Supreme Court has ruled
- Thread starter scartiger
- Start date
Great, now every time I go bang a guy he's gonna expect me to put a ring on his finger.
Can we expect the return of fabulous tiger now?
igachoochoo (in the middle)approves of the ruling.
If he's lurking, you just trollololol'ed him.
Is that Appalachian guy and iceheart on both sides? I kid I kid.igachoochoo (in the middle)approves of the ruling.
I thought the title was referring to the nationwide legalization of something else. You got my hopes up. About time for this though.
Something can be legal but still sinful, and IMO, Gay marriage now falls into that category. If other people feel differently, then that is their belief and I respect that, but nothing the Supreme Court says is going to change my opinion.
Only the beginning of where we're going as a nation. What is the Supreme Court going to say when the next person wants to be married to multiple men or women? Sad part is seems like the majority of the people just don't care.
This week has to be a world record for the most slippery slopes.
AND THEN ANIMALS AND ROBOTS AND BROOMS....IT WILL BE ANARCHY....
Or just maybe people will realize that using a book that is a few centuries old, cobbled together over the course of 300ish years, shouldn't be their sole source to determine societal norms...
NOW falls? Where was it before? I guess your saying is in the now "sinful legal" category. it's been legal for a decade in several places.
Some won't like this but it will provide more support to the ever crumbling stability of the family structure. Selfishly alone, I'm all for that. ON AVERAGE, gay families have a higher stable growth environment than just a man and woman.
I want better families as a whole.
Gay shouldn't be allowed to marry because it will certainly lead to babies marrying giraffes.
How can I be expected to explain this to my kids?
How can I be expected to explain this to my kids?
exactly
Louis C.K had the best response I have ever heard to that question. Basically he said "I dunno? You just talk to them? Wait so two adults who love one another cant share that love because you dont want to talk to your ugly fat obnoxious children?"
You have the right to let whatever leads your life as I. But one day what if you didn't cause of laws passed.
exactly
Louis C.K had the best response I have ever heard to that question. Basically he said "I dunno? You just talk to them? Wait so two adults who love one another cant share that love because you dont want to talk to your ugly fat obnoxious children?"
So you're saying that 2 women or 2 men together can produce a child to make a family?
No but they can adopt and provide good homes for the hundreds of thousands of children that straight couples in the United States have produced and abandoned.
Actually, NO civilization of significance, even those where homosexuality was relatively common and accepted (Greece and Rome), have Ever recognized gay marriage. Has to do with MUCH more than the Bible. It is totally ignoring basic knowledge of human anatomy, the very reason for two different sexes, one of the main reasons for marriage: children.
It is sin and perversion, just like child molestation or beastiality.
And, I love them anyway, even though I hate sin.
Have you ever thought that same sex unions can't reproduce that it may be wrong. Just take religion and government out of it sometimes common sense should go into play.
From the Majority opinion:
"Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and
persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons
I would say marriage has zero to do with anatomy, biology, and genealogy.
This ^ really should be the end of the discussion, but it wont be ............
That's because you are brainwashed by the media.
If my child had cancer, I would still love my child. The more you love your cold, the more you hate the cancer.
Absolutely, there are children in my own extended family who were born to two, straight, married parents that haven't seen their "fathers" in years and live barely above the poverty level. Now I am not gay(not that there is anything wrong with that) but I am a divorced dad of a beautiful adopted little girl who sees me every day and I can promise you her life and opportunities are infinitely better than her relatives. So just because you are straight and can procreate doesn't mean you will be a better husband/wife/parent than someone who actually wants to be part of a child's life.
Last edited:
Or just maybe people will realize that using a book that is a few centuries old, cobbled together over the course of 300ish years, shouldn't be their sole source to determine societal norms...[/QUOTE]
How very haughty of you. Way to trivialize the Bible. There's also plenty of examples of societies' norms in that book and where those societies ended up. I think it's hard to take some seriously where they speak tolerance out of one side of their mouth, but marginalize religious values and ideals for a greater part of the population than the appx 1mil gay couples in the country. Seems to me that more people believe in the words in the Bible than words on a constitution written by some men a few hundred years ago.
How very haughty of you. Way to trivialize the Bible. There's also plenty of examples of societies' norms in that book and where those societies ended up. I think it's hard to take some seriously where they speak tolerance out of one side of their mouth, but marginalize religious values and ideals for a greater part of the population than the appx 1mil gay couples in the country. Seems to me that more people believe in the words in the Bible than words on a constitution written by some men a few hundred years ago.
Neither can two people who are straight where one is infertile or where one or the other is above the age where they can biologically have a child. Are you saying the only people that should be legally allowed to get married are two straight people who are biologically capable of having a child?
