06-30-2014 01:17 AM
1,813 123 ...
tools
  1. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Surprisngly quiet around here given the major news today. Have been cruising around twitter and seen a lot of bitter comments from the right wing. I just don't understand why they don't understand they are losing this fight. Actually maybe deep down they do, hence the bitterness. But they keep wasting all this time and money over something that ultimately cannot be won. No doubt slave owners and those against women voting dragged their heels too, but as history has showed, it's such a wasted effort. Fights for equality always win out ultimately.

    So the needless fighting will continue. But for now, we have the 13 gay colonies.
    jtc276 likes this.
    06-26-2013 12:32 PM
  2. VDub2174's Avatar
    I was definitely glad to see this news today
    Aquila likes this.
    06-26-2013 02:25 PM
  3. jdbii's Avatar
    Same here. I was happy with both decisions.
    06-26-2013 02:57 PM
  4. palandri's Avatar
    I think the LGBT community has been a learning experience for the whole nation. I'll be honest, if you would have asked me twenty years ago if I was in favor of LGBT marriage, I would have said no. If you ask me today, I've done a 180 since then. What the Supreme Court did today was the right thing.
    msndrstood, jdbii, jtaclas and 1 others like this.
    06-26-2013 03:11 PM
  5. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Against it 30 years ago, against it today....
    I will agree with one brief statement from Justice Anton Scalia today, in effect he stated that doma/prop 8 are issues best decided by the states, not the bench..

    Borrowed from a poster on FB...

    Why would government have a say in marriage at all? Makes no sense. As marriage is a religious institution and was defined in the bible, no government has the right to redefine it. Our forefathers established America and the separation of church and state for the purpose that government cannot interfere with whatever religious practices they chose. The fled England simply because their government was directly ruling through the Church of England and dictating what was taught. The real meaning of separation of church and state was meant so that the state would keep its nose out of the church's business and allow the people to worship as they pleased. Just because our government has perverted the religious act of marriage by making a tax out of it does not mean they have right to govern it.
    Secondly, why would the government hold the interests of the minorities at greater value than the majority? Why are they able to completely overturn the vote of the people? The so called "less than 2%" that claim to be homosexual have now attempted to change what was defined by the church, but for what purpose? Could they not have a partnership in which legally they share all assets, live together, claim each other for tax purposes and share in all activities and benefits that married couples do and yet call it another name? I don't care if they made up a new word, it cannot be called true marriage. What the government has done is equivalent to the Nazi's taking the Buddhist' religious symbol of peace, good fortune and humanity (the swastika) and forever turning it into a political symbol now associated with a gravely negative ideology. The government saying that marriage is now the act of two individuals of any sex would be like the government saying that pigs are now considered clean according to islam (fat chance they mess with islam). They have absolutely no right.
    On the other side, I have no problem with homosexuals in general.

    I do not believe that the act of homosexuality is right, good or moral. If they have the right to believe that it is, I also have the right to believe that it isn't. But forcing Christians et al. to accept this as so is breaking the separation of church and state. You think they're not going to make the churches somehow monetarily pay for this? If they can force them to pay for the abortion pill then this will be no contest. Where are the muslim riots against this? Just wait. In islam it is sin to act homosexually and is punishable by stoning to death, hanging or beheading. The government is quick to accuse Christians of being violent, intolerant bigots, but then what would you call stoning a homosexual man? This country is backwards in more ways than one.
    You may call it "gay marriage" but I will never call it marriage.
    Quick Storm and GadgetgirL76 like this.
    06-26-2013 03:40 PM
  6. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Such ignorance posted above. Why would the government be interested in protecting the rights of a minority? Seriously? How would the minority EVER obtain equality if left up to only others to decide their fate and lot in life? The number of gay people is roughly a fixed number. It neither increases nor decreases, therefore gay people can never be in the majority. Basically you are saying that people should not be protected and subject to the whims of the majority simply because those are your views. If you were gay, you'd have a different school of thought. You should be happy that minorities are protected though, because going by all measures recently, your views are now in the minority. I assume you would still like some protections, yes?

    The second fallacy is to make the claim that marriage is a religious thing. If that were the case, no two atheist would EVER have been allowed to marry. And you would HAVE to get married in a church. Since neither of those things are true, neither is your claim.

    Finally, the notion that someone "has no problem" with gay people then goes on to list all the reasons they do have a problem speaks volumes and is laughable. Saying things like "why can't they call it another name" is the same as saying "why can't they use a separate fountain" and exposes the true motives. This isn't about religion. This is about keeping a certain group of people unequal and separate.
    06-26-2013 05:59 PM
  7. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Such ignorance posted above. Why would the government be interested in protecting the rights of a minority? Seriously? How would the minority EVER obtain equality if left up to only others to decide their fate and lot in life? The number of gay people is roughly a fixed number. It neither increases nor decreases, therefore gay people can never be in the majority. Basically you are saying that people should not be protected and subject to the whims of the majority simply because those are your views. If you were gay, you'd have a different school of thought. You should be happy that minorities are protected though, because going by all measures recently, your views are now in the minority. I assume you would still like some protections, yes?

    The second fallacy is to make the claim that marriage is a religious thing. If that were the case, no two atheist would EVER have been allowed to marry. And you would HAVE to get married in a church. Since neither of those things are true, neither is your claim.

    Finally, the notion that someone "has no problem" with gay people then goes on to list all the reasons they do have a problem speaks volumes and is laughable. Saying things like "why can't they call it another name" is the same as saying "why can't they use a separate fountain" and exposes the true motives. This isn't about religion. This is about keeping a certain group of people unequal and separate.
    Wow and you called my post ignorant???
    Quick Storm and jtc276 like this.
    06-26-2013 06:32 PM
  8. RenoD2010's Avatar
    But for now, we have the 13 gay colonies.
    Bahahaha! That's great!

    Sent from my LG-E970 using AC Forums mobile app
    06-26-2013 06:45 PM
  9. RenoD2010's Avatar
    Now, as before, this has no affect on my daily life WHATSOEVER.

    Which is exactly why I support the court's decision in shooting down this archaic, paranoid and mean spirited crap.

    Sent from my LG-E970 using AC Forums mobile app
    msndrstood, Aquila, jdbii and 3 others like this.
    06-26-2013 06:51 PM
  10. JHBThree's Avatar
    Wow and you called my post ignorant???
    He did, because it is. If the states were regulating marriage fairly, the federal government wouldn't have to be involved. But because some states have chosen to openly violate the rights of some of their citizens, the federal government has decided to step in to protect their rights.

    Marriage has never been a purely religious thing. Throughout all of western history, the idea of marriage as a religious institution is the newest and most modern interpretation.

    What those that say 'government should get out of marriage' really mean to say is: we would like to violate the rights of a minority, but we can't do it as long as civil marriage exists.

    Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2
    GadgetGator, Ry, jdbii and 3 others like this.
    06-26-2013 06:54 PM
  11. palandri's Avatar
    It has to do with the 14th Amendment, equal protection under the law,
    GadgetGator and jdbii like this.
    06-26-2013 07:30 PM
  12. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Someone put up the results in the California vote on prop 8...

    Section of a press re;ease from Sen. ted Cruz

    I strongly support traditional marriage between one man and one woman. The voters of California made that same choice, until the courts improperly substituted their preferences for those of the people.

    Our Federalism allows different states to make different policy judgments based on the values and mores of their citizens. Federal courts should respect that diversity and uphold that popular sovereignty, not impose their own policy agenda.
    06-26-2013 08:08 PM
  13. palandri's Avatar
    Ted Cruz can support, have rallies and do whatever he wants to do to support traditional marriage, but there has to be equal protection under the law. It has to do with equality.
    msndrstood likes this.
    06-26-2013 11:24 PM
  14. JHBThree's Avatar
    Someone put up the results in the California vote on prop 8...

    Section of a press re;ease from Sen. ted Cruz

    I strongly support traditional marriage between one man and one woman. The voters of California made that same choice, until the courts improperly substituted their preferences for those of the people.

    Our Federalism allows different states to make different policy judgments based on the values and mores of their citizens. Federal courts should respect that diversity and uphold that popular sovereignty, not impose their own policy agenda.
    What a crock. States can make different policy judgements, but they are subject to constitutional scrutiny. If they violate the rights of citizens, the laws will be tossed. Further, by passing such oppressive laws that single out a minority to deny them rights, people like Ted Cruz actually ARE imposing their own policy agenda on their diverse population. There is hypocrisy there that is just too egregious to ignore.

    Or to put it another way: I wonder how Ted Cruz would feel if Texas passed a law saying that all Hispanic and Latino citizens could not marry, could not adopt, and could not receive the same benefits as other Texans. Do you think he would sit there and say 'oh, well its the state's right to do this. Its okay because the state wants this'? Hell no he wouldn't. Again, hypocrisy.

    Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2
    06-26-2013 11:41 PM
  15. Farish's Avatar
    Someone put up the results in the California vote on prop 8...

    Section of a press re;ease from Sen. ted Cruz

    I strongly support traditional marriage between one man and one woman. The voters of California made that same choice, until the courts improperly substituted their preferences for those of the people.

    Our Federalism allows different states to make different policy judgments based on the values and mores of their citizens. Federal courts should respect that diversity and uphold that popular sovereignty, not impose their own policy agenda.
    If that was really the case we would still have segregation in the South.
    06-26-2013 11:51 PM
  16. Farish's Avatar
    One more thing but I wanted to add this separately, I really believe in Libertarianism. It shouldn't be anybody's business what people do in their homes and nobody should deny other people rights because of personal beliefs.
    06-26-2013 11:53 PM
  17. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Personally I couldn't care less what people do in their homes, just keep it there. Homosexuality is not a minority status, its a choice. Being black, or Hispanic is a minority status.
    cdmjlt369 and GadgetgirL76 like this.
    06-27-2013 01:35 AM
  18. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Personally I couldn't care less what people do in their homes, just keep it there. Homosexuality is not a minority status, its a choice. Being black, or Hispanic is a minority status.
    Wow...and I thought your post was misinformed before! But now you have REALLY gone off the deep end. Before you wanted gay people to call their relationship something else, but now you want gay people under some sort of house arrest? In a free country? BAHAHAHAHA. What part of equal and free is lost on you??? In reading your post it seems like you don't have a concept of either of those terms.

    Then there is the next bit....read my comment earlier. Clearly spelled out that gays are a minority. Therefore, minority status. Do you not have a concept of minority vs majority either? Gays are not a majority, therefore they must be in the minority. There's only two options for grouping here. You are either in one, or you are in the other.

    And the whole part about things being a choice? LOL....wow. You don't choose who you are attracted to or fall in love with. But even if you did, that in no way shape or form would disqualify you from equality. Why? Because lots of things in life are provable FACTUAL choices....like your religion...yet we still protect that. If you think being gay is a choice, then that means your sexuality must be a choice too and you can change it at anytime. So does sleeping with a member of the same sex turn you on? Or repulse you? There's your answer on the whole choice thing.

    Seriously, I am happy to discuss this and answer any question you have, but you have to be level headed and reasonable about things and not recycle 1950's arguments that weren't even true back then, much less now.
    06-27-2013 02:51 AM
  19. JHBThree's Avatar
    Personally I couldn't care less what people do in their homes, just keep it there. Homosexuality is not a minority status, its a choice. Being black, or Hispanic is a minority status.
    That's absurd and offensive. I no more chose to be gay than the president chose to be black, or Hillary Clinton chose to be a woman. I am a minority, as are they. You, nor anyone like you, have the right to tell me I cannot get married because it makes you feel uncomfortable. Your bible does not, and cannot, dictate the rights available to me or any other gay person in the United States.

    Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2
    RenoD2010, GadgetGator, Ry and 7 others like this.
    06-27-2013 02:52 AM
  20. Fairclough's Avatar
    It's the gun debate basically all over again.

    Posted via the mystical forest creatures that power this Nexus 4.
    06-27-2013 03:06 AM
  21. Fairclough's Avatar
    I didn't read the us news today as its a big news day over here. I'll put my 2 cents in from what I have gathered.

    1) its not a choice. I find girls attractive that isn't a choice. So I presume for the lbgt community the same

    2) under all law they should be allowed to marry for equality

    3) others will contest this. Religious institutions should have a choice as a religion is a set of common beliefs. However saying that there are plenty of denominations saying they would consider lgbt marriage if the law permitted.

    Posted via the mystical forest creatures that power this Nexus 4.
    GadgetGator likes this.
    06-27-2013 03:09 AM
  22. JHBThree's Avatar
    I didn't read the us news today as its a big news day over here. I'll put my 2 cents in from what I have gathered.

    1) its not a choice. I find girls attractive that isn't a choice. So I presume for the lbgt community the same

    2) under all law they should be allowed to marry for equality

    3) others will contest this. Religious institutions should have a choice as a religion is a set of common beliefs. However saying that there are plenty of denominations saying they would consider lgbt marriage if the law permitted.

    Posted via the mystical forest creatures that power this Nexus 4.
    See that's the thing: no church anywhere will suddenly be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies. What is being discussed is civil and legal marriage. Churches will still have the right to refuse to perform a gay marriage ceremony based on their beliefs.

    Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2
    06-27-2013 03:14 AM
  23. Live2ride883's Avatar
    06-27-2013 03:42 AM
  24. Fairclough's Avatar
    That's fair enough. Good to see your open about your sexual orientation jhbthree! Apparently the lgbt figure is about 10% not 2.

    Posted via the mystical forest creatures that power this Nexus 4.
    06-27-2013 03:56 AM
  25. Aquila's Avatar
    100% support the recognition of legally performed marriages. Two reasons.

    1. I don't give a damn who marries who as long as both consent. It's not my business. I may have an opinion, but do I really care? Never. I want people to be happy.
    2. For the exact reason that most people are against it: separation of church and state. Like so many issues, we're talking about two things and using the same word. That word "marriage" has different connotations, depending on your perspective. If you're religious and think of it as a sacrament, hearing "married" means performed the sacrament of wedding two people together, whatever that means in your religion. If you are not... it means legally and in an official, binding way, expressing your devotion to your partner (or something to that effect). This is the legal contract of marriage, as regulated by a certificate of marriage, issued by your state. These two things have nothing to do with each other in reality EXCEPT that many members of the clergy are authorized to officiate both contexts. The government obviously has the right to comment and regulate upon the latter and no right whatsoever to comment or regulate upon the former.

    The cause for this confusion is not the common word though, it's the abuse of the separation of church and state by politicians and activists who use their influence on the latter to force their beliefs relative to the former upon the public. Maybe it would help if there were two different words, but as long as they are used by one side interchangeably, it's silly to ask for the other not to do the same. Personally I don't care about the verbiage if everyone is playing in a civil manner.

    And lets face it.... every person that ever "switched religions" when they got married, put the lie to their own and their partner's faith, and the sanctity of a faith based sacrament and in reality merely used the trappings of religion to enhance their own perception of the legal concept of marriage.

    The wall of church and state should prevent egress from both directions and should be absolute. "Under no circumstances should the government force any church to perform a ceremony that violates the tenants of their faith." Clearly such a statement requires a debate of it's own, because taken to the end... what if a church decided they would only marry straight, Hispanic Americans that make more than $300,000 a year and have adopted children from Africa. At what point is it a tenant of faith and at which point is it merely discrimination? I don't want to get in that battle, so I'm fine with that wall being absolute. But that also should include the obvious need to preclude 100% of policies determined by matters of faith. And when Ted says, "I believe marriage is between..." , why do we not all ask, "Who gives a damn what you believe Ted? You represent the People, not yourself and not your church."
    Fairclough, msndrstood, Ry and 3 others like this.
    06-27-2013 04:40 AM
1,813 123 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Automatic time zone and date/clock are wrong
    By ajua in forum HTC One M7
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 07-04-2018, 01:12 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-05-2013, 10:34 AM
  3. Using the TMobile Note 2 in Asia (not Japan & Korea) and Europe for 3G internet
    By Internet_Tough_Guy in forum T-Mobile Galaxy Note 2
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-27-2013, 01:54 PM
  4. Icon question and SMS question
    By JT Peters in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-26-2013, 02:55 PM
  5. USA today review and water damage...
    By quietlybrilliant in forum Samsung Galaxy S4 Active
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-26-2013, 11:13 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD