Reply With Quote
You should list the countries where it is legal, and the countries where it isn't, and see which one you would rather have America emulate.
Don't be so afraid. They're just gheys.
You should list the countries where it is legal, and the countries where it isn't, and see which one you would rather have America emulate.
I'm sure the same people saying that this will end America are the same people shouting that repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell was going to crater our military...
but servicemen were gonna get butt raped in the showers by all the gays
Years and years of debate... I've yet to hear one decent argument opposing same-sex marriage. What two consenting adults do with each other is no concern of mine.
yep, and pastors have never been FORCED DOWN THEIR THROAT any marriage they didn't want to bless.
right-wing FUD, LIES, Christian Taliban FALSELY claiming persecution, criminalisation, destruction of hetero-marriages and families. Total, utter BULL . But they repeat it because their ignorant believers love it.
do you really think your random capitalization add some flavor to your posts? just makes you seem like you're yelling angrily/emotionally
I'm not sure at what point I should feel sorry for all the GOPs squirming like crazy. Heck, even the ones who are pretending they're somewhat in favour of the ruling are starting to lose it.
"that's like, just your opinion, man"
of course its my opinion. thats why i said it
Do conservatives only care about guns and how people use their privates?
95% of my posts are from my work computer in the afternoon once the markets close. I don't spend weekends on here either, I've got better things to do. Your theory couldn't be further from the truth, you aren't very good at this.
I showed my friends this very thread, they weren't very interested and wondered why I even showed them. I pointed out your posts and they laughed at you for taking all of this so seriously. One even called you a got.
TSA loves gay-baiting so much he buys it secondhand
Ancient scripture can be a source of higher values and spiritual strength, but any time you in a literal-minded way impose specific legal behavior because of it, you’re committing anachronism. Since this is the case, fundamentalists are always highly selective, trying to impose parts of the scripture on us but conveniently ignoring the parts even they can’t stomach as modern persons.
1. In Exodus 21:10 it is clearly written of the husband: “If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife.” This is the same rule as the Qur’an in Islam, that another wife can only be taken if the two are treated equally.
2. Let’s take Solomon, who maintained 300 concubines or sex slaves. 1 Kings 11:3: “He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.” Led him astray! That’s all the Bible minded about this situation? Abducting 300 people and keeping them immured for sex? And the objection is only that they had a lot of diverse religions and interested Solomon in them? (By the way, this is proof that he wasn’t Jewish but just a legendary Canaanite polytheist). I think a settled gay marriage is rather healthier than imprisoning 300 people in your house to have sex with at your whim.
3. Not only does the Bible authorize slavery and human trafficking, but it urges slaves to “submit themselves” to their masters. It should be remembered that masters had sexual rights over their property assuming the slave-woman was not betrothed to another, and so this advice is intended for concubines as well as other slaves. And, the Bible even suggests that slaves quietly accept sadism and cruelty from their masters: 1 Peter 2:18: “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” So a nice gay marriage between two legal equals with no acts of cruelty would be much better than this biblical nightmare.
4. Then there is Abraham, who made a sex slave of his wife’s slave, the Egyptian girl Hagar, and then abandoned her to cruel treatment.
Genesis 16:1-6:
“Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; 2 so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.” Abram agreed to what Sarai said. 3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. 4 He slept with Hagar, and she conceived. When she knew she was pregnant, she began to despise her mistress. 5 Then Sarai said to Abram, “You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering. I put my slave in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me. May the Lord judge between you and me.” 6 “Your slave is in your hands,” Abram said. “Do with her whatever you think best.” Then Sarai mistreated Hagar; so she fled from her.
So let’s get this straight. Abraham isn’t said to have married Hagar. Apparently he and Sarah had separate property, because Hagar remains her slave. So he slept with someone else’s slave and got her pregnant. And then when that caused trouble between his wife and her slave, he washed his hands of his property-lover and let his wife mistreat her. As we know from 1 Peter, Hagar was supposed graciously to put up with this, but she was made of fiercer stuff than that, and you really have to root for her in this rather sick family situation.
5. According Mark 12:19, guys, if your brother kicks the bucket, you haveto marry your sister-in-law and knock her up. Since the Bible approved of multiple wives, you have to do this even if you’re already married. If you think in-laws are hard to get along with now, try being married to them.
6. So I don’t think this happens very much, but guys, in biblical marriage you might have to cut your wife’s hand off if she defends you too vigorously. That’s right. Say you’re at a bar and this big bald badass with tats starts smashing your face in. And say your wife likes you and wants to stop the guy from giving you a concussion. Say she reaches down and gets him by the balls. So the Bible would reward her for loyalty and bravery and fast thinking, right?
Nope. Now you have to cut off her hand. I mean have to. You’re not allowed to have a moment of weakness and think about how pretty her fingers are. Off with it, to the wrist
GOP, you think I’m making this up, right?
Deuteronomy 25:11-12: “11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.”
I’m not sure exactly what kind of weird marriage Deuteronomy is recommending, where certain actions taken by they wife to keep herself from being turned into a widow are punished by her husband by chopping off her hand.
7. The Bible doesn’t even approve of marriage at all! 1 Corinthians 7:8 “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.” So contrary to the GOP’s notion that the Bible authorizes only a single kind of marriage, of which it approves, actually it much prefers believers to die out in a single generation. Only the weak and unbiblical get married.
http://www.juancole.com/2015/06/bibl...e-between.html
scripture out of context with no knowledge of what you're reading. I'll school your lame ass later.
Scripture is what is is, but it absolutely cannot be the sole basis for legislating in the United States of America unless you just choose to ignore the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
There can be spiritual objections to all sorts of things. But it's only when the biblical view of a particular act can be coupled with a legitimate public policy justification that laws are appropriate. There are no more legitimate public policy justifications for denying the right to marry to same sex couples. Whatever reasons had been offered in the past have now all been debunked. That leaves only a biblical belief that sexuality is "wrong" (or, more correctly "sin"). Whether that reading of the Bible is tenable or not from a theological perspective is between a person and his church. Enforcing that Biblical view through law is establishment of religion -- it's the government adopting religious tenets as the sole basis for its action -- that is expressly prohibited by the First Amendment.
This situation is absolutely no different than the cir stance that existed immediately before and after anti-miscegenation laws and prohibitions on interracial marriage were deemed uncons utional. The basis for resisting interracial marriage was largely posited to be Biblical (and other justifications for such laws were manifestly garbage); the trial court judge in Loving v. Virginia explained that the law against interracial marriage existed because "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." Any religious objection to interracial marriage could not justify any state prohibiting such marriages.
The citizens of a State can believe whatever they choose to believe and are free to exercise their religious consciences as they see fit, but they cannot use the machinery of the State to force others to adhere to those beliefs, at least not without a substantial or legitimate non-Biblical justification. That is particularly true where the state's regulation inhibits a fundamental right; marriage has been defined for several generations now as a fundamental right in the United States under the Cons ution.
I'm frankly amazed at the number of "Cons utionalists" who have no idea how the Cons ution actually functions.
I've got no problem with gays. WTF are you rambling about?
"This situation is absolutely no different than the cir stance that existed immediately before and after anti-miscegenation laws and prohibitions on interracial marriage were deemed uncons utional."
The Time Bobby Jindal Waged War On A Local Official's 'Religious Liberty' To Deny Marriage Licenses
Gov. Bobby Jindal's administration has said Louisiana court clerks and other state employees who don't want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because of religious objections won't have to do so.
Jindal's office has said the governor's religious freedom executive order as well as state and federal law will protect clerks and state employees who have moral objections to gay marriage and don't feel comfortable handing out licenses to same-sex couples.
"We believe the U.S. Cons ution, Louisiana Cons ution, Louisiana's Preservation of Religious Freedom Act, as well as our Executive Order prevents government from compelling individuals to violate sincerely held religious beliefs. We will continue to fight to protect religious liberty," said Mike Reed, spokesman for the governor's office.
The Louisiana governor, however, was singing a different tune back in 2009.
That year, a local justice of the peace “refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple” because he said he doesn’t “believe in mixing the races that way.” He went on to say that he denied the marriage license out of interest for the wellbeing of children, an argument similar to those marriage equality opponents make today.
Jindal said at the time that the justice of the peace violated the law and should lose his job:
The actions of a justice of the peace in Louisiana who refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple have prompted some top officials, including Gov. Bobby Jindal, to call for his dismissal.
Jindal said the state judiciary committee should review the incident in which Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace for Tangipahoa Parish's 8th Ward, refused to issue a marriage license to Beth Humphrey, 30, and her boyfriend, Terence McKay, 32, both of Hammond.
"This is a clear violation of cons utional rights and federal and state law. ... Disciplinary action should be taken immediately -- including the revoking of his license," the Republican governor said.
When the justice of the peace eventually resigned, Jindal said it was “long overdue.”
But now Jindal is trying to defend justices of the peace who are refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing the same arguments about personal beliefs and the welfare of children and describing himself as a “religious liberty” champion in doing so.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/time-bobby-jindal-waged-war-local-officials-religious-liberty-deny-marriage-licenses
Repugs!
Why can't people just shut up about it? You won. You got your way. You are now normal so shut the up and go have a gay wedding.
It ain't over. The Bible humpers will keep the issue alive and kickin for years.
And next up are employment and commercial protections for LGBT.
Conservative Media Argue Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Creates Cons utional Right To Carry A Gun In Public
Conservative media used the Supreme Court decision affirming that marriage is a fundamental right of all Americans to argue that the Cons ution also requires states to recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states.
But the Supreme Court has never held that carrying a gun in public is a fundamental right.
Conservative media and the National Rifle Association (NRA) quickly seized on the decision to draw a parallel with concealed carry reciprocity, a top federal legislative priority of the NRA. Reciprocity legislation, also known as federally mandated concealed carry, would force states to recognize permits to carry concealed guns issued by other states, regardless of what the issuing state's standards are for issuing permits.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06...ge-ruli/204191
You're talking to the wrong people if you don't want to hear about it anymore. You should probably be directing some of this pent-up aggression towards the state officials who are grandstanding and preventing the country from moving on.
Last edited by Spurminator; 06-29-2015 at 04:30 PM.
I suppose state officials may also choose not to process divorce filings if it violates their beliefs.
pastors, yes, but court-ordered divorce, no.
because ...
Conservatives Are Gearing Up For Fight Of Their Lives After Gay Marriage Ruling
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/bo...+%28TPMNews%29
=====================
5 Reasons The GOP Can’t Let Marriage Equality (And Love) Win
1. GOP primary voters still oppose it.
About 6 out of 10 Republican voters oppose same-sex marriage, which makes it the mirror opposite of the rest of the country. Support for expanding the ins ution has doubled among evangelicals since 2001, but with 62 percent of Protestant evangelicals opposing it, the GOP base is in the era ofLoving not Obergefell at the dawn of the most compe ive GOP primary in generations.
It’s going to be tough to ignore a small but loud minority of the party that thinks 6/26 was their 9/11.
2. GOP candidates only differ on their degree of outrage.
“I’m glad I’m not on a campaign and don’t have to advise my candidate on how to navigate those three issues this week, because the answers for the primary and the general [elections] are radically different,” Republican strategist Carl Forti told theTimes.
It’s pretty obvious who is playing to the primary on this issue.
Ted Cruz wants clerks to refuse to issue marriage certificates. Bobby Jindal wants to get rid of the Supreme Court. Scott Walker wants a cons utional amendment that will allow states to ban same-sex marriage again. Mike Huckabee appears to be calling for armed revolution. “I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch,” he wrote on his website. “We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.”
But Republican candidates’ problem is that they generally agree on most every issue. They just disagree on the amount of outrage to sputter.
Jeb Bush’s opposition to the ruling concluded, “In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side.” Even that doesn’t mean he can let the issue go, however. He’s just trying to move the argument toward “religious liberty,” which is the right’s ugly new excuse for legal discrimination.
3. “Religious liberty” is a dogwhistle with some English on it.
In a nation where interracial couples and divorcees have been marrying for centuries, the argument of “religious liberty” never before arose to allow private businesses to deny couples their services. And no religious leader has been ever asked to perform a marriage s/he does not sanction. But apparently LGBT Americans are so offensive that new exemptions need to be invoked to protect “people of faith” from getting any gay on them.
Using exemptions designed to protect individuals from having to violate their own practice of their faith, conservatives now want religious people to have the right to discriminate based on their judgment of their customers’ moral behavior.
Jeb Bush has strengthened his position in the primary by focusing on this issue, accusing Hillary Clinton of wanting to limit religious belief because she backs policies that — for instance — wouldn’t allow ISIS to sell Yazidi women in Iraq into sexual slavery.
Republicans — some of whom quickly joined cries to remove the Confederate flag after Charleston — get that they need radically better outreach to minorities in this election. Many of them believe that minorities will adopt this “religious liberty” message, an echo of the 2004 Bush campaign against same-sex marriage that saw the party do better with minorities than it has since.
4. Scott Walker (or Mike Huckabee) could win the GOP nomination.
So with Bush, Rubio and other “moderate”-seeming candidates like Carly Fiorina, we’ll be having a veiled discussion on marriage through the lens of religion. But if any of the other contenders win (which I doubt), marriage will absolutely be a front-and-center issue in the presidential campaign.
If a high-profile case of a fundamentalist baker being — gasp! — paid to bake a cake for a gay couple flares up, every Republican nominee will be forced to speak out on the issue. With the base already keeping Bush and Rubio on a short leash for sometimes, in some ways, backing immigration reform, both will have to respond fiercely — a reaction off-putting to many of the 60 percent of Americans happy with marriage equality.
5. Dead-end causes built the conservative movement.
The mythology of the conservative movement is that opposition to abortion helped galvanize the religious right. But Randall Balmer argues that the neural network of the Moral Majority was formed in opposition to desegregation, especially in religious schools. (Expect religious schools wanting to keep both their tax exemptions and their policies discriminating against gay couples to be near the hot center of the right’s frustrations for the next few years.) Either way, opposition to Supreme Court rulings has nourished the hard right and allowed the Republican Party to move further away from the center, even as America steadily becomes more liberal.
If the GOP nominee loses without making marriage an issue, you can bet Christian conservatives will forever argue that that’swhy he or she lost. And will vow never to make that mistake again.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/5-reasons-the-gop-cant-let-marriage-equality-and-love-win/2/
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-29-2015 at 04:18 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions