Myelin : I apologize for the far-fetched examples, but they were just what I said.. examples. I didn't mean to imply that you ever said anything about that kind of stuff, or compared it. All right?

I'm more in the party of that of course everyone has the right to not be discriminated... however, for people with personal beliefs such as Christians, ESPECIALLY those in services like you've been talking about the entire time, that they do have the right to turn away people that conflicts with their belief or rule, but POLITELY. For example, if someone said "ewwwwwwwwwww you're gay go away I'll never offer my services to the kinds of you!" then of course, in my opinion, they should be prosecuted under the law for being discriminatory... BUT... "Ma'am/Sir, I greatly apologize but I have to turn you away for ____ due to my beliefs, but here's someone I know that will do it, and I wish you all the best luck on _____", NOW that's the proper way. This is what I believe in.

Sword legion : the Supreme Court's job is to decide what's constitutional and what isn't, denying the institution of marriage to a demographic on arbitrary grounds is not constitutional as it attempts to create inequality. Funny thing though, even if they were to classify Homosexuality as a mental disease (WHICH IT IS NOT, and your disgusting statement that it is makes me want to hurl) mental impairments are a protected category since 1964, and you'd still be unable to deny gay people service. 

An artist can object to a "Homosexuality causes disease!" poster on the  basis that it is oppressive and targeting a group, which IS NOT an arbitrary decision, and can be argued in a court of law. The government is not playing favorites, you're just upset that Christians are not the favorites.

supernerd117 : Your implication that same-sex love is not "true love that isn't based on pleasure but mutual respect and desire to grow together" is the most unwelcome thing on this thread. Your goal to convince people to be straight is an attack, I hope you're aware of that. We don't want to be convinced by you, the only thing bad about being gay is the oppression and the stigma, which straight people are responsible for, not us.

There is a choice to act on homosexuality or not, and my question to you is, what objective reason is there not to? Why do you assume that you were unhappy as a result of homosexuality itself and not because of the social stigma or potential self-hatred as a result of your uprising?

You realize that what the LGBT+ community wants is to break people free of that 'unhappiness'? To understand that true love based on mutual respect and admiration can be felt between two people of the same sex and that they can start a family together? To dispel the social stigma the homosexuality is also a romantic orientation as it is a sexual one. 

I don't know you man, and I won't pretend that I do, but it sounds to me like you struggled with self hate, gay people entering straight marriages or relationships mostly causes pain, and self-hatred will consume you, so if this applies to you, I beg that you reconsider, for your own sake, thogh you probably won't, if you ever do it'll probably be a result of your own path to self-discvovery.

Myelin :

"WHICH IT IS NOT"

Totally blew me away with that argument there. I think I need to change sides man. I just can't take this abuse. I'm sorry, so sorry. I'll never be honest with you again. I promise.

*sniff*

Sword legion :  Read and weep
"Is Homosexuality A Mental Disorder?
No. All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Second Edition (DSM II). The action was taken following a review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts in the field. The experts found that homosexuality does not meet the criteria to be considered a mental illness."
Source: the American Psychiatric Association (Link here)

I just hope all the ridiculousness would end soon and it would be business as usual. Like in the cases of gay couples being together for thirty years and finally being allowed, in the case of the death of a spouse, to keep their home and having some reconizition like that. Many people seem to think this is just about sex but deep down it is about love and worst of all, that same routine stuff you have in every relationship and putting your money where your mouth is. So give the queers a break already. They pay the taxes same as you do.

I often hear the ridiculous argument that the Supreme Court is redefining marriage. I only hear this from the religious group (honestly, mainly the Christian group). Basically what they are saying is that whatever is different than THEIR definition of marriage is redefining. But what they constantly fail to realize (and even deny when pointed out) is that Christianity did not invent marriage. Not only did marriage exist before Christianity, it predates when the first book of the Bible was written. It was around in the earliest Ancient Greece, and it was much different from the modern Christian definition. Marriage used to be not in the name of love and wasn't even mutual. Marriage used to be when the father would GIVE his daughter to the son of another for land, livestock, general possessions, etc. The equivalent to royalty would marry to another royal family simply to unify regions and even countries. Marriage was pretty much an arranged trade between fathers. That form of marriage predates Christianity. It really wasn't originally a 'holy unity'. So if anything, any religion that has their definition of marriage has already redefined marriage. But lord forbid that their version of something wasn't the first version of it.
Sure, you can claim that this ruling redefines the (now past) definition of marriage. But that already happen by whatever religion that has marriage that you follow. It is annoying how tunnel visioned and hypocritical pretty much every argument I have heard against this truly is.
You can not agree with it, sure. But the Court did not overstep their boundaries. If anything, they were overstepping their boundaries by outlawing it in the first place. I also hear people say they wish that government would just keep itself out of marriage. By no longer outlawing it, that is EXACTLY what they are doing. Any time a form of marriage is outlawed, that is the very act of government interfering with marriage. So really what the opposing side REALLY wants is for the religious figures in government to be the majority so the government can control the aspects of marriage that the opposing side specifically wants. More hypocrisy.

My wife attended the pride parade today in San Fran, the biggest yet (I was home babysitting). I am glad the supreme court stepped in and made states recognize all human beings should have the same rights. 

rcarter2 : I enjoyed reading your post. It wasn't just a bunch of personal statements, but listing the facts to state your view of things. I never thought about it the way you have, but one of my main viewpoints has always been that marriage is a legal union anyway, not necessarily a religious affair. 

I'm not going to bother tagging everyone this relates to, but I also wanted to say that as far as the mental disorder thing goes, I do recall studying that matter in my past Human Sexuality class. Although it does differ from the norm, traditional/heterosexual relationships really only serve the purpose of procreation, yet we're now facing overpopulation so it's not much of a concern. We also talked about how other species also tend to exhibit homosexual tendencies and it may not be as unnatural as we're led to believe. 

The Sanctity of Marriage within American politics died January 1st, 1970.

This is only the logical outcome.

I can't really say much about the first amendment and the like because I'm British and haven't really had the time to study American History. 

I mean the general opinion with my friends is that it was something that should have happened sooner and that besides the people living in America it's not really something new.. I compare it to something like competing companies where one does something that boosts their sales and so everyone is trying to get into it.. (I think Virtual Reality would be the current gaming equivalent) 

I mean i think it's great the right to get Married applies to a broader spectrum of people now. 

It just concerns me for a country that prides itself on freedom, Freedom of thought is practically frowned upon..

The issue is not LGBTQ+ (or however it is being called these days) wanting religous weddings, but having thier union recognized as the same as an opposite-sex union in legal terms. Before this, the widower in a long-term same-sex couple would not be recognized in court the way a widower in an opposite-sex couple would. To be told you have no right to be involved in your partner's funeral/estate arrangements is frankly insulting. Besides, if two people, straight or gay, want to legally bind eachother for as long as they live (or until they amass enough hate and money to divorce) why should we stop them? If they want to make themselves miserable let them.

I'm for this decision as it increases the freedom (something the U.S. seems very fond of) of LGB persons in the U.S. and does not encroach upon the countries religous rights, as some would argue. Just becuase it is federaly legal in the U.S. now for same-sex couples to marry does not mean Churches/Temples/Synagogues/other places of worship are forced to perform a religous ceremony in a situation they do not, as a religous body, support. Personally, I would be laoth to marry my partner in an enviroment toxic to us (read: anywhere that is anti-gay, not just places of worship), the same goes with hiring services.

I heard about this because some people I know have shared it on Facebook. I think it was one of my family members whose shared post I saw first.

I'm glad that our country is providing even more freedom for our country, but after reading some other posts in this thread making excellent points, I'm having trouble deciding whether I'm for it or against it. I'm currently more for it, but I might be changing my mind a few times. I don't like the idea of gay marriage because I'm a Christian, but I respect people's decision to do it and I won't object to it if they do.

Chindogu : I just wanted to touch on one thing you mentioned. Specifically "To me, the issue is not so much as LGBTQ wanting religious weddings...." I just wanted to clarify that that isn't a to you thing. this entire fight was never for religious weddings. The LGBTQ community has not been fighting that churches should be forced to recognize their unity. This has pure and simple been about being recognized by the states themselves. This isn't a religious attack and really has nothing to do with religion at all. I just mention this because when you say 'not so much as wanting religious weddings' implies it is at least part of the issue, when it is actually not part of the issue at all. The only ones who are making this a religious issue are the religious people.

I myself am not gay, but I know people who are, and I'm glad that those people are finally able to officially be married in all 50 states. It's about time that the U.S. made it legal. I understand why some people are against gay marriage, but at the same time, is it effecting you? Does two people getting married really effect your daily life?

REJOICE! This is a huge step in tolerance and equality, USA is one more step to actually becoming the free country it claims to be!

Franklin Graham, Christian evangelist and son of well-known evangelist, Billy Graham, sums up my thoughts pretty well and I quote:

It's certainly good news for equality. Same-sex couples have been marginalized (even legally) for too long. I laugh out loud (sorry, it can't be otherwise) at conservatives who predict that the end of the world is coming because of it. News flash: Canada has had it for over 10 years now and the country as a whole is faring WAY better than the US.

For all of you complaining about the "redefinition" of marriage: know that marriage used to be a transfer of property between the father and the husband, hence Deuteronomy 22:28-29. In Druon's Les rois maudits, the queens had absolutely no say in their unions. If anything, I'm glad marriage is now (usually) made out of love, between consenting adults who want to spend their lives together.

If you want to blame someone for the redefinition of marriage, point fingers at Henry VIII. He "invented" divorce.

Myelin :

Nah.

Seems like I'm a bit late to the party but nevertheless:

Woopdy doo.

I don't really understand why this is even really a thing in the US by now, in Sweden as well as many other parts of the world we already got past it years ago.

I agree with what's been said before in the thread by many though, I can sort of understand the argument about homosexual people not being able to marry in churches, if religious establishments are private since churches shouldn't be forced to wed them if they don't want, my opinion on that changes if people are required to pay for the church's upkeep through taxes like you are in some places in the world however since then it's really something that should be accesible to everyone.

With that said yeah, marriage isn't exclusively a christian thing or even something that was invented by christianity or christians, so legally anyone of any sexual orientation should really be able to get married, that's where it really becomes a question of equality and their standing in the society.

I think a lot of people just make the assumption that by marriage you're automatically referring to getting married in a church when that really isn't the case.

Zlinqx : Why it is a debate? Because of freedom of religion. Since the state has not (for the most part) regulated religious institutions they have been able to thrive like no other country on the planet. Therefore religion is still an integral part of many (most?) people's personal lives, with all the cherry-picking that it implies (condemn gays, but eat pork and shellfish).

Furthermore there is a federalism component to it. The US was founded on the principal of federalism, i.e. the separation of powers between the federal and local governments. Until the 20th century it was so strong that it allowed (mostly) Southern States to enact apartheid, a.k.a Jim Crow Laws. I guess marriage was just another component of this idea with many faults.