 |
|
06-26-2015, 10:20 AM
|
#1
|
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 7,706
|
Supreme Court Validates Same-Sex Marriage
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.
|
|
|
|
06-26-2015, 10:21 AM
|
#2
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 14,569
|
Welcome to the 21st century 
Slowly but surely, we are making progress.
__________________
Want to know what's wrong with this country?
Here it is, in a nutshell: Millions of people are
pinning their hopes on a man who has every
chance of returning to the WH, assuming that
he can manage to stay out of prison. Think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
06-26-2015, 10:30 AM
|
#3
|
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,871
|
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!
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
|
|
|
|
|
06-26-2015, 10:38 AM
|
#4
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 14,569
|
No surprise that you would discriminate against homosexuals.
Next........
__________________
Want to know what's wrong with this country?
Here it is, in a nutshell: Millions of people are
pinning their hopes on a man who has every
chance of returning to the WH, assuming that
he can manage to stay out of prison. Think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
06-26-2015, 10:43 AM
|
#5
|
|
Screw PC
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,728
|
Validates is the wrong word.
__________________
Truth sounds like hate to those who hate truth.
|
|
|
|
|
06-26-2015, 10:45 AM
|
#6
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 20,613
|
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).
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
Last edited by classhandicapper; 06-26-2015 at 10:53 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
06-26-2015, 10:50 AM
|
#7
|
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 7,706
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DJofSD
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.)
Last edited by Overlay; 06-26-2015 at 11:04 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
06-26-2015, 10:55 AM
|
#8
|
|
The Voice of Reason!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 112,871
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by horses4courses
No surprise that you would discriminate against homosexuals.
Next........
|
Not me, nature.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
|
|
|
|
|
06-26-2015, 11:03 AM
|
#9
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,005
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
06-26-2015, 11:09 AM
|
#10
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 14,569
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ocala Mike
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. 
__________________
Want to know what's wrong with this country?
Here it is, in a nutshell: Millions of people are
pinning their hopes on a man who has every
chance of returning to the WH, assuming that
he can manage to stay out of prison. Think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
06-26-2015, 11:10 AM
|
#11
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,005
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tom
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."
|
|
|
|
|
06-26-2015, 11:12 AM
|
#12
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 14,569
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ocala Mike
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.
__________________
Want to know what's wrong with this country?
Here it is, in a nutshell: Millions of people are
pinning their hopes on a man who has every
chance of returning to the WH, assuming that
he can manage to stay out of prison. Think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
06-26-2015, 11:12 AM
|
#13
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 17,095
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
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.
__________________
A man's got to know his limitations. -- Dirty Harry
|
|
|
|
|
06-26-2015, 11:20 AM
|
#14
|
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,893
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ocala Mike
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.
Last edited by Saratoga_Mike; 06-26-2015 at 11:22 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
06-26-2015, 11:23 AM
|
#15
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 18,962
|
The "So What Age?"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by horses4courses
Welcome to the 21st century
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
