GAY MARRIAGE IS NOW LEGAL IN ALL STATES ��💛💚💙💜

[Cody K]

You're hoping I'm a troll, because you don't like being called out on your hypocrisies. It makes you feel weird. Pretty basic stuff here.

I'll have you know I graduated college with flying colors, so right there and then - in your second sentence - you're already being an assuming bigot

 

I don't disagree with gay love. I disagree with your methods. You're looking for bigots in the Church. There are bigots everywhere. Check your mirror lately?

 

I'll post once more then wipe my hands clean of you. 

 

The very fact that you believe it was necessary to substantiate your claims by desultorily bringing up your college education makes me believe that you have, in fact, not graduated. A mature adult simply does act the way you do and for a very good reason. 

 

Additionally, not once have I discussed religion in any of my posts. The only clear message and underlying theme that you have been able to convey is your hapless attempt to position yourself, or "the church," as a victim. You're failing to produce logical arguments so you reach for the absurd and defend your actions with a false sense of morality.

 

 

Edit: It's not gay love. It is love.   

Edited June 27, 2015 by Cody K

[Severus Ryan]

Aww its so cute how you try to deny it lol, I could send you a pic of my diploma if you want :^)

Leftists and denial of reality, clearly inseparable!

And oh yes, a "mature adult", like you and your treatment of Thalmor eh? Because the way you threw his opinions into the wastebin and called him obsolete and worthy of ridicule is sooooo mature amirite lmao

 

Oh and I wasn't trying to "position" the church as a victim, its clearly already being victimized by your kind without my interference! Heck, I'm not even Christian and I can see where this is going. History indeed repeats itself, but now its the other side doing the prosecuting :^)

 

And yes, I've been reaching for the "absurd" indeed - all I've used against you so far have been your own words! I suppose one can't argue with himself without being called a madman so I forgive you for your dismissal

 

I'll just leave this here, then-

"The doctrine of equality! ... But there is no more venomous poison in existence: for it appears to be preached by justice itself, when it is actually the end of justice ... "Equality to the equal; inequality to the unequal" - that would be true justice speaking: and its corollary, "never make the unequal equal".

 

– Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols (1888). Expeditions of an Untimely Man.

 

Oh, and this (NSFW) -

<removed for rule violation>

Edited June 28, 2015 by Jaehaerys

[Lyro]

lol, maybe you mean High School Diploma?

 

or kindergarten diploma

Edited June 27, 2015 by Lyro

[Severus Ryan]

lol, maybe you mean High School Diploma?

 

or kindergarten diploma

no, but I would technically still be considered 'educated' in either case so lol

[Greatnate]

Oh and I wasn't trying to "position" the church as a victim, its clearly already being victimized by your kind without my interference! Heck, I'm not even Christian and I can see where this is going.

 

Perhaps if you're not a church member, you could avoid "defending" the church against things that are not attacks. I know plenty of Christians who are happy to see this decision from SCotUS and plenty of churches that would be happy to marry same-sex couples. I for one am disappointed in my particular denomination's refusal to allow people who are openly homosexual to serve as lay clergy. The argument goes on within the community though. The church is not being persecuted and this decision doesn't affect any church's ability to deny marriage to whoever they want.

[Severus Ryan]

Perhaps if you're not a church member, you could avoid "defending" the church against things that are not attacks. I know plenty of Christians who are happy to see this decision from SCotUS and plenty of churches that would be happy to marry same-sex couples. I for one am disappointed in my particular denomination's refusal to allow people who are openly homosexual to serve as lay clergy. The argument goes on within the community though. The church is not being persecuted and this decision doesn't affect any church's ability to deny marriage to whoever they want.

Saywhat?

[Belisarius]

Saywhat?

 

Technically, this ministry involves a wedding chapel and not a church. Although listed as a “religious corporation†it is not a non-profit organization. This opens a window for prosecution that churches (supposedly) are immune from.

Read more at http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/ministers-could-face-jail-for-refusing-to-perform-same-sex-marriage-ceremony-29821/#eIYVI4sb6fU05Vt6.99

This is supposedly the issue. It's not a Church being affected, but a Wedding-centric chapel. That is, they are performing weddings with a religious tint, but they are still in effect contractors working for the state. As state contractors, they don't have the luxury to pick and choose who they want to wed.

 

Should there be a compromise struck? Sure, but this is not indicative of religious persecution against Churches but of people profiting from marrying people, very much unlike churches.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Belisarius

[Severus Ryan]

This is supposedly the issue. It's not a Church being affected, but a Wedding-centric chapel. That is, they are performing weddings with a religious tint, but they are still in effect contractors working for the state. As state contractors, they don't have the luxury to pick and choose who they want to wed.Should there be a compromise struck? Sure, but this is not indicative of religious persecution against Churches but of people profiting from marrying people, very much unlike churches.

I concede to your point, then. But how long until the real deal? It's already happening to others besides the Church - anyone remember that small, privately-owned bakery that refused to serve homosexuals on religious grounds? Their lives were apparently "ruined" and while that's probably mostly just embellishment and sensationalism, I'm pretty sure they weren't having a picnic either. The tables have turned, and I'm not entirely against that - I am merely pointing it out, and enjoying the reactions :^) kinda like when some priests are called out on prosecution of homosexuals, while being homosexual pedophiles themselves lmao

Edited June 27, 2015 by Severus Ryan

[Rozalia]

Remember those who are saying it is about love. You may be able to dismiss bestiality and pedophilia as absurd due to their "extreme nature" shall we say, however that does not apply to bigamy. 

[Severus Ryan]

Remember those who are saying it is about love. You may be able to dismiss bestiality and pedophilia as absurd due to their "extreme nature" shall we say, however that does not apply to bigamy.

 

The politically correct term is "polyamory" :^)

 

Let's face it - nothing is sacred anymore, and pedophilia will be next on the agenda.

The only reason both pedophilia and bestiality are viewed with disdain is, guess why? Christianity. Or Judeo-Christian ethics to be more specific.

The Romans and Greeks practiced pedophilia in spades, and we're pretty much following in their footsteps at this point. Then ISIS will win and its a goatse free for all

Edited June 27, 2015 by Severus Ryan

[Rozalia]

The politically correct term is "polyamory" :^)

 

Let's face it - nothing is sacred anymore, and pedophilia will be next on the agenda.

The only reason both pedophilia and bestiality are viewed with disdain is, guess why? Christianity. Or Judeo-Christian ethics to be more specific.

The Romans and Greeks practiced pedophilia in spades, and we're pretty much following in their footsteps at this point. Then ISIS will win and its a goatse free for all

 

A lot of poly words involved a lot of people aren't too familiar with so I thought to use bigamy. I'll keep the word in mind though like I do Polygamy, Polygyny, and Polyandry. 

 

People will be quick to say "slippery slope" to that, but there isn't anything inherently wrong there. If all these things are mostly banned on religious grounds then as you strip that away and demean religion as an irrelevance then naturally other things religion is against will be opposed. However politically conservatism rules the day so even if it were to come to that you'd not see such things in your life time. 

[Crust]

God, no offense but you guys are full of shit.

 

Yes, you're basing your logics on a slippery slope fallacy and most of your arguments aren't even based on any source of fact.

 

Sure, a lot of the laws we have today come from the abramatic religions. However, the reason why paedophilia and bestiality are still illegal isn't because and thanks to the church. We condemn these two acts because it's about having a sexual relation with someone or something that is sentient but can't consent. Thus it's rape. A child can't completely give their consent to have sex, which is why we have laws that prevent people who are of legal age to have sex with someone who's a minor. Animals can't talk or express themselves in an acceptable manner, thus there's no way to know if it consents before you have sex with it. Two or more sane, sober and willing adults can consent to having sex. If a man and a woman can have sex without it automatically being rape, then so can two or more people of the same gender have sex with consent. That's the whole idea of why this should be legal while paedophilia and bestiality are illegal and will be illegal for a long time.

 

And I seriously don't understand your scares concerning bigami/polyamoury. If all the parties are consenting, why should the state decide if they can get married or not? What does it matter to anyone else if it's 2 or 5 people getting married to each other? I seriously don't understand your logics. If no one is being hurt or forced in to doing something they don't want or can't possible consent to then why should the state stop them?

[Rozalia]

God, no offense but you guys are full of !@#$.

 

Yes, you're basing your logics on a slippery slope fallacy and most of your arguments aren't even based on any source of fact.

 

Sure, a lot of the laws we have today come from the abramatic religions. However, the reason why paedophilia and bestiality are still illegal isn't because and thanks to the church. We condemn these two acts because it's about having a sexual relation with someone or something that is sentient but can't consent. Thus it's rape. A child can't completely give their consent to have sex, which is why we have laws that prevent people who are of legal age to have sex with someone who's a minor. Animals can't talk or express themselves in an acceptable manner, thus there's no way to know if it consents before you have sex with it. Two or more sane, sober and willing adults can consent to having sex. If a man and a woman can have sex without it automatically being rape, then so can two or more people of the same gender have sex with consent. That's the whole idea of why this should be legal while paedophilia and bestiality are illegal and will be illegal for a long time.

 

And I seriously don't understand your scares concerning bigami/polyamoury. If all the parties are consenting, why should the state decide if they can get married or not? What does it matter to anyone else if it's 2 or 5 people getting married to each other? I seriously don't understand your logics. If no one is being hurt or forced in to doing something they don't want or can't possible consent to then why should the state stop them?

 

"Age of consent" used to not be factor then to 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, with some of course jumped a few of those figures. Why can't that age of consent go down or up? As for animals, who is to say their consent will even matter in the future? After all people talk of caring, but such creatures are killed in the tens of billions each year and suffer greatly before their demise.

Why do you perceive your culture and views to be so enlightened that they will not be deemed an outdated joke in the future? Oh and just so you do not get this confused I am not saying homosexuality == bestiality. Merely that the whole "that is a slippery slope, we are so enlightened" claim often used is in itself nonsense. 

 

Now as for me "scaring"... you misunderstood me completely. I'm simply stating that as the homosexual cause is being won that I hope to see that support convert into popular support for bigamy/polyamory. If love and consent are the main arguements being used then getting marriage to multiple partners legalised is a no brainer that should be done as soon as possible. 

[Apeman]

I'm personally glad this is happening, birth control ideas aren't working so the world needs to do something to slow it's population climb.

[Sailor Jerry]

Well, hopefully this will put an end to all the damn gay rights parades. Me personally, I'm against it....but that's just me. Is what really pisses me off, is that god forbid I organize a "Straight Pride" parade, what kind label do you think would be thrown at me? I know most folks might publicly say...."hey, there right to do this".....but then behind closed doors folks would be wanting to lynch me and call on the politicians to the parade band and what not. It pisses me off, that through no fault of my own....I'm being told by the powers that be, my identity means nothing anymore and if I try to stand up for it, I seen as a bigot, racist, sexist, 200 years out of touch with society. Sure, be what you want, do what you want.....but for &#33;@#&#036; sake.....quit throwing it in my face!

[Bilal the Great]

Yeah whatever.

[Braunsberg]

P.S: Of course, I'm open to any counter-arguments anybody as: if you think I'm wrong on anything, please state so and explain why.

Allow me to correct your statement: more like "everything."

 

Until now, gay people have been prohibited from receiving the legal benefits - which often are important to raising a family of some sort - of marriage, strictly because of who they love. How would you like to live a life in which you were strongly attached to a woman (perhaps a man depending on your gender, but given your strong opinion, I'm going to guess you're a guy), and you thought she was a wonderful person and had so many things to admire about her. And now imagine that law kept you from being married. Sure, you could live together - but for the rest of your life you would never be recognized in the traditional ceremony to honor your attachment to that woman. Instead, the rest of society would slander you as a weirdo and a "godless" person.

 

That's how gays have been living for a long, long time. Not to mention the fact that many are bullied in school or are so afraid to admit their feelings - for fear of being ridiculed, ostracized and rejected - that they never even get to find someone they like that much, all because they're afraid of the reaction from people such as yourself. While I respect the dedication you have to what you are convinced is right, it strikes me as disappointing that some people have such an inability to find compassion for people who are different.

 

As for your argument about states' rights, tell me this. In this situation, you are picking between two things: the right of a state, and the right of a group within the populace. So which is more important: states' rights, or the people's rights? I will pick the right of ordinary people to live equal lives any day over the right of a Bible-thumping state government to marginalize people they don't like.

 

I'm not gay, I'm straight - but I happen to be very strongly attached to a special someone myself, and I realize that homosexuals have just as strong and respectable an attachment to their partners. And they should have the right to enjoy those feelings and be recognized as much as anyone else.

[SabinAumm]

 

[vonnorman]

Simple very simple. Both sides are completely clueless to the fact that our government has NO right to give benefits to ANYONE based on such a prejudiced thing as marriage. This is a completely personal thing between two people in love and their respective significant others (such as family and friends). The fact that the state has a say in a matter that is CLEARLY religious (marriage primarily occurs in a CHURCH) AND clearly PERSONAL. The fact that there is a certificate amd a government involved at all is a complete trampling on the constitution. So the real problem is not WHO is getting married, its who DOESNT HAVE A RIGHT to step on our personal and religious freedoms. As a man who seeks women, men getting married to eachother means that two VERY Competent males are no longer competing for females.

[Thalmor]

Simple very simple. Both sides are completely clueless to the fact that our government has NO right to give benefits to ANYONE based on such a prejudiced thing as marriage. This is a completely personal thing between two people in love and their respective significant others (such as family and friends). The fact that the state has a say in a matter that is CLEARLY religious (marriage primarily occurs in a CHURCH) AND clearly PERSONAL. The fact that there is a certificate amd a government involved at all is a complete trampling on the constitution. So the real problem is not WHO is getting married, its who DOESNT HAVE A RIGHT to step on our personal and religious freedoms. As a man who seeks women, men getting married to eachother means that two VERY Competent males are no longer competing for females.

 

This is an idea I can get behind.

 

I know the Libertarians (I would know, I use to be one) would often say that the government has no place in marriage.

[Braunsberg]

Simple very simple. Both sides are completely clueless to the fact that our government has NO right to give benefits to ANYONE based on such a prejudiced thing as marriage. This is a completely personal thing between two people in love and their respective significant others (such as family and friends). The fact that the state has a say in a matter that is CLEARLY religious (marriage primarily occurs in a CHURCH) AND clearly PERSONAL. The fact that there is a certificate amd a government involved at all is a complete trampling on the constitution. So the real problem is not WHO is getting married, its who DOESNT HAVE A RIGHT to step on our personal and religious freedoms. As a man who seeks women, men getting married to eachother means that two VERY Competent males are no longer competing for females.

If marriage was strictly religious, then there are two things you are not noticing. First, people who are nonreligious would seldom get married if it was purely a religious ceremony. And second, marriage is very often done in state houses and town halls, without a minister - in the United States this is less common than church marriages, but they are still very prevalent, especially in less-religious cultures.

 

Another point I would bring up is the fact that the idea of marriage that you are referring to - one being held in a church, with a pastor - is the Christian version of the ceremony. Many, many other cultures - both historical and modern - celebrate marriage in very different ways, and often have little or no connection with religion at all. Whether the ceremony is done in Christian fashion or not is irrelevant; the point is that marriage is a traditional way of honoring a strong union between two people, whether done in a church, state house, mosque, et cetera.

 

Lastly, you are partially misunderstanding the reason why the government's decision is legitimately important. Obviously, the biggest and most-celebrated part of the decision is simply the fact that same-sex couples will be recognized and honored in the same manner as straight couples. However, it is very important to note that the US government - and just about every other national government - provides certain benefits for wedded couples and families. The reason the government has a say in a cultural act like marriage (aside from the obvious goal of halting discrimination) is because it is extending these benefits and policies to same-sex couples who formerly could not enjoy the same benefits as straight couples.

[Thalmor]

Until now, gay people have been prohibited from receiving the legal benefits - which often are important to raising a family of some sort - of marriage, strictly because of who they love. How would you like to live a life in which you were strongly attached to a woman (perhaps a man depending on your gender, but given your strong opinion, I'm going to guess you're a guy), and you thought she was a wonderful person and had so many things to admire about her. And now imagine that law kept you from being married. Sure, you could live together - but for the rest of your life you would never be recognized in the traditional ceremony to honor your attachment to that woman. Instead, the rest of society would slander you as a weirdo and a "godless" person.

 

It's not even about two gay people getting married! Good Lord, if that's all it's about, I probably wouldn't even care! No, the problem is that once homosexuality becomes widely accepted (and the recent hearing as already guaranteed that) then other forms of moral degeneracy follows. Another thing is that religious freedom is about to get stepped on hard because homosexual couples will start suing churches en mass for not allowing them to marry. It's done happened a few times, and after the recent hearing, it's going to happen more.

 

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-force-church-hold-wedding/

 

Furthermore, there's already pushes for polygamy and pedophilia to become widely accepted. Example:

 

http://patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/

http://www.vice.com/read/after-gay-marriage-why-not-polygamy

 

''But those are from 2013!''

 

Okay, have some from yesterday/today:

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html#.VY8eGkZhPMp

http://truthuncensored.net/university-academics-say-pedophilia-is-natural-for-males-aroused-by-children/#sthash.2fk2Uow5.pDyEYeiq.dpbs

 

This is why gay marriage is wrong. It's not about two guys/women getting married, it's about the resulting moral decline that comes from further progression into the backwards ''sexual revolution''

 

 

That's how gays have been living for a long, long time. Not to mention the fact that many are bullied in school or are so afraid to admit their feelings - for fear of being ridiculed, ostracized and rejected - that they never even get to find someone they like that much, all because they're afraid of the reaction from people such as yourself. While I respect the dedication you have to what you are convinced is right, it strikes me as disappointing that some people have such an inability to find compassion for people who are different.

 

''...all because they're afraid of the reaction from people such as yourself.''

 

You know, how dare you accuse me of being hostile to homosexuals in person, and that I don't have any form of compassion for them. This is part of the reason why I unsubscribed from the pro-LGBT agenda, the hostility of those that are pro-LGBT to are anti-LGBT is astounding.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot?s=t

 

The definition of a bigot, according to the above link, is ''a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.''

 

In my first post to this thread, I clearly said at the bottom that I was open to all arguments. Many people who are pro-LGBT seem not to be.

 

 

As for your argument about states' rights, tell me this. In this situation, you are picking between two things: the right of a state, and the right of a group within the populace. So which is more important: states' rights, or the people's rights? I will pick the right of ordinary people to live equal lives any day over the right of a Bible-thumping state government to marginalize people they don't like.

 

As I said (and showed) in the first paragraph in this specific post, there's a lot of other moral degeneracy that follows the acceptance of gay marriage. The right of the state - not just the right, but the responsibility - is to protect it's citizens. Of course, the line where personal freedom and government privilege meet is blurry, very much so in fact. So, I'm very reluctant to support ideas which grant the government more power.

 

Homosexuality, specifically gay marriage, is where the government should intervene to stop it's people from falling into a moral trap. Of course, gay people have the right to be gay, they can't really change that and shouldn't have any bodily harm brought upon them for being who they are.

 

 

I'm not gay, I'm straight - but I happen to be very strongly attached to a special someone myself, and I realize that homosexuals have just as strong and respectable an attachment to their partners. And they should have the right to enjoy those feelings and be recognized as much as anyone else.

 

They can enjoy those feelings behind closed doors, then. I think I already made clear why that is.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Thalmor

[PigInZen]

I am buoyed and elated at two things itt:  

 

1.  The number of quality, level-headed responses.

2.  The apparent equal number of AWESOME TROLLING.

 

carry on internet nerds

[Solomon]

It's not even about two gay people getting married! Good Lord, if that's all it's about, I probably wouldn't even care! No, the problem is that once homosexuality becomes widely accepted (and the recent hearing as already guaranteed that) then other forms of moral degeneracy follows.

...

I knew it was only a matter of time.

 

Homosexuality is already widely accepted in the developed world. Once you accept that your sexuality is not a choice, how can you not accept it?

[Braunsberg]

It's not even about two gay people getting married! Good Lord, if that's all it's about, I probably wouldn't even care! No, the problem is that once homosexuality becomes widely accepted (and the recent hearing as already guaranteed that) then other forms of moral degeneracy follows. Another thing is that religious freedom is about to get stepped on hard because homosexual couples will start suing churches en mass for not allowing them to marry. It's done happened a few times, and after the recent hearing, it's going to happen more.

 

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-force-church-hold-wedding/

The first thing I would suggest is that you seek better news and political information sources.

 

Second: since you seem to buy into the idea that the approval of homosexuality will lead to moral degeneration, let's have a look at other nations who have been accepting of homosexual practices for a considerable time. The best example is in the Scandinavian countries. They are the most open and accepting nations when it comes to LGBT people, and have they experienced a moral decline? No. Churches have not been attacked (despite the fact that Christians are already a minority there, since most Scandinavians are nonreligious) and the LGBT community has done nothing to endanger or marginalize Christians there. In the United States, the situation is even more in favor of Christians; they make up a significant majority of the populace, and many states still have laws that are overwhelmingly shaped by the Christian brand of politics. As a result, it is unlikely that gays will start to attack and sue evangelical churches for that reason; while there may be some instances, the vast majority of gays will simply select churches that offer services for gay weddings. It's a waste of time and money to just sue churches left and right, and gays are as much aware of that as anyone else. They are ordinary couples who simply want to get married - not get themselves tied up in a political blitzkrieg.

 

 

Furthermore, there's already pushes for polygamy and pedophilia to become widely accepted. Example:

 

http://patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins-pedophiles-call-for-same-rights-as-homosexuals/

http://www.vice.com/read/after-gay-marriage-why-not-polygamy

 

''But those are from 2013!''

 

Okay, have some from yesterday/today:

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html#.VY8eGkZhPMp

http://truthuncensored.net/university-academics-say-pedophilia-is-natural-for-males-aroused-by-children/#sthash.2fk2Uow5.pDyEYeiq.dpbs

 

This is why gay marriage is wrong. It's not about two guys/women getting married, it's about the resulting moral decline that comes from further progression into the backwards ''sexual revolution''

Let's approach this in two ways: first, let's once again visit nations who have already established gays' rights. In Scandinavia, has the policy towards gays resulted in polygamy and pedophilia? Nope. All the Scandinavian countries maintain the absolute lowest crime rates around the globe, including rape-related criminal activity. They do not allow - or approve of, I might add - pedophilia or polygamy, yet they have hosted a homosexual-approving society for years. In Denmark, for example, laws have protected homosexual marriages since 1989, and still nothing of the nonsense about moral degradation. Simply because isolated individuals and groups declare that they want polygamy and pedophilia does not mean the nation plans to adopt those practices.

 

Second, let's compare homosexuality with pedophilia and polygamy. Homosexuality works precisely the same way as heterosexual relationships - the same dedications, responsibilities, et cetera - with the exception of gender. Most homosexual couples, like heterosexual ones, are close in age and they are in no way criminal or immoral people. Homosexual couples can raise healthy and prosperous adopted families just like heterosexual couples can, and their relationships do no damage to the society around them. That's why it is not a problem when legalized. Now let's compare that with, first, pedophilia. Marrying very young children or young adults can be disastrous for very straightforward reasons: such young children (usually girls) are often sexually abused and harmed in these relationships, and mothers of such young ages are seldom able to provide basic needs for their children. Polygamy is looked down upon because it almost always brings about patronization and sexual abuse of women. Both pedophilia and polygamy are very, very directly linked to criminal activity and extremely harmful circumstances - homosexuality, by contrast, does not correlate with or cause criminal activity or abuse to any greater degree than ordinary straight relationships do.

 

 

''...all because they're afraid of the reaction from people such as yourself.''

 

You know, how dare you accuse me of being hostile to homosexuals in person, and that I don't have any form of compassion for them. This is part of the reason why I unsubscribed from the pro-LGBT agenda, the hostility of those that are pro-LGBT to are anti-LGBT is astounding.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot?s=t

 

The definition of a bigot, according to the above link, is ''a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.''

 

In my first post to this thread, I clearly said at the bottom that I was open to all arguments. Many people who are pro-LGBT seem not to be.

I didn't accuse you of doing anything to homosexuals, whether in person or over the internet. My statement implies nothing more than gay people are often afraid to come out because they fear disapproval from people who hold beliefs like yours, which brands homosexuality as immoral and negative. You yourself have expressed that here.

 

As for pro-LGBT people hating anti-LGBT people, might I bring up the popularity of the "God Hates Gays" signs, bumper stickers, et cetera? And the fact that churches and anti-LGBT activists constantly repeat and repeat that homosexuality is sinful and "unnatural"? Meanwhile, we find nothing slandering Christians or their churches on the LGBT side - simply people holding rainbow flags, "Love" signs and stickers, and so forth. Pro-LGBT people merely have the goal of extending equal freedoms to the LGBT community, whereas the political goal of anti-LGBT people is, simply put, to restrict the abilities of LGBT people to practice their orientation of love and attachment.

 

With regards to the definition of a bigot, you took the words right out of my mouth. Your entire political stance with regards to LGBT people is that you do not tolerate their way of life: same-sex love, marriage, and so forth. Pro-LGBT people are, by contrast, not calling for any restriction on the freedoms of Christians and conservatives like yourself - they merely desire the same rights under the law as straight people. There is nothing intolerant about asking for equal rights.

 

About being open to arguments, I don't see how I'm being closed to your arguments. You wrote what you thought about the decision, and I wrote what I thought about the decision - how does that mean I'm not open to other people's arguments?

 

 

As I said (and showed) in the first paragraph in this specific post, there's a lot of other moral degeneracy that follows the acceptance of gay marriage. The right of the state - not just the right, but the responsibility - is to protect it's citizens. Of course, the line where personal freedom and government privilege meet is blurry, very much so in fact. So, I'm very reluctant to support ideas which grant the government more power.

 

Homosexuality, specifically gay marriage, is where the government should intervene to stop it's people from falling into a moral trap. Of course, gay people have the right to be gay, they can't really change that and shouldn't have any bodily harm brought upon them for being who they are.

You may want to step back and review that "and showed" part. You gave me links to a couple conservative news sites showing several instances of this "moral degeneracy". I could just as easily find some videos of radical pastors calling for the execution of gays and claim that the nation is falling into religious radicalism, which is just as untrue as your claim about moral degeneration. Nations that have long ago legalized gay marriage are nothing of the immoral societies you seem to believe will arise in the United States.

 

You are absolutely correct that the responsibility of the state is to protect its citizens. And just as surely as the government protects the rights of Christians to worship their God and practice their beliefs, it now protects the rights of LGBT people to live and love the people they are attached to under the law. Giving LGBT people the same rights as you and I does not make the government more powerful, tyrannical, unjust, or anything of the sort. The Supreme Court has fulfilled its responsibility by upholding the fact that everyone - everyone - in the United States is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That includes LGBT people as much as you and I.

 

If homosexuality was a practice that inherently resulted in abuse and criminal activity, then it would be the responsibility of the government to protect its people from such abuses. But that isn't the case - homosexual marriage is a perfectly stable and respectable practice, as much so as straight marriages. And therefore the government has intervened to stop the discrimination and marginalization of a sector of its own electorate, just as promised by the Constitution.

 

 

They can enjoy those feelings behind closed doors, then. I think I already made clear why that is.

Just as well as Christians can pray and practice their religion behind closed doors. Everyone else has the right to openly practice their way of life, so long as it is lawful and does not harm or intrude upon the rights of others. Gays too are entitled to that right, and as you say, "I think I already made clear why that is."

Edited June 27, 2015 by Roma