Forum Links
Thread Information
Thread Actions
Supreme Court rules for Gay Marriage
06-28-15 11:26 AM
Snowchu is Offline
| ID: 1179294 | 176 Words
Snowdeath
POSTS: 3952/4179
POST EXP: 185137
LVL EXP: 18682751
CP: 4631.5
VIZ: 274096
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. 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. |
Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'
Registered: 03-15-11
Location: Port Alberni, BC
Last Post: 1920 days
Last Active: 1912 days
06-28-15 11:42 AM
Myelin is Offline
| ID: 1179302 | 400 Words
POSTS: 52/56
POST EXP: 9406
LVL EXP: 25660
CP: 357.0
VIZ: 28525
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. 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. |
Vizzed's Trashiest, Shadiest, Fiercest, Sissiest Drag Queen. Not afraid to read to filth. |
Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'
Registered: 01-11-14
Location: Tuckahoe Prison for Ladies, death row.
Last Post: 3162 days
Last Active: 1189 days
06-28-15 12:22 PM
Sword Legion is Offline
| ID: 1179314 | 41 Words
Sword legion
Sword egion
POSTS: 2593/3034
POST EXP: 699562
LVL EXP: 10857063
CP: 16237.8
VIZ: 148715
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* "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* |
Dark knight of the blackened sun. I am Sword Legion, one of many. My mask is thick, and my armor is strong. All the more necessary in a world such as this. . . |
Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'
Registered: 09-27-12
Location: Faxanadu
Last Post: 1009 days
Last Active: 447 days
06-28-15 12:37 PM
Myelin is Offline
| ID: 1179317 | 214 Words
POSTS: 53/56
POST EXP: 9406
LVL EXP: 25660
CP: 357.0
VIZ: 28525
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) "In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality" (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980)." Source: University of California Davis psychology (Link here) These two extremely reputable sources are far more than enough, you're so pathetically wrong it's almost stopped being funny. "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) "In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that "Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality" (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980)." Source: University of California Davis psychology (Link here) These two extremely reputable sources are far more than enough, you're so pathetically wrong it's almost stopped being funny. |
Vizzed's Trashiest, Shadiest, Fiercest, Sissiest Drag Queen. Not afraid to read to filth. |
Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'
Registered: 01-11-14
Location: Tuckahoe Prison for Ladies, death row.
Last Post: 3162 days
Last Active: 1189 days
06-28-15 04:39 PM
Brigand is Offline
| ID: 1179351 | 104 Words
POSTS: 2131/2233
POST EXP: 116430
LVL EXP: 6779148
CP: 2057.5
VIZ: 112856
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. |
Not even an enemy. |
Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'
Registered: 12-29-12
Location: Yurop.
Last Post: 2721 days
Last Active: 2707 days
06-28-15 09:38 PM
rcarter2 is Offline
| ID: 1179386 | 360 Words
POSTS: 8404/8463
POST EXP: 758515
LVL EXP: 53573903
CP: 33586.4
VIZ: 1689508
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. 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. |
Dominating RGR Competition Hall of Fame Table! |
Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'
Registered: 05-01-11
Location: Kansas
Last Post: 2459 days
Last Active: 768 days
06-28-15 10:07 PM
endings is Offline
| ID: 1179387 | 37 Words
POSTS: 654/829
POST EXP: 193341
LVL EXP: 1510641
CP: 19865.5
VIZ: 1245887
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. |
A reviewer prone to flashbacks |
Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'
Registered: 04-30-13
Last Post: 19 days
Last Active: 12 days
06-28-15 10:37 PM
DoctorDB is Offline
| ID: 1179390 | 145 Words
POSTS: 509/698
POST EXP: 69986
LVL EXP: 1323149
CP: 4987.7
VIZ: 121047
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 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. 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 Bad Wolf |
Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'
Registered: 03-14-10
Last Post: 1006 days
Last Active: 348 days
06-29-15 12:55 AM
Changedatrequest is Offline
| ID: 1179409 | 17 Words
Txgangsta
POSTS: 461/789
POST EXP: 104913
LVL EXP: 1412582
CP: 2185.3
VIZ: 149875
The Sanctity of Marriage within American politics died January 1st, 1970. This is only the logical outcome. This is only the logical outcome. |
Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'
Registered: 03-04-13
Last Post: 2615 days
Last Active: 2612 days
06-29-15 09:59 AM
RavusRat is Offline
| ID: 1179438 | 129 Words
sonicmcmuffin
POSTS: 4501/5773
POST EXP: 478748
LVL EXP: 31522160
CP: 20505.8
VIZ: 1106285
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.. 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.. |
Forum Manager
#1 Pointless title on Vizzed |
Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'
Registered: 02-26-10
Location: UK
Last Post: 3 days
Last Active: 1 day
06-29-15 10:22 AM
Chindogu is Offline
| ID: 1179441 | 221 Words
POSTS: 929/1197
POST EXP: 82905
LVL EXP: 2654436
CP: 3326.1
VIZ: 126892
The issue is not LGBTQ+ (or however it is being called these days) wanting religous weddings, but having thier |
Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'
Registered: 01-17-13
Last Post: 2549 days
Last Active: 1789 days
07-01-15 01:24 PM
Pacman+Mariofan is Offline
| ID: 1180199 | 109 Words
PacmanandMariofan
POSTS: 5124/9337
POST EXP: 662200
LVL EXP: 58438110
CP: 38398.8
VIZ: 1566370
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. 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. |
2-Time VCS Winner
Philippians 4:6-7 |
Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'
Registered: 10-22-12
Location: The Milky Way (not the candy)
Last Post: 948 days
Last Active: 948 days
07-01-15 03:11 PM
rcarter2 is Offline
| ID: 1180250 | 138 Words
POSTS: 8407/8463
POST EXP: 758515
LVL EXP: 53573903
CP: 33586.4
VIZ: 1689508
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. |
Dominating RGR Competition Hall of Fame Table! |
Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'
Registered: 05-01-11
Location: Kansas
Last Post: 2459 days
Last Active: 768 days
07-01-15 03:35 PM
gamerforlifeforever is Offline
| ID: 1180273 | 65 Words
gamerforlifeforever2
POSTS: 1774/10186
POST EXP: 560803
LVL EXP: 67453143
CP: 98006.2
VIZ: 3384714
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? |
Ultimate Pokemon Fanboy, Member of the Year 2016, and Vizzed's #1 My Hero Academia fan |
Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'
Registered: 07-04-12
Location: Somewhere in Ohio
Last Post: 261 days
Last Active: 259 days
07-02-15 12:57 AM
Cradily is love is Offline
| ID: 1180631 | 25 Words
POSTS: 718/735
POST EXP: 30339
LVL EXP: 1188457
CP: 926.6
VIZ: 2022
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! |
If you press ctrl + w you get 300 viz |
Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'
Registered: 07-22-14
Location: Lavaridge town, Hoenn
Last Post: 3195 days
Last Active: 2549 days
07-02-15 07:01 AM
SoL@R is Offline
| ID: 1180685 | 368 Words
POSTS: 416/459
POST EXP: 124100
LVL EXP: 626727
CP: 2839.2
VIZ: 180742
Franklin Graham, Christian evangelist and son of well-known evangelist, Billy Graham, sums up my thoughts pretty well and I quote:
“The president had the White House lit up in rainbow colors to celebrate the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage. This is outrageous – a real slap in the face to the millions of Americans who do not support same-sex marriage and whose voice is being ignored. God is the one who gave the rainbow, and it was associated with His judgment. God sent a flood to wipe out the entire world, because mankind had become so wicked and violent.." He continues...
“One man, Noah, was found righteous and escaped God’s judgment with his family. The rainbow was a sign to Noah that God would not use the flood again to judge the world. But one day God is going to judge sin – all sin. Only those who are found righteous will be able to escape His judgement. The righteousness comes through faith, believing on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ who took our sins and shed His blood on the cross for each and every one. So, when we see the gay pride rainbow splashed on business advertisements and many people’s Facebook pages, may it remind all of us of God’s judgment to come. Are you ready? Are your sins forgiven?”
When the decision was announced, he wrote: “The court has no authority to change or override God’s laws which define marriage as between one man and one woman... With all due respect to the court, it did not define marriage, and therefore is not entitled to re-define it. Long before our government came into existence, marriage was created by the One who created man and woman – Almighty God – and His decisions are not subject to review or revisions by any man made court. God is clear about the definition of marriage in His Holy Word: ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). “I pray God will spare America from His judgment, though, by our actions as a nation, we give Him less and less reason to do so.”
“The president had the White House lit up in rainbow colors to celebrate the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage. This is outrageous – a real slap in the face to the millions of Americans who do not support same-sex marriage and whose voice is being ignored. God is the one who gave the rainbow, and it was associated with His judgment. God sent a flood to wipe out the entire world, because mankind had become so wicked and violent.." He continues...
“One man, Noah, was found righteous and escaped God’s judgment with his family. The rainbow was a sign to Noah that God would not use the flood again to judge the world. But one day God is going to judge sin – all sin. Only those who are found righteous will be able to escape His judgement. The righteousness comes through faith, believing on the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ who took our sins and shed His blood on the cross for each and every one. So, when we see the gay pride rainbow splashed on business advertisements and many people’s Facebook pages, may it remind all of us of God’s judgment to come. Are you ready? Are your sins forgiven?”
When the decision was announced, he wrote: “The court has no authority to change or override God’s laws which define marriage as between one man and one woman... With all due respect to the court, it did not define marriage, and therefore is not entitled to re-define it. Long before our government came into existence, marriage was created by the One who created man and woman – Almighty God – and His decisions are not subject to review or revisions by any man made court. God is clear about the definition of marriage in His Holy Word: ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). “I pray God will spare America from His judgment, though, by our actions as a nation, we give Him less and less reason to do so.”
|
Those who wait on the Lord will renew their strength; They shall mount up with wings like eagles. |
Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'
Registered: 03-05-13
Location: Gordon's Bay, RSA
Last Post: 2582 days
Last Active: 1913 days
07-02-15 05:32 PM
janus is Offline
| ID: 1180956 | 148 Words
SecureYourCodeDavid
POSTS: 1274/4808
POST EXP: 565097
LVL EXP: 21456840
CP: 62650.8
VIZ: 462033
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 If you want to blame someone for the redefinition of marriage, point fingers at Henry VIII. He "invented" divorce. 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 If you want to blame someone for the redefinition of marriage, point fingers at Henry VIII. He "invented" divorce. |
YouTube Video Editor
the unknown |
Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'
Registered: 12-14-12
Location: Murica
Last Post: 63 days
Last Active: 18 hours
07-02-15 08:39 PM
Sword Legion is Offline
| ID: 1181112 | 2 Words
Sword legion
Sword egion
POSTS: 2595/3034
POST EXP: 699562
LVL EXP: 10857063
CP: 16237.8
VIZ: 148715
Dark knight of the blackened sun. I am Sword Legion, one of many. My mask is thick, and my armor is strong. All the more necessary in a world such as this. . . |
Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'
Registered: 09-27-12
Location: Faxanadu
Last Post: 1009 days
Last Active: 447 days
07-03-15 09:49 AM
Zlinqx is Offline
| ID: 1181364 | 209 Words
Zlinqx
POSTS: 1303/4673
POST EXP: 657361
LVL EXP: 20008329
CP: 52726.3
VIZ: 618034
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. 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. |
Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'
Registered: 07-21-13
Last Post: 157 days
Last Active: 1 day
07-03-15 11:33 AM
janus is Offline
| ID: 1181417 | 125 Words
SecureYourCodeDavid
POSTS: 1331/4808
POST EXP: 565097
LVL EXP: 21456840
CP: 62650.8
VIZ: 462033
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. 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. |
YouTube Video Editor
the unknown |
Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'
Registered: 12-14-12
Location: Murica
Last Post: 63 days
Last Active: 18 hours
Page Comments
This page has no comments