Will do, sorry folks.
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
Supreme courts ruling on gay marriage
- Thread starter Jinks
- Start date
I just read all 4 pages of this thread. I've been avoiding it as it seemed like it would just devolve based on my previous experiences with topics of this nature on internet message boards. Having said that I really applaud everyone who has contributed. This is/was for the most part a fairly civil discussion. I wont take sides, or offer my opinion on the topic at hand because RSO 34 (I gather your name is Bob? Im new 'round here) pretty much said anything and everything I wanted to start typing as I read through this, only to find he had already said it much more eloquently than I could have. I really want to buy you a beer, or coffee, or beverage of your choice if I ever get to meet you Bob.
^ Well put. The original post was to commemorate freedom to all here in our great country. Somehow it got a little of track and my post last night were from a crappy smartphone due to my internet being down and my computers crippled.
Marriage legalization of gay couples will not bring forth people marrying their pets, that is just dumb to think that would ever happen.
People of gay backround do not choose their rough life, they are born that way. If we are to separate church and state, we need to not follow church preaching and live life our own way. NOT the other way around. Look at the crap it still creates today. Mostly being of cult like nature. I think, once we rid ourselves of the bible and its hatred we will be far better off. Love thy neighbor right? Do unto others as you do to yourself? All ways of camouflaging hatred to non believers.
- - - Updated - - -
On another note, things are looking great for Donald Trump in the news. All I can say is WOW my side of the party has absolutely no leadership, direction, or brains anymore...
Marriage legalization of gay couples will not bring forth people marrying their pets, that is just dumb to think that would ever happen.
People of gay backround do not choose their rough life, they are born that way. If we are to separate church and state, we need to not follow church preaching and live life our own way. NOT the other way around. Look at the crap it still creates today. Mostly being of cult like nature. I think, once we rid ourselves of the bible and its hatred we will be far better off. Love thy neighbor right? Do unto others as you do to yourself? All ways of camouflaging hatred to non believers.
- - - Updated - - -
On another note, things are looking great for Donald Trump in the news. All I can say is WOW my side of the party has absolutely no leadership, direction, or brains anymore...
which makes me think we need AI for the scotus
Of the people for the people which makes me wonder in this tech age why each and every one of us should be entering a password and voting online. Imagine laws being passed or repealed by the people they actually affect with no money changing hands, no trading in advance of decisions etc. novel idea.
As for the decision I'm fine with whatever anyone else wants to do as long as it harms no one else.
To the topic of slavery, there were far many more non-black slaves than black. Unfortunately there are few visual clues as to who's ancestors may or may not have been subjected to it. Furthermore the very first slave owner in America was black himself.
http://www.africaresource.com/rasta...the-irish-slave-trade-forgotten-white-slaves/
http://conservative-headlines.com/2012/03/americas-first-slave-owner-was-a-black-man/
- - - Updated - - -
The only abuse I could see happening is benefits provided to the "spouse" in situation where two people marry who only married to receive such benefits. Ie, two old men meet in a nursing home and marry each other to receive survivor benefits after one of them dies. So eventually I could marry an old WW2 veteran and receive his military pension or social security possibly, then I could pass that on if I remarried (not sure about that). Or marry for health insurance? I could see some abuses being placed on the back of an already financially strapped system.
But what currently stops hetero couples from doing that?
I probably should have said further abuse
Hetero couples already rampantly abuse this in the military. MANY service members do "contract" marriages to other service members or civilians to get out of barracks life and just better quality of life, and more money of course with the Basic Allowance for Housing that is given out.
in other words, you are opposed to insurance/benefit abuse, not gay marriage. The fact that some people in hetero marriage abuse this should not prevent gays from getting married.
I'm not opposed at all to whoever wants to marry anyone. It's not my business. There is gonna be abuse reguardless of sexual orientation. I find some of the content of this thread laughable. It's all about control. Many people want to control other people's behavior. The reasons of those who oppose gay marriage are just ludicrous and without any real basis other than opinions that support their argument.
My uncle has been gay his entire life. My mother told me when he was as young as three or four years old, they'd play house and he'd alway ask to be the mom or daughter. He played with dolls and girl toys his entire childhood. In his 20s he married a woman and was miserable for the five years they were together. He's closing in on 70 years old now and since around 25 years old has been with the same man in a monogamous relationship since day one. They are very happy together. Probably one of the happier couples I know. To tell them they couldn't get married if they chose to would be wrong IMO.
Now I'm going back to playing skylanders with the kids!
In my opinion, this is perfectly fine if we are going to use "military" standards as justification for things. For example, the military doesn't care so much about why it does anything that it does. It only wants to enforce what is written in the regs. Don't question it. Just do it. Lawful orders are not open to discussion. If the marriage contract is legal, then the nature of the relationship is none of the military's business, and I can't really see it being reasonably defined as "abuse."
There's this small thing called the UCMJ. It lists things that are legal or otherwise. Not only are contract marriages defrauding the government of money, there are other things that these contract marriages also cause that are punishable by the UCMJ, like adultery. Many times both parties involved in the contract marriage have separate relationships with other people, sometimes both parties involved are service members. So yes, it IS the military's business.
Personally, I believe that first term service members shouldn't get such benefits. Only the service member joins the military, not his spouse/family. If you are on your second term, you are considered a career service member, and then I feel you should rate some more benefits.
Last edited:
It appears that everyone in this world today knows, works with, has served in the military with, or has a family member who is of homosexual orientation. While I do not agree with many ways of gay life, I still think they should have the same rights to pimp the government out just like billions of straight couples do each year by marrying. I think after a life of being bullied and persecuted against they deserve at least that. They have long paid their dues. Most people who are against this thinks it will bring more , "in your face gay rhetoric." I think it will do the opposite. It will give them confidence of equality and not promote more rallying and or protesting. But then again, it's just my opinion. But I love how patriotic this has all become. I love my country, I love how people fight when things are wrong, I love how it brings forth change.
Truely a great country no matter which side you stand on.
Truely a great country no matter which side you stand on.
I was still in the military when the whole DADT thing was repealed. I was totally for it back then and still am today. I told my junior Marines that it wasn't gonna change anything as far as how we got business done. Surprisingly, the most vocal Marines in my section were 2 females that were against it.
I'm all about gays being able to get married, and equal rights and what not, but what about us, the ones that CHOOSE to stay single nor have kids?? We get shafted because we want to be responsible and not bring in kids to this world that we may not necessarily be able to afford? How about giving us better tax breaks since we don't burden the government as much??
Understood,
I was not trying to make my quote geared towards you in any way. But, and this is just generally speaking, do you think the new ruling on gay marriage will open new doors which were not available for straight couples or straight domestic partners previously? It would be great if it did. What are your thoughts on that?
Of course it will open doors not available before, I was just trying to state, what about us, single people, why don't we get some tax breaks? We don't burden the government as much, or at all, unlike people pushing out kids left and right. Nothing geared towards you/your statement.
Cool man,Of course it will open doors not available before, I was just trying to state, what about us, single people, why don't we get some tax breaks? We don't burden the government as much, or at all, unlike people pushing out kids left and right. Nothing geared towards you/your statement.
I agree with you, single men get taken for rides in this country. There are people in California that are so good at pimping the system, it is like an art form. I remember paying 2000 dollars a month to live in a tiny 600 sq foot apartment on market street in San Francisco back in 2007 only to look across the alley way at section 8 housing where scum of the earth who do not work, live in apartments 5 times bigger then my own while they drive away from the garage in a late model bow or Mercedes. Life is so unfair sometimes. I guess we will just have to ride the tides and see where it takes us.
We are fucked, no but about it
- Joined
- 18 July 2005
- Messages
- 2,636
I'm not religious by any means.....However - I personally believe the union of a couple is best represented through the marriage of a man and a woman. There is no other combination that can reproduce and therefore further the interests of the human race. These are decisions that were made long ago at a level well above our appointed 'supreme court.'
On the other hand-
I see more misguided marriages these days than I see good marriages. The statistics prove this. I dare anyone to argue that fact.
Which brings me to my thoughts-
Why anyone or any group would want to deny the ability of a couple to 'marry' simply because they were of the same sex doesn't seem logical to me.
However-
Going further and thinking along those same lines...one should wonder why a gay (and presumably atheist) couple would actually want to marry in the first place.
I personally feel that this is just another case of the left pandering to yet another special interest group in order to garner votes. (remember Obama's 'evolving' opinion) I think it is disgraceful.
I also think it is disgraceful that conservatives continue to comment on this issue in the negative. This particular issue has nothing to do with the success of our nation in the near or short term.
YMMV.
On the other hand-
I see more misguided marriages these days than I see good marriages. The statistics prove this. I dare anyone to argue that fact.
Which brings me to my thoughts-
Why anyone or any group would want to deny the ability of a couple to 'marry' simply because they were of the same sex doesn't seem logical to me.
However-
Going further and thinking along those same lines...one should wonder why a gay (and presumably atheist) couple would actually want to marry in the first place.
I personally feel that this is just another case of the left pandering to yet another special interest group in order to garner votes. (remember Obama's 'evolving' opinion) I think it is disgraceful.
I also think it is disgraceful that conservatives continue to comment on this issue in the negative. This particular issue has nothing to do with the success of our nation in the near or short term.
YMMV.
I think that has been one of the best comments yet on this topic.
You speak from the heart, not copyand paste things. Politics need more of that these days.
It is great that we all can have this type of discussion here. I welcome the supreme courts ruling because of these following reasons.
1) If people who claim they are non religious, then why get married the good ol fashioned Christian way in a church?
2) If you feel that they are no different then yourself, why deny them the same citizenship, tax exemptions, and rights as we all already are born into?
3) These same issues were around long before the birth of Christ, the bible, the union of a so called marriage.
I feel our country is making the right decision. Our country is a beacon for the poor, the persecuted, the dreamers, the ones who seek a better life. This ruling only makes it more so a reality more than a dream. But I do understand the argument here, it is a topic previously discussed, peviously voted on, and previously shot down. But at the end of the day, we are all people looking to make a better life for ourselves. Does this not make a better life for people? Because all I see is people mad about having to make cakes which go against their so called religious beliefs which they have a right not to do, however this should not deter you from the topic at hand. They are all warm blooded American citizens and I fight for any citizen living in MY country. The UNITED states of America.
On your first point, why does procreation have to be linked to marriage?
1. It's not like there is a shortage of people so the human race is not threatened except for overpopulation in some regions.
2. I was married for 20 years the first time (in a religious ceremony) and we had no children. Was my marriage any less or more valid than a same sex childless couple?
3. Are children born out of wedlock "contributing" less to the human race than children of a married couple?
4. If two gay people never planned to have children irrespective of marriage being legalized for them then what difference does it make to the human race if we legitimize their relationship with the right to marry?
As to your second point, you cannot presume a gay couple is atheist. I have family and friends who, to my surprise, are religious and one who is a deacon in a church. When I say I am "surprised" they are catholic and of other Christian faiths it is not a result of my atheism but that I do not understand why they go to Church each week knowing that those around them and their religion condemn them.
Last edited:
Here's the thing.. no rights should be to denied gay people, sexual persuasions are a very minor part of what makes a person. If you want to be called married instead of being in a civil union then good for you. In the end the definition of marriage has changed slightly, but to me my marriage is the same. The whole issue was trumped up by politicians, whether it would have come up naturally who knows, probably, but follow the history in the press, this is undeniable. Again no big deal. What is a big deal, and almost funny and a little silly to be worried about this, when we should worry about are people being thrown off buildings by radicals in the mid'east simply because they're homosexuals. Can we do something about that?
Last edited:
You could knock down all the buildings but that won't stop stupidity.
Depends who are in the buildings..
Of course it will open doors not available before, I was just trying to state, what about us, single people, why don't we get some tax breaks? We don't burden the government as much, or at all, unlike people pushing out kids left and right. Nothing geared towards you/your statement.
Okay, dude, seriously... now having kids is "burdening the government"? That's a bit far fetched since, if people didn't have kids, there would be no more 'Murica after just a few decades. Kids, are, after all, the future taxpayers on whose bosom the government will be suckling. The government is more a burden to the People, the way I see it.
And while we're on the subject of singles getting tax breaks for not burdening the government, how come those of us who served in the military and didn't get hurt (i.e. no VA medical "percentage" rating), how come we don't get a severance bonus for not burdening the government with a lifetime of disability payments?
- - - Updated - - -
We had a gay guy at our church who, rather than participate in a "sinful" relationship, chose celibacy.
Similar threads
- Locked
