Supreme Court Rules All States Must License And Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

[Joe User]

I never said they do, and a ton of states have adopted their own same sex marriage laws. But they need to do it, not the Supreme Court.

 

Just to add, there is no constitutional way to write a same sex marriage law. The same way a state can't write a law that says 'Everyone can get married, except Indians, they can only have half marriage'

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

Living life worrying about what others do with their own lives is truly up there with the most miserable of existences that I can imagine.

If you care what another human being decides what makes them happy sexually, you have lost at the game of life.

If you have not figured out yet there are always going to be opposing views to your own and that is what makes the world go round and what makes our existence on this planet so magnificent and beautiful, you have lost at the game of life.

If you believe that your opinion and beliefs are so much better than others that it allows you to pass judgement on them, you have lost at the game of life.

[ctebah]

Living life worrying about what others do with their own lives is truly up there with the most miserable of existences that I can imagine.

If you care what another human being decides what makes them happy sexually, you have lost at the game of life.

If you have not figured out yet there are always going to be opposing views to your own and that is what makes the world go round and what makes our existence on this planet so magnificent and beautiful, you have lost at the game of life.

If you believe that your opinion and beliefs are so much better than others that it allows you to pass judgement on them, you have lost at the game of life.

 

Post of the day.

[PGHammer]

Basic social development. Moist basic hardcore example: In history, murder is frowned upon in every signal culture that has existed, UNLESS done for religious reasons. This is not a moral action. Murder has happened throughout history, but like minded individuals seen that, since they don't want to be murdered, they stick with other people who don't want to be murdered and protect each other should the need arise. Through religious belief systems, sometimes groups of people were fooled into thinking blood-sacrifice was a way to please supernatural deities. This is not moral. Moral would NOT be killing if no need for it.

 

There are hundreds of other examples. If anything, religions have created the worst moral systems in the world and sadly those systems still exist.

And the First of the Ten Commandments specifically outlaws murder - "Thou shalt not kill".  The Second specifically outlaws sleeping with someone other than your spouse (if you are married) - "Thou shalt not commit adultery."  Murder in the name of religion is basically a religious crime - it's why the Crusades caught a LOT of grief (in a historical sense) AND why religious-spawned terrorism (not just "Islamism", but even that spawned by "cephalism", a superset of nostalgism which includes both the Wahhabi sect of Islam, a non-insiginificant portion of Shia Islam, and even some non-Wahabbi Sunnis. Not all are militant; however, most are of a mind that the world should return to the practices of the seventh century AD) is catching flak today.  Murder is NOT moral - that is, in fact, why no religion has condoned the practice (except for the most extremist of sects; note that no Shia imam outside of Iran since the conviction of the "blind imam" for acts of terror has condoned terror in the name of religion).

[Guest]

Good point, HE may want to marry the dog, but what about the dog for all we know the dog is held in captivity, I found this:

 

Amazing!

[The Werewolf]

Welcome to the 21st Century, USA. Of course, Canada got same-sex marriage nationally in 2005 and nothing bad's really happened up here. Well, except for Harper. That was pretty bad. But I don't think gay marriage caused him.

[DocM]

Just to add, there is no constitutional way to write a same sex marriage law.

>

Of course there is: you make it a plainly worded,

[Joe User]

Of course there is: you make it a plainly worded,

[TMYW]

basically states are dead. state's rights are dead. they should just put the final nail in the coffin and call them providences

By your silly standard of what constitutes being "dead", weren't state's rights already dead when slavery was abolished?

[DocM]

Not according to this same SCOTUS when they've recently upheld 10th Amendment cases, which are all about states rights.

[TMYW]

I could careless about same-sex marriage but what I am worrying about is their adapted children if they decide they want some. Young kids with dad and mom would probably bully kids with two dads or two moms because kids are taught to have both dad and mom. They would make fun of them saying they are weird and stuff and will affect their growth mentality. Kids get confuse wondering why they dont have a mom or a dad.

 

Maybe in the future in the text book same-sex marriage topic will be covered. Who knows...

Are you saying same-sex couple should refrain from adopting because of ignorant parents not teaching their kids that some kids can have two moms or two dads and that bullying is wrong under any circumstance? Seriously?

 

BTW, you're not giving kids enough credit for their intellectual curiosity. Generally, when kids see something "out of the ordinary", they'll point it out to you and ask you about it without passing judgment.

 

This isn't directed at you but...If you're raising a child to believe that kids MUST HAVE both a mom and a dad, compelling him/her to ridicule anybody not meeting this "standard", please do the rest of us a favor and not procreate any more.

Not according to this same SCOTUS when they've recently upheld 10th Amendment cases, which are all about states rights.

To whom are you responding?

[DocM]

To your comment about the death of States rights, which are mostly defined by the 10th Amendment.

[TMYW]

To your comment about the death of States rights, which are mostly defined by the 10th Amendment.

Then you made my point for me. It's asinine to claim that state's rights are dead. Thank you.

[Rippleman]

And the First of the Ten Commandments specifically outlaws murder - "Thou shalt not kill".  The Second specifically outlaws sleeping with someone other than your spouse (if you are married) - "Thou shalt not commit adultery."  Murder in the name of religion is basically a religious crime - it's why the Crusades caught a LOT of grief (in a historical sense) AND why religious-spawned terrorism (not just "Islamism", but even that spawned by "cephalism", a superset of nostalgism which includes both the Wahhabi sect of Islam, a non-insiginificant portion of Shia Islam, and even some non-Wahabbi Sunnis. Not all are militant; however, most are of a mind that the world should return to the practices of the seventh century AD) is catching flak today.  Murder is NOT moral - that is, in fact, why no religion has condoned the practice (except for the most extremist of sects; note that no Shia imam outside of Iran since the conviction of the "blind imam" for acts of terror has condoned terror in the name of religion).

 

While you are correct in the quotes, these culture/social normals existed LONG before some deity believers wrote them down. Religion only plagiarized them from previous cultures/common sense that preexisted before it.

[Clownsun]

Isaiah 5:20  Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil

 

[DocM]

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil

And woe unto him who bases their understanding of gays in scripture based on what are largely mistranslations.

Christian clerics were performing same sex marriages in the 4th century. It didn't become a big deal until the 13th century.

[TMYW]

Unlike being black which is a physical appearance, you can choose to partake in a gay lifestyle or not. Just as a pedophile can choose to touch children or not. Or someone with some weird fascination with rape can choose not to rape people. We are human beings, we are above our urges be it sexual or romantic. To say that because you're born with an attraction to a specific sex or appearance means you can't choose to act contrary to that is ignorant at best. If this were the case, "coming out" wouldn't be a thing.

Pedophilia is a crime, and rape is a crime. You are obliged by law to control your urges.

 

OTOH, homosexuality is not a crime. Why should homosexuals have to "choose" not to partake in this so-called "gay lifestyle"? Why don't you choose not to partake in your heterosexual lifestyle?

[Emn1ty]

You can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that we are all differently wired. Some like same sex partners, other from the opposite sex. Nothing we can do about it. Why would you not give in to your natural urges? We all crave love, sex, confirmation,.... why should some hide what they are because some others feel uncomfortable with that choice.

 

I am perfectly understanding of being differently wired. We can't do anything about what we like or prefer, we can do something about what we actually act on. We don't give in to our natural urges because our natural urges aren't always what we logically want out of life. For example, sex isn't always practical which is why many of us don't just go around screwing each other silly. Are you saying it's wrong to consciously and willingly deny these urges? Who gives you the right to pass judgement on those that do? It's nothing to do with others, but with personal choices and I find it presumptious of you to think people make choices because of what others think. For example, women who get breast enhancements or reductions probably aren't doing it just because they think others will enjoy the change. Maybe they just like looking that way?

 

But people today enjoy imposing their perceived social adherence onto others who could care less. Assuming that because someone chooses not to conform to anti-conformity that they are somehow damaged or warped mentally by society and didn't think things through because obviously their life decision doesn't match their own or the popular "anti-indoctrination" opinion.

 

 

Presumably overcoming your ADHD symptoms has benefitted you in some way.

What benefit is there to deny your own sexuality?

 

Personal ones, perhaps? People have their reasons or lack-there-of. Doesn't mean you have a right to tell them they can and cannot choose to do with their own lives.

 

Pedophilia is a crime, and rape is a crime. You are obliged by law to control your urges.

 

OTOH, homosexuality is not a crime. Why should homosexuals have to "choose" not to partake in this so-called "gay lifestyle"? Why don't you choose not to partake in your heterosexual lifestyle?

 

Crime or not, they are easily comparable. It used to be a crime for white people to marry outside their race, didn't stop it from happening. Legality shouldn't be the qualifying factor here. Not in this discussion anyways. Bottom line is people have the choice to live that way or not. It is a choice that they actively make. And people do quite often explore outside their sexuality and return to being heterosexual after attempting bisexuality. It's not uncommon for people to d things contrary to their nature for whatever reason. Just because you have imposed some kind of requirement on what they should do given their preferences doesn't mean they have to conform to that expectation.

 

It's simply disrespectful to say that people don't have a choice in how they live their lives, and it minimizes the decisions made by much of the LGBT community to undergo transitions, or openly come out as being gay within their families or communities. They made that choice, and bravely endured the consequences as well as benefited from the positive results of that decision. I doubt most of them took that path without some level of consideration of the pro's and cons to doing so. Cause that's what people do, weight the odds and make educated decisions when they may effect their future.

[TMYW]

May not be a choice to be gay, it is definitely a choice to be intolerant of other's beliefs. If you can't deal with the fact that some people do not want to be around homosexual couples and rituals then that's on you, not them. Tolerance goes both ways, and forcing people into situations where they do not want to be does not help matters.

If you don't want to be around homosexuals, don't start a business. Simple as that.

[TMYW]

Crime or not, they are easily comparable. It used to be a crime for white people to marry outside their race, didn't stop it from happening. Legality shouldn't be the qualifying factor here. Not in this discussion anyways. Bottom line is people have the choice to live that way or not. It is a choice that they actively make. And people do quite often explore outside their sexuality and return to being heterosexual after attempting bisexuality. It's not uncommon for people to d things contrary to their nature for whatever reason. Just because you have imposed some kind of requirement on what they should do given their preferences doesn't mean they have to conform to that expectation.

 

It's simply disrespectful to say that people don't have a choice in how they live their lives, and it minimizes the decisions made by much of the LGBT community to undergo transitions, or openly come out as being gay within their families or communities. They made that choice, and bravely endured the consequences as well as benefited from the positive results of that decision. I doubt most of them took that path without some level of consideration of the pro's and cons to doing so. Cause that's what people do, weight the odds and make educated decisions when they may effect their future.

No, they are not comparable. Yes, it used to be crime for inter-racial marriage, but statutes that forbade it were ruled unconstitutional. Sure, you can choose to be sexually active or be a celibate regardless of your sexual orientation. So, what's your point? 

 

People don't "attempt" bisexuality. They are or they're not. People don't choose who they're attracted to. Yes, a bisexual can consciously choose to only have sex with a person of the opposite sex after "exploring their sexuality", but it doesn't mean that they're no longer going to be sexually attracted to a person of the same sex ever again.

 

Who says people don't or shouldn't have a choice in how they live their lives? It's the religious nutters who are saying it shouldn't be a choice. They're the ones saying that it's against "god's will" and trying to impose their "choice" on others.

[Emn1ty]

No, they are not comparable. Yes, it used to be crime for inter-racial marriage, but statutes that forbade it were ruled unconstitutional. Sure, you can choose to be sexually active or be a celibate regardless of your sexual orientation. So, what's your point? 

 

People don't "attempt" bisexuality. They are or they're not. People don't choose who they're attracted to. Yes, a bisexual can consciously choose to only have sex with a person of the opposite sex after "exploring their sexuality", but it doesn't mean that they're no longer going to be sexually attracted to a person of the same sex ever again.

 

Who says people don't or shouldn't have a choice in how they live their lives? It's the religious nutters who are saying it shouldn't be a choice. They're the ones saying that it's against "god's will" and trying to impose their "choice" on others.

 

And yet you've set the standard that once you've done something or tried out something you are no longer able to go back to being something else. You can't try out bisexuality or homosexuality, or explore those topics without permanently being one of them. I think that's an unfair expectation of people. Saying you have to be homosexual or bisexual to be able to explore those topics, and by doing so you are permanently classified as those things despite it just being exploration. Because to you, it's a black and white issue. I don't really consider it so black and white, since there's a lot we learn through trail and error in relationships.

[Mockingbird]

Most. Boring. Social. Issue. Ever.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Then you made my point for me. It's asinine to claim that state's rights are dead. Thank you.

Yeah, states rights aren't "dead", but it's well established that federal law trumps them (And has been for a long time).

That's what's so interesting about this ruling, it's not that the Supreme Court has decided that marriage equality should be introduced, but rather that it's always been allowed and that any laws that stopped it were unconstitutional (And therefore any state laws that blocked it were also invalid). It's going to be very, very hard for conservatives to put this genie back into the bottle now (Short of getting rid of the 14th amendment or removing marriage recognition from the law entirely)

[TMYW]

And yet you've set the standard that once you've done something or tried out something you are no longer able to go back to being something else. You can't try out bisexuality or homosexuality, or explore those topics without permanently being one of them. I think that's an unfair expectation of people. Saying you have to be homosexual or bisexual to be able to explore those topics, and by doing so you are permanently classified as those things despite it just being exploration. Because to you, it's a black and white issue. I don't really consider it so black and white, since there's a lot we learn through trail and error in relationships.

WTF are you talking about? I didn't make any claim about "trying out something" and not being able to "go back". You can be celibate, "try sex", and go back to being a celibate. You're conflating natural attraction with acting on that attraction. I'm saying if you're inclined to "experiment" with a member of a particular sex, it's due to your natural attraction to that particular sex you're experimenting with. Attraction is not a conscious choice. If you were open to "experimenting" with somebody of the same sex, your natural inclination that caused that openness doesn't necessarily go away even if you make a conscious decision to never "experiment" again. Can said "natural inclination" change over time? I suppose so. I have no idea since my natural inclination has never changed in my lifetime. However, I also suspect that some people are capable (meaning physiological capability and not some learned capability) of subconsciously repressing their inclinations due to societal, familial, or religious pressure and can honestly say that they're not attracted to members of a particular sex even though they might have been without the repression.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

Personal ones, perhaps? People have their reasons or lack-there-of. Doesn't mean you have a right to tell them they can and cannot choose to do with their own lives.

There is no personal benefit to deny your sexuality apart from the fact that society will treat you differently. If we lived in a world without hate and everyone was accepted for who they are, do you think half of the people who deny their sexuality would continue to do so? I doubt it.