few years ago, the world thought it was. Like on so many other things, we have discovered what we thought about sexual orientation a few years ago was wrong. Welcome to the twenty first century, where real knowledge is taking the place of made up reasons for bigotry. Just because something was believed since the beginning of time does not make true.
I agree with you in large part. For many homosexuals, it is not a matter of choice. They were born with the this characteristic so to speak. However, there are some who claim to be gay/lesbian that are really in an experimentation stage of their lives. Many of these are essentially straight but wish to see what the lifestyle is like for a while. Some remain there. Some go back to enjoy the opposite sex.

Robert Goren
06-27-2015, 08:58 AM
I agree with you in large part. For many homosexuals, it is not a matter of choice. They were born with the this characteristic so to speak. However, there are some who claim to be gay/lesbian that are really in an experimentation stage of their lives. Many of these are essentially straight but wish to see what the lifestyle is like for a while. Some remain there. Some go back to enjoy the opposite sex.I know a woman who swings from both sides of the plate, so to speak. She was undoubtedly born that way too. Too bad she was married to a college room mate for a while. She sent that poor guy through Hell as she worked through her issues in early 1970s.

boxcar
06-27-2015, 09:50 AM
Spoke like heterosexual, but you are just plain wrong. Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. Until a few years ago, the world thought it was. Like on so many other things, we have discovered what we thought about sexual orientation a few years ago was wrong. Welcome to the twenty first century, where real knowledge is taking the place of made up reasons for bigotry. Just because something was believed since the beginning of time does not make true.

Mr. Goren, I have a question for you. Let's say someone is born with predisposition to alcoholism. Would you say that this "disease" is good for that person or not so good?

classhandicapper
06-27-2015, 10:11 AM
Homosexual behavior is way more complex that simple "choice" or "born that way".

Despite the lack of gay gene, it clearly appears there are some people born that way. So there must be some kind biological or epigenetic (environment changing biology) component to it in most cases.

On the flip side, if you look at the sex trade, there are heterosexual porn stars, prostitutes, dancers etc... that engage in homosexual behavior by choice for money.

There are probably cases of sexual abuse among children that lead to homosexual behavior later in life.

There are examples of people that are heterosexual that experiment for awhile in same sex relationships or in short lived flings when they are young and then realize they are heterosexual and stay that way.

There are examples like Cynthia Nixon who got pilloried by the gay community for actually saying "I am choosing to be with a woman".

Then there all the bisexuals that need to be explained.

There are many genetically identical twins where one is gay and one is not.

The whole thing is way more complex that a simple born that way or choice and I don't think it's all fully understood.

rastajenk
06-27-2015, 10:27 AM
Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice
What does the Q stand for in LGBTQ? It ain't Queer.

ReplayRandall
06-27-2015, 10:41 AM
Sometimes the "FTFY" trick can be very clever, changing a word or two to change the meaning totally. Changing almost every word is just dumb.

Tom does not know the difference between descending-moving downward-and dissenting-disagreeing.

Your posts are so asinine sometimes, that DUMB would be a major step up for you......

Tom
06-27-2015, 10:58 AM
Preparation H?

Where do you live?
I want to bow in your direction. :lol:

Tom
06-27-2015, 11:03 AM
Scalia cannot issue a descending opinion. All his opinions are from the bottom of the barrel.

Obviously, spell checker strikes again.
But I do respect your views on the bottom of the barrel - no one knows it better than you do. :cool:

Clocker
06-27-2015, 11:28 AM
Tom does not know the difference between descending-moving downward-and dissenting-disagreeing.

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. :D


You share the planet with 7.000.000.000 other human beings.

Tom
06-27-2015, 11:33 AM
I have always said that libs have no skill with numbers.
It must be hereditary.

Guess that means we will be seeing marriages with 3,4,5 people in them soon.

Greyfox
06-27-2015, 11:39 AM
Sexual orientation is not a matter of choice.

Let's assume what you are saying is true to a point.
(It begs an argument of nature vs nurture. But I won't get into that here.)

Even if sexual orientation is not a choice, what you do with it is.
For example, Nuns take vows of chastity.
Celibacy is a choice that, while difficult, many have made.

Clocker
06-27-2015, 11:48 AM
As society evolved it provided for inheritance of property from parent to child.

And as society devolved, self-appointed elites decided that the government knew better than the people, and imposed estate taxes.

TJDave
06-27-2015, 02:11 PM
This will be fun to watch.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/opponents-divided-how-or-whether-to-resist-supreme-court-ruling/2015/06/26/3219f626-1c12-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html


In Alabama, two officials announced another method of resistance: If they couldn’t stop same-sex marriage, they would stop marriage itself. They said they would no longer issue marriage licenses to anyone, gay or straight, ever again.

“I will not be doing any more ceremonies,” said Fred Hamic (R), the elected probate judge in rural Geneva County. The other was Wes Allen (R), the probate judge in Pike County. Both said that state law doesn’t require their counties to issue marriage licenses at all. If people want to wed, they can go to another county.

“If you read your Bible, sir, then you know the logic. The Bible says a man laying with a man or a woman laying with a woman is an abomination to God,” Hamic said. “I am not mixing religion with government, but that’s my feelings on it.”

Saratoga_Mike
06-27-2015, 02:40 PM
Fear not. I rarely do when it comes to your posts.

Those with god-complexes fear little.

Saratoga_Mike
06-27-2015, 02:46 PM
If the man was impotent or the woman unable to participate in sexual intercourse I would not support a Church marriage.


My bet is the Pope disagrees with you on this matter.* And remember the Pope's opinion on such matters is infallible. Is the Pope's opinion on such matters only infallible when you agree with the Pope?

*I have no proof, but I would bet on it.

Show Me the Wire
06-27-2015, 03:06 PM
My bet is the Pope disagrees with you on this matter.* And remember the Pope's opinion on such matters is infallible. Is the Pope's opinion on such matters only infallible when you agree with the Pope?

*I have no proof, but I would bet on it.

I think you need to do a little research about Canon law of the Church and on the subject of the Pope's infallibility. What the Pope personally thinks about the subject is irrelevant. The Pope cannot change canon law by executive order.

For example the Pope's recently released encyclical is not binding on the members of the Church, it is not dogma, nor is the Pope's infallibility applicable.

boxcar
06-27-2015, 03:08 PM
Those with god-complexes fear little.

Only unbelievers have such complexes, never wanting to subject themselves to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Saratoga_Mike
06-27-2015, 03:11 PM
Only unbelievers have such complexes, never wanting to subject themselves to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

You, my friend, have a god-complex. You view yourself as perfect.

Saratoga_Mike
06-27-2015, 03:12 PM
I think you need to do a little research about Canon law of the Church and on the subject of the Pope's infallibility. What the Pope personally thinks about the subject is irrelevant. The Pope cannot change canon law by executive order.

For example the Pope's recently released encyclical is not binding on the members of the Church, it is not dogma, nor is the Pope's infallibility applicable.

Just re-checked the requirements from the First Vatican council and I stand by my claim.

boxcar
06-27-2015, 03:24 PM
You, my friend, have a god-complex. You view yourself as perfect.

Again, only those who don't want to submit their wills to God's have god complexes --all you moral relativists who have become a law onto yourselves, doing what is right in your own eyes and often giving hearty approval to the depraved behavior of others.

But you are right, of course, that I'm "perfect" in Christ since I have been justified in Him -- as a gift by God's grace (Rom 3:24).

If you want to find out more, we can resume this discussion over on the appropriate place.

Boxcar
P.S. Same sex marriage, incidentally, no more exists than do square circles. :rolleyes:

Clocker
06-27-2015, 03:29 PM
The latest discussion here proves once again that marriage is, and always has been, a religious issue. There are as many different concepts of how and why marriage developed and what it means as there are religions. The government should stay out of it.

As a legal matter, the states should register and enforce civil unions as contracts. Any marriage performed by an established church should be recognized by the state as a civil union. There is nothing in the Constitution giving the federal government any authority here.

None of that is going to happen, because the moonbats are running the asylum, and they assume that people don't know what is good for them and they, the self-appointed elites, do.