Law US Supreme Court OKs gay marriage in all 50 states

[grimballer]

The parallel with the civil rights movement is spot on.

Don't wanna be segregated because you are Black? Be a White. (Well I guess this is possible today... :icon_chee)

Don't wanna be prohibited from marrying your same-sex partner? Well, be Ungay.

It's quite similar. The difference is that most SSM opponents and almost all gay haters consider homosexuality as a behaviour. You're not gay, you do gay stuff because you like to put your penis in anuses. Thus, you can also choose not to be gay and do something different.

This has always puzzled me. Could they choose to fuck men starting today?

It's quite ridiculous or even moronic comparing the two.

Ban on interracial marriages was introduced as measure to prevent ppl from mixing.

Black man n white woman or vice versa are/were perfectly fit to go together just like white man n white woman were or black man n black woman.

Also considering that race is a social construct n you can pretty much see why it didn't make sense.

It only makes sense in a society that openly promotes segregation.

Last time I checked, we don't live in a society where gays are treated differently just cause they are gay.

They can use same bathrooms as non gays, can sit next to non gays interact with non gays n yes even marry non gays.

They have exactly same rights as non gays.

So now can we stop with this ridiculous comparison?

 

[Kiddo716]

It's quite ridiculous or even moronic comparing the two.

Ban on interracial marriages was introduced as measure to prevent ppl from mixing.

Black man n white woman or vice versa are/were perfectly fit to go together just like white man n white woman were or black man n black woman.

Also considering that race is a social construct n you can pretty much see why it didn't make sense.

It only makes sense in a society that openly promotes segregation.

Last time I checked, we don't live in a society where gays are treated differently just cause they are gay.

They can use same bathrooms as non gays, can sit next to non gays interact with non gays n yes even marry non gays.

They have exactly same rights as non gays.

So now can we stop with this ridiculous comparison?

you're right. we don't. anymore. thanks to the SCOTUS ruling. xtians used the same old arguments for segregation that they have used against SSM. it's not natural. bible allows segregation. and so on and so on.

 

[JDragon]

Last time I checked, we don't live in a society where gays are treated differently just cause they are gay.

What was the last time you checked?

They have exactly same rights as non gays.

Now that they can marry the person they love, you're getting closer.

Also, last time I checked, this discussion was dying down until you hilariously entered and said "Why is this still going, this should have long been over" - you had me then - only to proclaim "and it's clear that SSM is wrong".

You crack me up :icon_chee

I'm outta here. You were right, this thread should not be going as strong as it is any more. It only is because the butthurt is infinitely strong.

 

[grimballer]

who's saying "fuck my own kids"? we are positing a scenario (one that plays out constantly btw) in where a couple that can have kids but doesn't wants to adopt instead. and you are aware that you can adopt kids from other countries, right? you can even have kids or your own and still adopt.

your thought process is fascinating and contains no logic whatsoever.

Yet you advocating for any other means of having kids except having naturally your own biological kids

Is demonstrating great deal of logic n reason, right?

You really need to take a good look in the mirror

 

[Kiddo716]

Yet you advocating for any other means of having kids except having naturally your own biological kids

Is demonstrating great deal of logic n reason, right?

You really need to take a good look in the mirror

you don't possess strong reading comprehension skills do you? I literally said couples can have their own kids while still adopting. christ on a stick you are dense.

 

[Francis Rossi]

Far from it. I'm still here Francis.

Not for you personally, just whatever credibility you had. Hawaii is part of the USA, despite what some Hawaiians may want. Being born in Hawaii means you were born in the USA, unless you were born before 1959. Even then, given the US government illegally annexed Hawaii in 1898, you could possibly argue for anyone born prior to 1959.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Last time I checked, we don't live in a society where gays are treated differently just cause they are gay.
...
They have exactly same rights as non gays.

This is incorrect. There are many states where, even despite this recent ruling, active discrimination against homosexuals is legal. Where I live people can be fired, evicted, denied services, etc. simply for being gay.

By the idiotic rationale some of you mouth-breathers use in regards to homosexuals entering into "traditional" marriages, they could simply choose not to get evicted I guess.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

they invented nothing. 14th amendment, equal protection.

Read the majority opinion and the descents - they didn't rule based on equal protection or precedent.

This is an invented argument.

Whenever a Supreme Court decides on a matter, it de facto creates new law. It decides on matters that have not finally been decided before and therefore settles the matter.

It therefore is a hollow arguments used mainly by politicians of all colors in all countries that have a constitutional court. Whenver the Court tells them they fucked up on a law, they go rabid and yell 'they have dem quasi-legislative powerz!!1!' but that really is the point of having a court that interpretes the constitution.

The Court is supposed to interpret the law based on a reading of the law and precedent.

-the Court has held that

 

[dontsnitch]

This is incorrect. There are many states where, even despite this recent ruling, active discrimination against homosexuals is legal. Where I live people can be fired, evicted, denied services, etc. simply for being gay.

By the idiotic rationale some of you mouth-breathers use in regards to homosexuals entering into "traditional" marriages, they could simply choose not to get evicted I guess.

Yeah, but these days you get people getting fired for all sorts of crap. As it was explained to me, being an employee is not a right, if you don't like what I stand for, you have the right to fire me.

 

[Makani]

Read the majority opinion and the descents - they didn't rule based on equal protection or precedent.




The Court is supposed to interpret the law based on a reading of the law and precedent.

-the Court has held that

 

[Makani]

Yeah, but these days you get people getting fired for all sorts of crap. As it was explained to me, being an employee is not a right, if you don't like what I stand for, you have the right to fire me.

So you'd be totally fine with me firing you for being a Christian? I feel like you wouldn't.

 

[dontsnitch]

So you'd be totally fine with me firing you for being a Christian? I feel like you wouldn't.

That's just it, I'd like some consistency. Either don't fire people for things they believe or say outside of work, or fire anyone for anything.

 

[Makani]

That's just it, I'd like some consistency. Either don't fire people for things they believe or say outside of work, or fire anyone for anything.

Are people getting fired for being Christian? I'm not sure I'm getting your objection.

 

[grimballer]

you don't possess strong reading comprehension skills do you? I literally said couples can have their own kids while still adopting. christ on a stick you are dense.

N I said there's no problem with that, but it seems you're some raging homosexual or just some weird ss sympathizer n just ignored that part n proceed with insults.

The problem is when you n morons like you are advocating adoption over having your own kids.

That right there shows you're nothing more than confused nihilist/socialist n your ideas make as much sense someone suffering from schizophrenia.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Read the majority opinion and the descents - they didn't rule based on equal protection or precedent.

The Court is supposed to interpret the law based on a reading of the law and precedent.

-the Court has held that “liberty” under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradi-tion.’” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 701, 720–721 (1997).

-Nor, under the broader definition, can they claim that the States have restricted their ability to go about their daily lives as they would be able to absent governmental restrictions.

Except, you know, you're wrong.
The majority decision very early cites both precedent and the equal protection clause and that's clearly the basis of the decision. Kennedy waxes a bit much but the 14th is still the basis.

The dissents are worse and are legally useless.

 

[Kiddo716]

i'm not advocating anything over anything else. I plan on having kids (with my wife) before adoption is an option. I don't plan on adopting but I'm not going to begrudge anyone that does over having kids of their own.

you are taking a weird position that I've never seen before, and that's saying something.

 

[UpaLoompa]

grimballer is a special breed of stupid, which is saying something given the overall level of stupid in the WR.

 

[grimballer]

This is incorrect. There are many states where, even despite this recent ruling, active discrimination against homosexuals is legal. Where I live people can be fired, evicted, denied services, etc. simply for being gay.

By the idiotic rationale some of you mouth-breathers use in regards to homosexuals entering into "traditional" marriages, they could simply choose not to get evicted I guess.

It's funny how in reality the opposite is true.

Even if you are suspected of holding "anti gay" views n by "anti gay" I mean not supporting ssm, you can get your ass fired.

So give me a break

 

[PainIsLIfe]

you're right. we don't. anymore. thanks to the SCOTUS ruling. xtians used the same old arguments for segregation that they have used against SSM. it's not natural. bible allows segregation. and so on and so on.

Slow down, it was racist that used that argument; not Christians. Let's stick to facts....

 

[Kiddo716]

Slow down, it was racist that used that argument; not Christians. Let's stick to facts....

racist xtians did. yes. those are the facts.