Supreme Court declares US-wide right to same-sex marriage

[Ulysses G.]

Perhaps you are not as well-informed about the USA as you seem to think you are. Legitimizing polygamy has been part of this discussion since the issue of gay marriage first came up and "interest" is not required to get a case in front of the Supreme Court. All that is needed is the right case and they already exist.

Montana Polygamist Seeks ‘Legitimacy’ After Supreme Court Ruling

http://time.com/3944579/montana-polygamy-gay-marriage/

Edited July 5, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

Some fun:

[JakeSully]

What eva dude. I don't fabricate anything. Don't really care enough to do so and nothing impacts me enough to do so. I am completely set and well taken care of. I just hate to see others not so well taken care of. You can sing zippididoda and smile so wide that you need plastic surgery to remove such smiles if it makes you happy and warm and fuzzy, but the fact it is . . . you been had and Obama gives not a care in the world about you.

No its you who's been had. Remember 2008 economic depression. You can spin it any way you like but all that pain came from someone other than obama.

For a party of less government they sure like to tell everyone how to live and managed to influence a hell of a whole lot more pain on every American.

[JakeSully]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyGq0SJUbiU

[JakeSully]

Good riddance.

IF the topic of legalizing multiple partner marriage ever becomes a national issue, that would be the time for debate about that.

Don't hold your breath.

The comments by the Supreme Chief Justice Roberts are not sufficient for comment I suppose? Rather the comments of a Chief Justice are just to be dismissed by a lofty member of TVF with the flick of a hand... Delusional self importance of the part of the TVF member it would seem...

Honestly speaking, it's more of the Kennedy court than the Roberts court.

[Chicog]

Perhaps you are not as well-informed about the USA as you seem to think you are. Legitimizing polygamy has been part of this discussion since the issue of gay marriage first came up and "interest" is not required to get a case in front of the Supreme Court. All that is needed is the right case and they already exist.

Montana Polygamist Seeks ‘Legitimacy’ After Supreme Court Ruling

http://time.com/3944579/montana-polygamy-gay-marriage/

You say this was "part of this discussion" but this case was filed after the Supreme Court ruling.

It might have given them encouragement, I agree, but that doesn't mean it was a significant issue beforehand.

In fact he might well have decided to go forward after reading the dissent.

[Lissos]

Being fully honest, same sex marriage feels a tad odd to me. Rarely have I admitted as such, and some will perceive that slight discomfort as being some kind of 'evidence' that nature is being 'disobeyed', but it is simply new and will take time even for western culture to feel comfortable with and the fact is this - every time the arguments ' against' Gay marriage come up, nobody who is overtly against it has ever been able to come up with a convincing enough argument as to how it would harm existing straight marriages nor how it will affect the future continuation of straight marriages and child creation in hetero marriages. Is that about to change?

It appears to simply be elitism, sheer bloody minded selfishness masquerading as some kind of concern about what is 'right'. When you keep coming back to it, the marriage of same sex partners does not, and cannot, harm straight couples unless somebody can convince me it can.

Infact, some may be taking place two miles away from you right now and you wouldn't even know. No 'signs in the sky' will alert you, no plagues of locusts will appear nor will the rivers start running with blood. All 'doom' is in their own minds. What they want to do is hold onto an elitist position and have other people as second class citizens beneath them. By all means feel uncomfortable with same sex marriage as I do to some degree. By all means voice it, but unless you can show how it is cataclysmic to civilisation as we know it then you deserve to be tackled if you're going to throw your dollies out of the pram and are in a position of power to obstruct it.

For those who scream that marriage is - "between a man and a woman", well the reality is that it continues to be for hetero couples who want to marry. You see, nothing has changed in that regard. Hetero marriage will continue unchanged, and plenty of new people will marry in the future. Yes? The hysteria is that this is not the case and that heterosexual marriages will be 'undermined' / under threat if same sex couples can marry too. It is rather like those people who get seriously depressed when a sequel to a movie they enjoyed, is released and they don't like the sequel. Grown men and women will go into a huff claiming the original movie has been 'ruined' because of the sequel they were disappointed by. How exactly? Don't like the sequel? Don't go and watch it. Don't pay any attention to its existence. Carry on watching the original, because that can't be "ruined" by the existence of the sequel, no matter you keep telling yourself.

[Scott]

An off-topic post and replies have been removed.

[Publicus]

In 1878 SCOTUS upheld legislation by Congress making bigamy and plural marriages illegal and subject to punishments. The ruling, Reynolds v United States still stands. From the majority opinion by Chief Justice Waite....

Congress, in 1862 (12 Stat. 501), saw fit to make bigamy a crime in the Territories. This was done because of the evil consequences that were supposed to flow from plural marriages.

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? [98 U.S. 145, 167] To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/98/145.html#sthash.Hkff9NfC.dpuf

Justice Kennedy wrote in the ruling last week that same-sex marriage is constitutional due to the immutable characteristics that require it, i.e., being gay. Bigamy and polygamy are societal and personal choices that do not rise to the level of immutability and its concomitant constitutional protections. Polygamy is therefore not constitutionally protected nor is it protected by religious belief.

Justice Kennedy also repeatedly referred to the number two. Chief Justice Roberts didn't like the material points of Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, so Chief Roberts ignored Kennedy's points, to instead write his opinion as if Justice Kennedy hadn't ever presented them.

The right and other conservatives who disagree with the court are posing questions to answers provided more than 140 years ago by Congress, the President, SCOTUS and more recently again by SCOTUS. So I'd suggest the far out right give up their aimlessly wandering ghosts and other hobgoblins.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Publicus

[Lissos]

Some fun:

Loved the "Hinduuuu" bit towards the end LOL

[Ulysses G.]

Perhaps you are not as well-informed about the USA as you seem to think you are. Legitimizing polygamy has been part of this discussion since the issue of gay marriage first came up and "interest" is not required to get a case in front of the Supreme Court. All that is needed is the right case and they already exist.

Montana Polygamist Seeks ‘Legitimacy’ After Supreme Court Ruling

http://time.com/3944579/montana-polygamy-gay-marriage/

You say this was "part of this discussion" but this case was filed after the Supreme Court ruling.

It might have given them encouragement, I agree, but that doesn't mean it was a significant issue beforehand.

In fact he might well have decided to go forward after reading the dissent.

I said that legitimizing polygamy was part of the discussion for years already and that is a fact. The link is to a case that might end up in the Supreme Court someday. It does not matter when it took place. The recent Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage gives it a lot more gravity.

[Seastallion]

Perhaps you are not as well-informed about the USA as you seem to think you are. Legitimizing polygamy has been part of this discussion since the issue of gay marriage first came up and "interest" is not required to get a case in front of the Supreme Court. All that is needed is the right case and they already exist.

Montana Polygamist Seeks ‘Legitimacy’ After Supreme Court Ruling

http://time.com/3944579/montana-polygamy-gay-marriage/

You say this was "part of this discussion" but this case was filed after the Supreme Court ruling.

It might have given them encouragement, I agree, but that doesn't mean it was a significant issue beforehand.

In fact he might well have decided to go forward after reading the dissent.

The polygamy issue is grandstanding. The SCOTUS decision was not about granting rights to gays, it was about abolishing bans against natural people, giving them equality. Polygamy is a choice, being black, female or gay is not.

The issue that the decision DOES bring up validly, is the ban on women being topless. Men can, women can't.

Think about that

[Ulysses G.]

Polygamy is a choice, being black, female or gay is not.

Polygamists can't chose who they love any more than blacks females or gays can and apparently nowadays anything goes in that regard. It won't be long until polygamy will have to be legalized and it will be directly related to this ruling. It would be hypocritical for the SCOTUS to deny people who love multiple partners the same rights as everyone else - and so on and so forth.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

Polygamy is a choice, being black, female or gay is not.

Polygamists can't chose who they love any more than blacks females or gays can and apparently nowadays anything goes in that regard. It won't be long until polygamy will have to be legalized and it will be directly related to this ruling. It would be hypocritical for the SCOTUS to deny people who love multiple partners the same rights as everyone else - and so on and so forth.

Well as long as they're adults I don't see the problem.

If anyone is dumb enough to want two wives at the same time, they deserve everything they get.

[mesquite]

I would be shocked if polygamy does NOT come before SCOTUS within the next ten years, and this same-sex marriage ruling will help the cause. However, since this ruling was so close, polygamy might not become the law of the land in the future.

Edited July 5, 2015 by mesquite

[Ulysses G.]

Well as long as they're adults I don't see the problem.

Actually I agree. As long as we are abandoning the concept of traditional marriage, anything goes. What bothers me is when people refuse to admit that that is what is taking place.

[JDGRUEN]

Good riddance.

IF the topic of legalizing multiple partner marriage ever becomes a national issue, that would be the time for debate about that.

Don't hold your breath.

The comments by the Supreme Chief Justice Roberts are not sufficient for comment I suppose? Rather the comments of a Chief Justice are just to be dismissed by a lofty member of TVF with the flick of a hand... Delusional self importance of the part of the TVF member it would seem...

Honestly speaking, it's more of the Kennedy court than the Roberts court.

I was commenting on the statements of one Justice ... the Chief Justice in this case... one of four giving dissenting opinions ... Validity of the comments of dissenting justices are quite often quoted, touted and discussed when the Liberal-Left and Gay advocates lose in a legal battle at SCOTUS. But now magically commenting on or discussing the statements of dissenting Justices in this case is not appropriate ... This kind of double standard behavior is also often called hypocrisy.

Contained in the dissenting opinions in this case are: There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about marriage... and the other ... This decision reflects the WILL of five justices not justice .... not having anything to do with the Constitution ... to paraphrase ...

Reflecting the opinion of the dissenting Justices, many American separate the gay marriage issue itself from the actions of the SCOTUS. Upwards of one half the American population in general do not accept in their hearts SCOTUS decisions that reflect the WILL of the majority of the 9 Justices ... rather than an actual - believable interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights done by a majority (i.e. Roe v. Wade) The large scale non acceptance of the current ruling (in the hearts and minds of people) who see it as nothing more than legislating from the bench to force social change will work to create a hollow victory. It will legally be 'the law of the land but much of society will run away from it.

Already Conservative Americans have nearly stopped talking about the same sex marriage issue - per se... rather they are spending much more time talking about pushing states for shield laws - protection from the rabid Political Correctness to come in the next few years, talking about pushing states to take measures to drop marriage licensing and change the process to contracts and registrations done - DIY - do it yourself - on line after the fact, talking about doing away with state certification / licensing to perform marriages. In other words the trend that will become a surge is to remove everyone from the line of the legal fire that will come...

[attrayant]

Polygamy is a choice, being black, female or gay is not.

It won't be long until polygamy will have to be legalized and it will be directly related to this ruling. It would be hypocritical for the SCOTUS to deny people who love multiple partners the same rights as everyone else - and so on and so forth.

Well not according to Roberts, whom you seem to be leaning on heavily:

I do not mean to equate marriage between same-sex couples with plural marriages in all respects. There may well be relevant differences that compel different legal analysis.

From 19 Hysterical Passages From Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Dissenters

Slate has a good analysis of why the whole polyamory issue is a red herring: Is Polygamy Next After Gay Marriage?

Why can't you just admit that there's no seeing into the future, and whatever happens, we'll deal with it when it happens.

Edited July 5, 2015 by attrayant

[Merzik]

Wow, the liberals got their wish. Now men can legally marry other men. It seems they may be successful in getting South Carolina to stop flying the Confederate flag as well.

What's next, not allowing people to smoke (unless it's marijuana), no more fast food, unable to say God in school, make gun ownership illegal, and ban saying Merry Christmas (use Happy Holidays instead).

The bubonic plague is like the common cold compared to liberalism.

Why do you claim that the liberals got their wish? Many people who are not liberals campaigned for same sex marriage. What about that amicus brief that was filed with the Supreme Court in support of gay marriage? Signatories included; former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, conservative commentators S.E. Cupp and Alex Castellanos, former White House chief of staff Ken Duberstein, former Mitt Romney senior advisers Beth Myers and Carl Forti, conservative economists Doug Holtz-Eakin (formerly director of the Congressional Budget Office) and Greg Mankiw (formerly on the Council of Economic Advisers), former senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), former homeland security adviser Fran Townsend and former Massachusetts state Senate minority leader Richard Tisei. Retired General Stanley McChrystal signed too.

These conservatives stated that they have concluded that marriage is strengthened, and its value to society and to individual families and couples is promoted, by providing access to civil marriage for all American couplesheterosexual or gay or lesbian alike. In particular, civil marriage provides stability for the children of same-sex couples, the value of which cannot be overestimated. In light of these conclusions, amici believe that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits States from denying same-sex couples the legal rights and responsibilities that flow from the institution of civil marriage. They went on to ask the SCOTUS "to protect our most cherished liberties against overreaching by the government, including overreach through an act of legislature or electorate. That principle, no less than our commitment to democratic self-government, is necessary to individual freedom and limited government.

Smoking is a deadly activity. The only reason it is allowed is because it has been around so long. This doesn't make it right.

Most fast food is poisonous. Slick advertising convinces people otherwise. There is a reason why the fast food chains resist disclosing the chemical additives and the source of their ingredients. People would not be eating at some chains if they knew that the "white chicken" they were eating was actually processed skin, offal and trimmings bleached and then shaped to resemble chicken. Do you know why the sodium content is so high in most fast food? It's needed to conceal the actual taste of products that are neither fresh nor wholesome.

No one is trying to make gun ownership illegal. What intelligent people are trying to do is to ensure that there are proper screenings of gun purchases. It is reprehensible that anyone, whether it is a violent felon or a wacko can go to a gun show or to a private vendor and purchase a gun, no questions asked. It is reprehensible that a wacko like Dylaan Roof and an offender was allowed to legally obtain a firearm.

No one is forbidden from saying God in a school. What is forbidden is the state using public facilities to promote a state religion.

In respect to Merry Christmas, no one is banned from saying it. However, there is a separation of church and state and public officials should not use their office or public money to promote a pagan festival.

Ignorance and gross hyperbole spoken from self proclaimed conservatives is just as bad as the extremist filth that comes from ISIS/ISIL.

You are right when you stated, "Many people who are not liberals campaigned for same sex marriage." Liberals just tend to have a large number of gender confused people amid their ranks.

Somehow, I don't believe children should be brought up in a man-man or woman-woman family. Children need a mother and a father. Same sex marriage is nothing to be celebrating.

I agree. There is a significantly higher degree of unstable and unhealthy lifestyles in the gay communities. Higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, domestic abuse and violence , sexual abuse and diseases, and mental health problems. Gay lifespans are significantly lower than heterosexuals. Gay relationships tend to be very unstable and brief;

"Transient relationships: While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal oppression." A study in the Netherlands , a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.

Serial promiscuity: Studies indicate that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same Dutch study found that "committed" homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year. Children should not be placed in unstable households with revolving bedroom doors."

http://www.truenews.org/Homosexuality/facts_about_same_sex_marriage.html

Edited July 5, 2015 by Merzik

[attrayant]

The large scale non acceptance of the current ruling (in the hearts and minds of people) who see it as nothing more than legislating from the bench to force social change will work to create a hollow victory. It will legally be 'the law of the land but much of society will run away from it.

You're just prognosticating. If you take a look at the amicus briefs filed on behalf of the petitioners, you'll see a huge groundswell of support from big business, academia and human rights groups, while those filed on behalf of the respondents were heavily represented by old farts, I mean conservative lobbying groups and the clergy. Some of these were positively bizarre, like "Same-sex attracted men and their wives".

[Ulysses G.]

Why can't you just admit that there's no seeing into the future, and whatever happens, we'll deal with it when it happens.

Because IMO a lot of things are easily foreseen and the post after yours points out a lot of reasons why.

Chief Justice John Roberts argued that "much of the majority's reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage." Your quote in no way negates this statement.

Slate is very far-left and always promotes the party line. I don't consider them an honest source of information on anything to do with the culture wars and especially gay marriage.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[GinBoy2]

Wow, the liberals got their wish. Now men can legally marry other men. It seems they may be successful in getting South Carolina to stop flying the Confederate flag as well.

What's next, not allowing people to smoke (unless it's marijuana), no more fast food, unable to say God in school, make gun ownership illegal, and ban saying Merry Christmas (use Happy Holidays instead).

The bubonic plague is like the common cold compared to liberalism.

Why do you claim that the liberals got their wish? Many people who are not liberals campaigned for same sex marriage. What about that amicus brief that was filed with the Supreme Court in support of gay marriage? Signatories included; former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, conservative commentators S.E. Cupp and Alex Castellanos, former White House chief of staff Ken Duberstein, former Mitt Romney senior advisers Beth Myers and Carl Forti, conservative economists Doug Holtz-Eakin (formerly director of the Congressional Budget Office) and Greg Mankiw (formerly on the Council of Economic Advisers), former senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), former homeland security adviser Fran Townsend and former Massachusetts state Senate minority leader Richard Tisei. Retired General Stanley McChrystal signed too.

These conservatives stated that they have concluded that marriage is strengthened, and its value to society and to individual families and couples is promoted, by providing access to civil marriage for all American couplesheterosexual or gay or lesbian alike. In particular, civil marriage provides stability for the children of same-sex couples, the value of which cannot be overestimated. In light of these conclusions, amici believe that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits States from denying same-sex couples the legal rights and responsibilities that flow from the institution of civil marriage. They went on to ask the SCOTUS "to protect our most cherished liberties against overreaching by the government, including overreach through an act of legislature or electorate. That principle, no less than our commitment to democratic self-government, is necessary to individual freedom and limited government.

Smoking is a deadly activity. The only reason it is allowed is because it has been around so long. This doesn't make it right.

Most fast food is poisonous. Slick advertising convinces people otherwise. There is a reason why the fast food chains resist disclosing the chemical additives and the source of their ingredients. People would not be eating at some chains if they knew that the "white chicken" they were eating was actually processed skin, offal and trimmings bleached and then shaped to resemble chicken. Do you know why the sodium content is so high in most fast food? It's needed to conceal the actual taste of products that are neither fresh nor wholesome.

No one is trying to make gun ownership illegal. What intelligent people are trying to do is to ensure that there are proper screenings of gun purchases. It is reprehensible that anyone, whether it is a violent felon or a wacko can go to a gun show or to a private vendor and purchase a gun, no questions asked. It is reprehensible that a wacko like Dylaan Roof and an offender was allowed to legally obtain a firearm.

No one is forbidden from saying God in a school. What is forbidden is the state using public facilities to promote a state religion.

In respect to Merry Christmas, no one is banned from saying it. However, there is a separation of church and state and public officials should not use their office or public money to promote a pagan festival.

Ignorance and gross hyperbole spoken from self proclaimed conservatives is just as bad as the extremist filth that comes from ISIS/ISIL.

You are right when you stated, "Many people who are not liberals campaigned for same sex marriage." Liberals just tend to have a large number of gender confused people amid their ranks.

Somehow, I don't believe children should be brought up in a man-man or woman-woman family. Children need a mother and a father. Same sex marriage is nothing to be celebrating.

I agree. There is a significantly higher degree of unstable and unhealthy lifestyles in the gay communities. Higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, domestic abuse and violence , sexual abuse and diseases, and mental health problems. Gay lifespans are significantly lower than heterosexuals. Gay relationships tend to be very unstable and brief;

"Transient relationships: While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal oppression." A study in the Netherlands , a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.

Serial promiscuity: Studies indicate that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same Dutch study found that "committed" homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year. Children should not be placed in unstable households with revolving bedroom doors."

http://www.truenews.org/Homosexuality/facts_about_same_sex_marriage.html

Oh yes, truenews.org a beacon of informed thought.

We're all created beings and global warming is a hoax!

Try finding a 'study' that isn't the result of some religious whack job

[Merzik]

A few problems with the gay lifestyle:

"Rate of Intimate Partner Violence within Marriage

A little-reported fact is that homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households:

~ The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships. [46]

~ A report by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health concurred:

It should be noted that most studies of family violence do not differentiate between married and unmarried partner status. Studies that do make these distinctions have found that marriage relationships tend to have the least intimate partner violence when compared to cohabiting or dating relationships. [47]

High Incidence of Mental Health Problems among Homosexuals and Lesbians

A national survey of lesbians published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology found that 75 percent of the nearly two-thousand respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some kind, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness:

Among the sample as a whole, there was a distressingly high prevalence of life events and behaviors related to mental health problems. Thirty-seven percent had been physically abused and 32 percent had been raped or sexually attacked. Nineteen percent had been involved in incestuous relationships while growing up. Almost one-third used tobacco on a daily basis and about 30 percent drank alcohol more than once a week; 6 percent drank daily. One in five smoked marijuana more than once a month. Twenty-one percent of the sample had thoughts about suicide sometimes or often and 18 percent had actually tried to kill themselves. ... More than half had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time during the past year and over one-third had been depressed. [48]

Substance Abuse among Lesbians

A study published in Nursing Research found that lesbians are three times more likely to abuse alcohol and to suffer from other compulsive behaviors:

Like most problem drinkers, 32 (91 percent) of the participants had abused other drugs as well as alcohol, and many reported compulsive difficulties with food (34 percent), codependency (29 percent), sex (11 percent), and money (6 percent). Forty-six percent had been heavy drinkers with frequent drunkenness. [49]

Greater Risk for Suicide

~ A study of twins that examined the relationship between homosexuality and suicide, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, found that homosexuals with same-sex partners were at greater risk for overall mental health problems, and were 6.5 times more likely than their twins to have attempted suicide. The higher rate was not attributable to mental health or substance abuse disorders. [50]

~ Another study published simultaneously in Archives of General Psychiatry followed 1007 individuals from birth. Those classified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual were significantly more likely to have had mental health problems. Significantly, in his comments in the same issue of the journal, D. Bailey cautioned against various speculative explanations of the results, such as the view that "widespread prejudice against homosexual people causes them to be unhappy or worse, mentally ill." [51]

Reduced Life Span

Another factor contributing to the instability of male homosexual households, which raises the possibility of major disruption for children raised in such households, is the significantly reduced life expectancy of male homosexuals. A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded:

In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twenty for gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. [52]

http://www.shakinandshinin.org/contents/homosexuality/homosexualParentingPlacingChildrenAtRisk-Part2.html

Edited July 5, 2015 by Merzik

[Jingthing]

Let's see now.

You know African American men have a shorter lifespan than white American men.

According to the anti-gay activists "logic" those that are alive should not be allowed under the law the marry or have children.

That would not be seen as constitutional today and it follows that discriminating against GLBT Americans based on their identity which may or may not be associated with higher rates of certain problems should not be constitutional either.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Jingthing

[attrayant]

A few problems with the gay lifestyle:

http://www.shakinandshinin.org/contents/homosexuality/homosexualParentingPlacingChildrenAtRisk-Part2.html

Boy are you in for it now, as JDGRUEN will surely be along any moment to tell you that shakinandshinin.org is a far-right rag and always supports the religious line.

[Lissos]

As long as we are abandoning the concept of traditional marriage, anything goes.

Or, 'updating' rather than abandoning. If Government had said heterosexual couples can no longer marry, that would be abandoning the traditional concept of marriage to replace it was same sex marriage only. From what I see, marriage of same sex couples will not affect in the slightest existing heterosexual marriages nor will it affect the continuation of any future heterosexual marriages. People fear their exclusive clubs being less exclusive.

A few problems with the gay lifestyle:

All of which is listed out a heart felt great concern for other people's long term well being and for society as a whole right? Or, merely digging around for anything that you can get your hands onnin an attempt to prevent or invalidate same sex couples from getting married? My guess? The later. Over the years I've seen all manner of similar things from Conservative Christians on the web using this approach as if ever heterosexual marriage is a bed of roses, content, etc.

[Jingthing]

Gay is not a lifestyle.

That is trivializing something very important in people's lives, the gender who they are attracted to and love

Lifestyle is more like for things like snowboarding.

I'm sure heteros have problems too.

All people have problems.

Imagine if they gays took over and denied the heteros the right to marry and breed.

Imagine the storm!

No of course I am not accepting as fact the anti-gay propaganda posted here. I am saying it's not really relevant either way to the SCOTUS case. Others, I suggest don't get BAITED into taking that toxic stuff seriously. It's another very trollish attempt to hijack this thread.

Don't take the bait!

Achieving legal marriage equality doesn't make all the anti-gay haters go away any more than slavery ending ended racism. Civil rights movements are always a continuing process and struggle.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Jingthing

[Merzik]

Let's see now.

You know African American men have a shorter lifespan than white American men.

According to the anti-gay activists "logic" those that are alive should not be allowed under the law the marry or have children.

That would not be seen as constitutional today and it follows that discriminating against GLBT Americans based on their identity which may or may not be associated with higher rates of certain problems should not be constitutional either.

Shorter life-spans are but one factor among many that make homosexuals poor parents. I listed a few of these in my last post. A homo-family is an extremely harmful environment for children to be raised in and even gays know this to be true if they are honest about their own lives. Something which is unfortunately rare in gay activists. I don't have a problem with consenting adults engaging in gay sex if they choose; but it is not right to place children in these dysfunctional home environments.

[Jingthing]

Let's see now.

You know African American men have a shorter lifespan than white American men.

According to the anti-gay activists "logic" those that are alive should not be allowed under the law the marry or have children.

That would not be seen as constitutional today and it follows that discriminating against GLBT Americans based on their identity which may or may not be associated with higher rates of certain problems should not be constitutional either.

Shorter life-spans are but one factor among many that make homosexuals poor parents. I listed a few of these in my last post. A homo-family is an extremely harmful environment for children to be raised in and even gays know this to be true if they are honest about their own lives. Something which is unfortunately rare in gay activists. I don't have a problem with consenting adults engaging in gay sex if they choose; but it is not right to place children in these dysfunctional home environments.

It is not their right to have children?

I think you've been sleeping.

The SCOTUS decision made denying same sex couples the choice of marriage unconstitutional.

You are unhappy. Fine.

Otherwise, I won't respond to your specific bigoted bait about how bad all gay parents supposedly are and suggest nobody else does either.

If you posted stuff like that about blacks, everyone would call you a racist bigot.

I see no difference.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Jingthing

[arunsakda]

When this decision was rendered was a great day in America.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited July 5, 2015 by arunsakda