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

[Emn1ty]

I did read, quite carefully.

 

You're pretty much saying that homosexuals should just ignore their feelings and choose a more conventional relationship instead of giving in to their urges. You're denigrating their emotions into nothing more than simple choice.  Answer this, assuming you're hetero, at what point in your life did you "choose" to like people of the opposite sex, and what made you make that choice?

 

After all, if it's a choice, you should be able to answer that question quite easily.

 

I may have not chosen to like women, or to like particular kinds of women. But I did choose to enter a relationship with a woman who does not meet my preferred visual appearance (in fact there are many things that I dislike about her, but I've compromised because I trust her and believe she's worth it). People do this all the time. What you're implying is that we're slaves to our emotions and have no choice in the matter at all.

 

You're suggesting that because I am saying people can act contrary to their nature that means they have to. No, they don't have to. People are individuals who can make their own choices. I'm entirely neutral on which choices they make but it pains me to see people think that if you aren't "true to yourself" by their own standards that your robbing yourself of something and thus will be automatically unhappy. It's quite the presumption, and to be perfectly honest, just as selfish and inconsiderate to impose yourself upon such people who don't deserve any of that.

 

Me being heterosexual or homosexual has nothing to do with this. I've chosen to not have sex until now. Resisted the advances of my girlfriend for a year because I don't feel comfortable with it no matter how much just having sex would probably be being "true to myself". Because I chose, and no it's not a simple choice. It's got many nuances that attribute to it. I find it disrespectful to assume that choices aren't dynamic and based on the situation. They can be simple, or insurmountably complex.

 

Again, stop reading between lines. There's no ulterior motive here but you seem to be digging for one as best as you can.

[T3X4S]

How about you respect and tolerate my religious views as protected by the Constitution!

OK, how about your religion, that is protected, give some tolerance to people, who are protected as well, yet different than you ?

Remember that saying that was popular a while back WWJD ?  Well, in this case, what do you think your Jesus would do ?

 

[Ryuudou]

All humans having the same basic rights to something as simple as marriage?

 

Conservatives and bigots must be on suicide watch right now. Lot of fascists they are.

[Dashel]

I don't like it and I don't like how it was done.  I also hate how so many progressives and feminists like to lump the Christians over this one.  I don't care what God or gods you pray to, gay marriage is an oxymoron.  To me, marriage is a social construct that isn't about love.

 

I also hate that this issue has gotten such focus, while unfathomably more people are disenfranchised and imprisoned for other things they choose to put into their body.  If you squandered this opportunity and don't stand with them, then fie on your selfishness.

 

And really, stop with the rainbow flag on everything.  Your suburban indifference surely won the day.

[seta-san]

On the contrary, there are perceived benefits in evolutionary theory while being homosexual. A lot of hypotheses have been made that could actually explain why it can be a good thing in terms of competition as well as another way of controlling the rate of breeding naturally. You don't have to be masochistic to want to take part in a same sex lifestyle, if you were bisexual in nature. I like that you bring up DNA and homosexuality too, I hope you don't believe there is a literal link between the two but are using it as an argument against the idea of a "gay gene".

 

Nature has done a lot of things through evolution that lead to extinction and a lot of things that did not. We and a lot of species are still here and there are examples of homosexuality to be found in almost every species that we can study.

 

I won't argue that feminists have ruined marriage but that won't stop same sex marriages from happening and who knows, maybe they'll do better at it.

 

there's no evolutionary benefit in homosexuality. you need to remember that the whole LGBT community is 4% of the general population and half of that is bisexual. so that leaves only 2% of the population that is gay or 1 in 50. seeing that human beings often times lived in tribes with less than 50 members each in the over all picture there is no benefit to the greater human population

[seta-san]

It's cute watching ppl who dont believe in education debate about science.  On the upside, this is proof that trailer parks are getting wifi!

 

it's funny, because i'm an atheist, strong believer in science and I live in large house. You might take offense to the term birth defect.. but we're not looking at a defect like a cleft lip. it's more like a birth mark.

[Flawedspirit]

Most. Boring. Social. Issue. Ever.

I dunno, the Yanks are making this great fun to watch. Most other countries go "SSM is legal now, kay?" and their various political subdivisions (if applicable) just go"Sounds good to me!"

[HawkMan]

I may have not chosen to like women, or to like particular kinds of women. But I did choose to enter a relationship with a woman who does not meet my preferred visual appearance (in fact there are many things that I dislike about her, but I've compromised because I trust her and believe she's worth it). People do this all the time. What you're implying is that we're slaves to our emotions and have no choice in the matter at all.

 

 

Besides your comparison being utterly ridiculous, I'm assumign he reason she's worth it, and why you're with the "imperfect" woman(oh the horror) us because you LOVE her. 

 

I'm assuming you see my point here. 

[mudslag]

I'm saying I won't judge people based on their life choices, if they choose that path themselves that's their own choice. I don't get why people presume to think that you have to be a certain way in order to be true to yourself. It's just a different type of conformity you're imposing on them. It's not about how happy I think they'll be. It's about themselves and their own happiness. If they are comfortable with their life choices, then who am I (or you) to say otherwise?

 

 

When did you choose to become heterosexual? How do you know they aren't true to themselves? Don't worry that was a rhetorical question, you don't know because you can ONLY speak for yourself. You have no clue if someone is true to themselves. 

How about you respect and tolerate my religious views as protected by the Constitution!

 

 

 

 

That's not how the Constitution works. The Constitution doesn't protect you from being offended or others having intolerant views of you, your religious views or your religion. 

[mudslag]

 

I don't like it and I don't like how it was done.  I also hate how so many progressives and feminists like to lump the Christians over this one.  I don't care what God or gods you pray to, gay marriage is an oxymoron.  To me, marriage is a social construct that isn't about love.

 

 

 

All the more reason it should be fair and equal for all.

 

 

 

I also hate that this issue has gotten such focus, while unfathomably more people are disenfranchised and imprisoned for other things they choose to put into their body.  If you squandered this opportunity and don't stand with them, then fie on your selfishness.

 

And really, stop with the rainbow flag on everything.  Your suburban indifference surely won the day.

 

 

 

[Emn1ty]

Besides your comparison being utterly ridiculous, I'm assumign he reason she's worth it, and why you're with the "imperfect" woman(oh the horror) us because you LOVE her. 

 

I'm assuming you see my point here. 

 

Well, it seems to me people in this thread expect that if you are attracted to men your only option is to date men, since if you don't you'll be utterly depressed and untrue to yourself. This same logic can be applied to someone not dating a woman who fits the exact physical and mental criteria someone is attracted to, and that if they are denying themselves their ideal partner then they are going to be depressed and unfulfilled in life.

 

When did you choose to become heterosexual? How do you know they aren't true to themselves? Don't worry that was a rhetorical question, you don't know because you can ONLY speak for yourself. You have no clue if someone is true to themselves. 

 

I don't choose to be heterosexual. I do choose to date women though. I could also choose not to date women, cause that's within my power. We presume to say that people need to be true to themselves yet at the same time we can't possibly ascertain if they are being true to themselves. Why make the presumption at all then? Why is it somehow fact that if you aren't "true to yourself" (by whatever definition that may be) you'll be a depressed wreck?

[mudslag]

 

I don't choose to be heterosexual. I do choose to date women though. I could also choose not to date women, cause that's within my power. 

 

Dating anyone is an action based on your natural inclinations. That doesn't change what your natural urges are. So you choose to go with your inclinations instead of going against it. After all you admit to being naturally heterosexual so it makes sense that you go with your natural preference of women. There is absolutely ZERO difference when a homosexual doing the exact same thing. 

 

 

 

We presume to say that people need to be true to themselves yet at the same time we can't possibly ascertain if they are being true to themselves. Why make the presumption at all then? Why is it somehow fact that if you aren't "true to yourself" (by whatever definition that may be) you'll be a depressed wreck?

 

Only you can know if you're being true to yourself. I think it's more fair to say that if you go against your tendencies that would be going against your true self. But again only they can truly know. The rest of your comment makes no sense. Who says you'll be a depressed wreck if you're not true to yourself? Is that some unwritten rule of the universe?

[TPreston]

Texas has finally fallen

 

http://time.com/3938782/jack-evans-george-harris-marriage-texas/

[Emn1ty]

Only you can know if you're being true to yourself. I think it's more fair to say that if you go against your tendencies that would be going against your true self. But again only they can truly know. The rest of your comment makes no sense. Who says you'll be a depressed wreck if you're not true to yourself? Is that some unwritten rule of the universe?

 

I agree it makes no sense, but people in this thread are implying that if a gay man doesn't date other men they'll likely be depressed. I think that's an asinine conclusion. To be honest what I'm saying is exactly what you're saying.

[FloatingFatMan]

I agree it makes no sense, but people in this thread are implying that if a gay man doesn't date other men they'll likely be depressed. I think that's an asinine conclusion. To be honest what I'm saying is exactly what you're saying.

 

No, we're saying that if a gay man is made to date -women-, THEN he's likely to end up depressed.  His only option then, at least according to some, is to not date anyone. That means he's going to be lonely all his life, and therefore probably depressed.

 

Why should he have to go through that, when those trying to force him to, get to be happy?

 

Let's turn it on its head.  Say, for the sake of argument, a law was passed that forbade you from dating or marrying women. Not just the woman you happen to love, ANY women. Would you be happy with that? Could you live with the prospect that you'd never have a partner you loved?

[Lazy8s]

OK, how about your religion, that is protected, give some tolerance to people, who are protected as well, yet different than you ?

Remember that saying that was popular a while back WWJD ?  Well, in this case, what do you think your Jesus would do ?

 

Ok, jumping in willy nilly here.

 

I firmly believe he would immediately express extreme and utter disappointment in all those who claim his name who supported this massive effort to exert control over those he loves and died for.

 

He never commanded anyone to single out any group for any reason in order to force anything at all on them.

 

Christian lawmakers and the pastors and clergy who led this charge may be my brothers and sisters in the faith, but I'm deeply ashamed of them right now.

[FloatingFatMan]

Ok, jumping in willy nilly here.

 

I firmly believe he would immediately express extreme and utter disappointment in all those who claim his name who supported this massive effort to exert control over those he loves and died for.

 

He never commanded anyone to single out any group for any reason in order to force anything at all on them.

 

Christian lawmakers and the pastors and clergy who led this charge may be my brothers and sisters in the faith, but I'm deeply ashamed of them right now.

 

If Jesus the man was even 0.000000000001% anything like Jesus the myth, I think he would be utterly disgusted by what organised religion has done in his name.

[Lazy8s]

If Jesus the man was even 0.000000000001% anything like Jesus the myth, I think he would be utterly disgusted by what organised religion has done in his name.

In all honesty, I believe he would be asked to leave most of the churches he would walk into. That saddens me.

[HawkMan]

If Jesus the man was even 0.000000000001% anything like Jesus the myth, I think he would be utterly disgusted by what organised religion has done in his name.

 

Seeing as by all evidence Jesus the man was against organized religion in the first place I'd say that would be correct.

[seta-san]

Seeing as by all evidence Jesus the man was against organized religion in the first place I'd say that would be correct.

Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

 

sorry, to Jesus the old law still stands. Leviticus is the law of Moses.

 

Some people think that because Jesus said some things that sound a bit hippy and that this is some live and let live version of God. Anyone who has read and studied the bible knows this isn't true.

 

Matthew 10:34

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

 

most people who believe that jesus was some sort of hippy who offered blanket love to the world and forgave all sins hasn't gotten past an illustrated children's bible. read the whole thing. it's mind blowing the things you probably don't know.

 

[HawkMan]

The point was that Jesus was against organized religion and priests controlling the people. religion was personal, not something to be done in churches under the command of priests who decided what you should believe.  and how to interpret a book that is so self contradicting it doesn't make any sense unless you chose to ignore 2/3rds of it at the very least. 

[Lazy8s]

Matthew 5:17

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

 

sorry, to Jesus the old law still stands. Leviticus is the law of Moses.

 

Some people think that because Jesus said some things that sound a bit hippy and that this is some live and let live version of God. Anyone who has read and studied the bible knows this isn't true.

 

Matthew 10:34

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

 

most people who believe that jesus was some sort of hippy who offered blanket love to the world and forgave all sins hasn't gotten past an illustrated children's bible. read the whole thing. it's mind blowing the things you probably don't know.

 

 

1 Corinthians 5:12-13New International Version (NIV)

¹² What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? ¹³ God will judge those outside.

[seta-san]

The point was that Jesus was against organized religion and priests controlling the people. religion was personal, not something to be done in churches under the command of priests who decided what you should believe.  and how to interpret a book that is so self contradicting it doesn't make any sense unless you chose to ignore 2/3rds of it at the very least. 

there's no evidence of that. Jesus was even a rabbi who read the torah on the Sabbath. He went to the temple and made offerings. Where do you get this feeling that he was against organized religion?

[Lazy8s]

there's no evidence of that. Jesus was even a rabbi who read the torah on the Sabbath. He went to the temple and made offerings. Where do you get this feeling that he was against organized religion?

Here's a reasonably decent read on where that likely stems from.

 

https://bible.org/seriespage/23-jesus-condemns-scribes-and-pharisees

[seta-san]

 

Paul thought it was a Christians job to judge those inside the church, not outside.

 

 

Jesus showed grace and mercy as well as the ability to discern the malicious intent of the accusers.

 

 

Yes, parts of the OT are still pertinent, and yes, if something was an affront to God in the old, it still is in the new. The issue is who gets to make that call and alienating people from God that he acted to save. That's today's issue.

 

Jesus gave exactly two commands that we are to follow, to Love God with all our heart, mind, body and soul, and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Who is out neighbor? Pretty much everyone.

 

Now a question - If Christians are supposed to go after sinners according to the old testament as you're implying, where is wholesale action against adulterers? Fornicators? Child molesters? Thieves? The list of things that are an affront to God is pretty long, yet our Christian claiming leadership is focused on one group and one group only. And by doing so they've made a mockery of his name and those who follow him with the end result that so many people now hate the one who loves them the most.

 

Grace or Judgement is his call, not ours.

 

Just take a look at Uganda to see a stellar example of why.

 

it's funny that you open with Corinthians

 

1 Corinthians 2:15

"The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments,"

 

The bible doesn't tell you not to judge. it tells you to JUDGE EVERYTHING... but by god's measure, not ours.

on John 8...

you seem to think that this is supposed to be some blanket acceptance of sin and degeneracy everywhere. read a little ahead and you get

 

"No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you,"Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

 

that's right. Jesus would let a gay person go  if they "leave their life of sin".