Santorum's anti-gay platform made me sick!
- Thread starter TexRx
- Start date
BackyardBuds
Well-Known Member
Yes marriage does have a "legal" definition. However, legal does not mean it is right or compassionate. Do I need to remind any of us on the US Government & DEA's "Legal" stance on cannabis.
ink the world
Well-Known Member
Even more interesting and very telling why it matters in the first place and that demand an answer.
I dont comprehend how someone else's marriage has any bearing on yours. How does 2 guys getting married degrade, affect or change your relationship with your wife?
The whole marriage bring tied to religion is off base man. I'm married, no church and no child molester presided over the ceremony. If you truly are a constitutionalist then you would support equality for all, even if the offend your religion/superstition
ink the world
Well-Known Member
A court just ruled DOMA as being unconstitutional
There is some reason in our country thankfully
There is some reason in our country thankfully
smokinrav
Well-Known Member
Don't you understand? This is the new majority.
The old way the constitution was there to protect the minority from the majority. Now it is the 70% of the entire US populaions self identified as Christian that must be protected.
The courts aren't enough
The legislators aren't enough
The taxes aren't enough
They must be protected from the minority at all costs lest their delicate sensibilities be offended!
Fuck off and die.
The old way the constitution was there to protect the minority from the majority. Now it is the 70% of the entire US populaions self identified as Christian that must be protected.
The courts aren't enough
The legislators aren't enough
The taxes aren't enough
They must be protected from the minority at all costs lest their delicate sensibilities be offended!
Fuck off and die.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
This thread made me laugh.... because it's stupid.
First of all, (and most importantly) why is the government involved in a religious ceremony in the first place? We have separation of church and state. DOMA is in direct violation of this clearly defined separation. Civil unions on equal status with marriage? I've said this before, there are over 1,000 laws that effect married couples and their offspring that aren't available to civil union couples. To follow up on UB's question, I have asked in several different forums and among my peers and fellow Latter-Day-Saints how equal marriage will hurt them. No one had an answer. No one could point out how my being married to a big ol' burly dude is going to wreck some hetero marriage.
Finally, if we're going to follow Biblical standards then a lot of you are guilty of so many different sins and religious taboos that stoning you to death is the only solution. So get up against that wall and let the rocking begin. Shellfish? sinner! Wearing mixed fabrics? SINNER!! Talking back to your parents or showing disrespect? SINNER!! Touch the Ark of The Covenant? Instant death. The list goes on and on. Christ himself said he didn't come to do away with the Law of Moses but to fulfill it. All of those restrictions, sins, taboos, infractions, and brainfarts were no longer valid. Because redemption came through Christ, not rituals.
10,000 years of traditional marriage? I'd like to see evidence of that since written history only goes back to about 6,000 (depending on what expert you speak to). Also, if you're such a Biblical warrior, how do you reconcile the bible saying the earth is only about 8,000 years old with your claim that traditional marriage has been around for 10,000 years? Or do you just spout shit out of your mouth to try and prove a stupid point whether true or not?
Back to traditional marriage. Do you really want to go back to traditional marriage? First of all we would have to take away women's rights. They must become property once again to be bartered and sold. In some cultures they were murdered when their husband died and buried with them. A few of those cultures actually burned the spouses alive.
Polygamy has the Bible's stamp of approval and was practiced among the Israelites. Among many tribes in the Americas, gay marriage was accepted and sometimes even encouraged. Now THAT'S traditional. How about marrying relatives? Cousins marrying cousins, Brothers marrying sisters, so on and so forth. Habsburgs ring a bell? Most of European royalty was inbred as well as Egyptian royalty.
You know what traditional marriage is? Equal marriage for all. What is wrong with two consenting adults who love each other formalizing and legitimizing their union? Nothing.
First of all, (and most importantly) why is the government involved in a religious ceremony in the first place? We have separation of church and state. DOMA is in direct violation of this clearly defined separation. Civil unions on equal status with marriage? I've said this before, there are over 1,000 laws that effect married couples and their offspring that aren't available to civil union couples. To follow up on UB's question, I have asked in several different forums and among my peers and fellow Latter-Day-Saints how equal marriage will hurt them. No one had an answer. No one could point out how my being married to a big ol' burly dude is going to wreck some hetero marriage.
Finally, if we're going to follow Biblical standards then a lot of you are guilty of so many different sins and religious taboos that stoning you to death is the only solution. So get up against that wall and let the rocking begin. Shellfish? sinner! Wearing mixed fabrics? SINNER!! Talking back to your parents or showing disrespect? SINNER!! Touch the Ark of The Covenant? Instant death. The list goes on and on. Christ himself said he didn't come to do away with the Law of Moses but to fulfill it. All of those restrictions, sins, taboos, infractions, and brainfarts were no longer valid. Because redemption came through Christ, not rituals.
10,000 years of traditional marriage? I'd like to see evidence of that since written history only goes back to about 6,000 (depending on what expert you speak to). Also, if you're such a Biblical warrior, how do you reconcile the bible saying the earth is only about 8,000 years old with your claim that traditional marriage has been around for 10,000 years? Or do you just spout shit out of your mouth to try and prove a stupid point whether true or not?
Back to traditional marriage. Do you really want to go back to traditional marriage? First of all we would have to take away women's rights. They must become property once again to be bartered and sold. In some cultures they were murdered when their husband died and buried with them. A few of those cultures actually burned the spouses alive.
Polygamy has the Bible's stamp of approval and was practiced among the Israelites. Among many tribes in the Americas, gay marriage was accepted and sometimes even encouraged. Now THAT'S traditional. How about marrying relatives? Cousins marrying cousins, Brothers marrying sisters, so on and so forth. Habsburgs ring a bell? Most of European royalty was inbred as well as Egyptian royalty.
You know what traditional marriage is? Equal marriage for all. What is wrong with two consenting adults who love each other formalizing and legitimizing their union? Nothing.
smokinrav
Well-Known Member
Federal appeals court joins me in a hearty "Fuck You" to the right wing Christianists out there.
==============================
By David G.
Savage
May 31,
2012, 9:02
a.m.
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. appeals court in Boston became the first such court to
strike down as unconstitutional the federal Defense of Marriage Act, ruling
Thursday that it unfairly denies equal benefits to legally married same-sex
couples.
The ruling is a victory for gay-rights advocates
and the Obama
administration, which had refused to defend that part of the 1996 law.
The decision sets the stage for a ruling next year by the Supreme Court on
the constitutionality of the law that limits federal recognition of marriage to
the union of a man and a woman.
The Boston-based judges stressed their decision did not establish a national
right to gay marriage. That issue remains a matter for the states, they
said.
But in states such as Massachusetts, where gays and lesbians can legally
marry, the federal government cannot deny these couples the right to file a
joint federal tax return or to receive a survivor's benefit under the Social
Security Act, the appeals court said.
The court's opinion said there are more than 100,000 legally married gay and
lesbian couples in the half-dozen states that have legalized same-sex
marriages.
Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 to prevent same-sex
marriages in one state from being legally recognized by all states. Usually, a
couple's marriage in one state is recognized as valid in all states. However,
the federal law said no state "shall be required to give effect" to a
"relationship between persons of the same sex." Moreover, it said that under
federal law, a marriage "means only the legal union between one man and one
woman."
The case decided Thursday dealt only with this latter provision involving
federal law and benefits.
In 2003, the Massachusetts state high court became the first to declare that
gays and lesbians had an equal right to marry. Several years later, seven
same-sex couples who were married in Massachusetts filed a lawsuit in federal
court challenging as unconstitutional the part of the Defense of Marriage Act
that denied them the same benefits as other married couples. The state of
Massachusetts filed a similar suit against the federal government, stressing
this was a states-rights issue.
The Justice
Department defended the law, but U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in
2010 that it was unconstitutional to deny equal benefits to the same-sex couples
who had sued. The government appealed to the 1st Circuit Court in Boston, but
the Obama administration then switched sides.
President Obama and Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder
Jr. announced they would not defend the denial of equal federal benefits to
legally married same-sex couples. The Justice Department then filed a brief
urging the 1st Circuit to strike down the federal-benefits provision of the
legislation.
House
Republicans, led by Speaker John Boehner, hired
Washington attorney Paul Clement to defend the law in the Boston
court.
Thursday's opinion in Massachusetts vs. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services was written by Judge Michael Boudin, an appointee of President George
H.W. Bush. It was joined by Chief Judge Sandra Lynch, a Clinton appointee, and
Judge Juan Torruella, a Reagan appointee.
In the key passage, the judges stressed they were upholding a state's right
to insist on equal treatment for its married couples.
"To conclude, many Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and
a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today. One
virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on
local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to
legalize same-sex marriage," Boudin wrote.
"Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress'
denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts
has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal
interest."
[email protected]
==============================
By David G.
Savage
May 31,
2012, 9:02
a.m.
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. appeals court in Boston became the first such court to
strike down as unconstitutional the federal Defense of Marriage Act, ruling
Thursday that it unfairly denies equal benefits to legally married same-sex
couples.
The ruling is a victory for gay-rights advocates
and the Obama
administration, which had refused to defend that part of the 1996 law.
The decision sets the stage for a ruling next year by the Supreme Court on
the constitutionality of the law that limits federal recognition of marriage to
the union of a man and a woman.
The Boston-based judges stressed their decision did not establish a national
right to gay marriage. That issue remains a matter for the states, they
said.
But in states such as Massachusetts, where gays and lesbians can legally
marry, the federal government cannot deny these couples the right to file a
joint federal tax return or to receive a survivor's benefit under the Social
Security Act, the appeals court said.
The court's opinion said there are more than 100,000 legally married gay and
lesbian couples in the half-dozen states that have legalized same-sex
marriages.
Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 to prevent same-sex
marriages in one state from being legally recognized by all states. Usually, a
couple's marriage in one state is recognized as valid in all states. However,
the federal law said no state "shall be required to give effect" to a
"relationship between persons of the same sex." Moreover, it said that under
federal law, a marriage "means only the legal union between one man and one
woman."
The case decided Thursday dealt only with this latter provision involving
federal law and benefits.
In 2003, the Massachusetts state high court became the first to declare that
gays and lesbians had an equal right to marry. Several years later, seven
same-sex couples who were married in Massachusetts filed a lawsuit in federal
court challenging as unconstitutional the part of the Defense of Marriage Act
that denied them the same benefits as other married couples. The state of
Massachusetts filed a similar suit against the federal government, stressing
this was a states-rights issue.
The Justice
Department defended the law, but U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in
2010 that it was unconstitutional to deny equal benefits to the same-sex couples
who had sued. The government appealed to the 1st Circuit Court in Boston, but
the Obama administration then switched sides.
President Obama and Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder
Jr. announced they would not defend the denial of equal federal benefits to
legally married same-sex couples. The Justice Department then filed a brief
urging the 1st Circuit to strike down the federal-benefits provision of the
legislation.
House
Republicans, led by Speaker John Boehner, hired
Washington attorney Paul Clement to defend the law in the Boston
court.
Thursday's opinion in Massachusetts vs. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services was written by Judge Michael Boudin, an appointee of President George
H.W. Bush. It was joined by Chief Judge Sandra Lynch, a Clinton appointee, and
Judge Juan Torruella, a Reagan appointee.
In the key passage, the judges stressed they were upholding a state's right
to insist on equal treatment for its married couples.
"To conclude, many Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and
a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today. One
virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on
local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to
legalize same-sex marriage," Boudin wrote.
"Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress'
denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts
has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal
interest."
[email protected]
Illegal Smile
Well-Known Member
Ultimately, all I care about is the fact that the issue is hurting Obama - a great deal. So naturally I want the topic in the public eye as much as possible. Even more ultimately, I think we may be on the verge of a full scale culture war, the kind with "kinetic hostility." I wonder how the gays will be as guerrilla fighters? Don't ask, don't tell!
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
The only thing the "issue" is doing is flushing the shit birds out of their bigot houses they call churches. They are a dwindling minority raging against their loss of control of the masses. A majority of Americans in MANY polls are in favor of equal marriage. The religious nut jobs are hating it. The more they spout their homophobic bigoted rhetoric, the more America turns away from them. Finally. Progress.
Ace Spoddity
Member
My wife is a Grief/Anger management counselor. She told me that gay bashers are almost always men and they have had homosexual experiences early in adolescence and were never really able to come to grips with the fact that they enjoyed it.
Just sayin'
Also, the govt. doesn't have the right to lavish benefits on people that live in a religous bubble. Or anyone else.
If there was a sect of the christian cult that only recognized same sex unions through some interpretation of the bible,
would that all of a sudden make same sex marriage ok?
Incredible that this stupid issue has gotten so much traction
Don't look at the man behind the curtain, look at the wrong two people loving each other.
Fucking ChiNOs. You know who you are
Just sayin'
Also, the govt. doesn't have the right to lavish benefits on people that live in a religous bubble. Or anyone else.
If there was a sect of the christian cult that only recognized same sex unions through some interpretation of the bible,
would that all of a sudden make same sex marriage ok?
Incredible that this stupid issue has gotten so much traction
Don't look at the man behind the curtain, look at the wrong two people loving each other.
Fucking ChiNOs. You know who you are
ink the world
Well-Known Member
I highly doubt that religious right wingers were going to vote for Obana to begin with. This won't cost him votes overall, in fact it might actually give him a boost. You see a MAJORITY of Americans aren't opposed to gay marriage, times are changing my friend.
Your crack about gays being bad fighters is laughable and ignorant to fact. There are gays fighting and dying in service to our country. You speak of a culture war, and in that I do agree. We need to take imbeciles like you and make sure you stay where you belong, in the margins.
Illegal Smile
Well-Known Member
u mad bro?
ink the world
Well-Known Member
You know what Illegal, I'm sorry man.
Look, i understand your anger now. It's OK man, it wasn't your fault; no one deserves what happened to you. He was a bad man that did bad things to you...it's OK to be angry
Look, i understand your anger now. It's OK man, it wasn't your fault; no one deserves what happened to you. He was a bad man that did bad things to you...it's OK to be angry
ink the world
Well-Known Member
Nah dude, just feelin bad for ya
Fungus Gnat
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;iRNbC-aSFLc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iRNbC-aSFLc[/video]
Yep, they cannot hide behind their faith, their actions show their true faces.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
Pastor Curtis Knapp of New Hope Baptist Church in Seneca, Kansas thinks gays should be put to death:
"They should be put to death. That's what happened in Israel. That's why homosexuality wouldn't have grown in Israel. It tends to limit conversions. It tends to limit people coming out of the closet. 'Oh, so you're saying we should go out and start killing them, no?' I'm saying the government should. They won't but they should. [You say], 'oh, I can't believe you you're horrible. You're a backwards neanderthal of a person.' Is that what you're calling scripture? Is God a neanderthal backwards.. in his morality. Is it his word or not? If it's his word, he commanded it. It's his idea, not mine. And I'm not ashamed of it."
"They should be put to death. That's what happened in Israel. That's why homosexuality wouldn't have grown in Israel. It tends to limit conversions. It tends to limit people coming out of the closet. 'Oh, so you're saying we should go out and start killing them, no?' I'm saying the government should. They won't but they should. [You say], 'oh, I can't believe you you're horrible. You're a backwards neanderthal of a person.' Is that what you're calling scripture? Is God a neanderthal backwards.. in his morality. Is it his word or not? If it's his word, he commanded it. It's his idea, not mine. And I'm not ashamed of it."
londonfog
Well-Known Member
I want no parts of that religion
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
It's amazing how hate can twist interpretation of sacred texts. The Koran. The Bible. GQ Magazine.
Ace Spoddity
Member
No you don't understand. In all probability it was just an innocent encounter with with a middle school chum. Not a rape or a molestation. The catholic church won't let gays get married. I'm really trying to think of something more absurd but I cant.