Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide

a reply to: MystikMushroom

OM gosh.. you had my at Darth Vader!

originally posted by: Freenrgy2
a reply to: Krazysh0t

None of us can remember what marriage was about before it became a STATE requirement for certain legal rights.

Well you can blame the Christians for that. The reason the state handles marriages now is because Christians used the state to prevent interracial couples from marrying.

Taking Marriage Private

The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.

In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners.

So guess what. You can thank your own intolerant Christian forefathers for meddling with marriage in the first place which resulted in this whole controversy.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

You can still loose your job in 13 US States for being gay

That would be illegal throughout the EU!

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

No, sorry not sorry i will not be kept behind closed doors, unless you support an oppressive dictatorship way of life?

I think you 100% misunderstood what I was saying...

Nevermind

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Never said that or inferred it. Another example of taking something out of context and putting your own spin on it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It would seem so, wouldn't it. Don't disagree, but doesn't make what the SCOTUS did any more correct.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Just because we get recognized as Equal in marriage doesn't mean we need to limit ourselves as there is more to go

What more ? Forcing your "Sodom and Gomorrah" on others ?

In 2009 a PA women married a roller coaster....

Congrats SCOTUS, it only took you 6 years to grant people the same rights as a roller coaster

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Why should we limit our Pride Parades, when they support the Stonewall Riots and other Political activism that started, and now they also support the pride of people under the GLBTQ Umbrella and those not under that Umbrella that celebrate with us.. asking for us to limit them is wrong

Why not support LGBT stuff? why not if you support it? there are still many steps towards True Equality, i posted a ling to them earlier

Just because we get recognized as Equal in marriage doesn't mean we need to limit ourselves as there is more to go

As I said, I support your cause 100%.

What I dream of is a day when those parades aren't necessary any more. When the protesting isn't needed anymore. When, as MystikMushroom said, seeing a gay couple filling out a wedding registry at BB&B is completely normal. That's what I want.

I'm sorry if I came off as not supporting you. Though I stand behind my remarks on the exhibitionism. But that's not an issue of gay vs. straight, I just don't like exhibitionism in ANY form.

a reply to: flammadraco

Exactly, there are those states which allow discrimination.. Workplace, Adoption, blood donation

there is still soooo much more discrimination that we need to address before we can become true equal

this doesn't stop here, but hopefully a step forward

a reply to: kitzik

So sad, stop peddling hate, today is a day for love and equality.

originally posted by: Freenrgy2
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It would seem so, wouldn't it. Don't disagree, but doesn't make what the SCOTUS did any more correct.

Uh... yes it makes it 100% correct and completely in line with the Loving v Virginia ruling from 1967 overturning interracial marriage bans. You don't happen to disagree with that Supreme Court ruling too do you?

Equality for all. Christians shot themselves in the foot 70-80 years ago trying to be as intolerant as possible and now you guys are reaping the benefits of equality for all. Everyone gets a taste, regardless of how you feel on the matter.

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: Darth_Prime

Just because we get recognized as Equal in marriage doesn't mean we need to limit ourselves as there is more to go

What more ? Forcing your "Sodom and Gomorrah" on others ?

Maybe making it so that being gay can't get you fired from your job. You can't fire someone because they're black, but in some states you can fire someone because of where they put their naughty bits.

Or that being gay prevents you from donating blood.

originally posted by: Freenrgy2
a reply to: MystikMushroom

And in 50 years, I wonder if Christianity will still exist. Or, will those that hold those beliefs be deemed racist.

Well, lets see...

If allowing gay people to get married causes Christians to be deemed "racist" (being gay isn't a race btw), or rather intolerant and bigots...then the message still applies.

These Christians that allow the collapse of their religion or flee it must not have strong faith. If their faith was strong, they would not care what others think of their dissenting views.

So in 50 years if Christianity does not exist, then I would assume the faith of its followers was rather weak indeed.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, it doesn't make it correct. Period.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

No, i understand.. but the meaning behind the Pride Parades is deeper than just having a Pride Parade. it's to represent the Gay Rights that started after the Stonewall Riots, and to honor those that have fought for us before. i don't think they should stop or limited.

but i understand what you're saying about exhibitionism

originally posted by: kitzik
a reply to: raedar

If you were reading my previous comments, you would notice that I wasn't against adopting children. Or in your case even for "unnatural for you" intercourse or completely artificial insemination. But I think with time going forward there will be more "natural lesbians" since it is still 90% nurture and 10% nature behavior. As a result there will be probably less normal pairs and probably statistically less kids.

I did not state that you were for or against gay adoption. You were equating being gay with transhumanism and a depopulation agenda and I was illustrating a point of all the ways gay people CAN and DO have children. I'm not sure if you are intentionally speaking in circles or just really that confused.

Best of luck either way!

a reply to: kitzik

No one is forcing anyone.
Are you a little dim?.
Tell you what build me a bridge cry me ariver and get over it.
Equality wins so does humanity.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Next step. LGBT's become a protected class of people like African-American or Native American.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

It was a rhetorical question. OMG.