Growing support for same sex marriages from all religions. (bar evangelicals)

[TheProgressivePatriot]

We have had "gay marriage" for several years now, and while it is a part of our society going to shit, it's probably been no more harmful than everything Kardashian.

The Kardashians are far more harmful to society. Please give some examples of how society has "gone to shit' and how same sex marriage is part of that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Most" Americans are too shallow and disinterested to have a cogent opinion on the subject. This goes in spades for most people who were born after 1980.

There are many reasons why the state legislatures might decide that they will sanction same-sex marriages in pretty much the same way that they sanction normal marriages. There are many reasons why this is stupid, but that's up to the legislature to decide, and I have no problem if they decide differently than I would.

As for the United States Supreme Court, marriage is a STATE issue entirely, and the only Federal concerns are that all the states and the Federal government recognize the legitimate actions of the other states. Specifically, that if a state recognizes a couple as married, the Feds and the other states must acknowledge this status when a legal issue arises within their jurisdiction.

But as for the "Right of Privacy" and the "Constitutional" right to marry someone of the same gender, these are patent nonsense. There is no right of privacy in the Constitution, and although there are privacy interests that are protected by the Fourth Amendment, a "right" that would encompass various forms of homosexual sodomy is pure fiction.

If such a "right of privacy" existed, then it is absolutely certain that plural marriages would also be protected, as would incestuous marriages (adults only), and probably inter-species marriages...you know how much single women LOVE their dogs.

We have had "gay marriage" for several years now, and while it is a part of our society going to shit, it's probably been no more harmful than everything Kardashian.

Actually, this post is ignorant nonsense.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

The right to privacy is in fact in the Constitution, just as the individual right to possess a handgun pursuant to lawful self-defense is in the Constitution.

And plural marriages are not entitled to Constitutional protections because no state has a marriage law that accommodates three or more persons in a marriage contract – because no such law exists, no Constitutional violation exists.

Marriage contract law in all of the 50 states is the union of two consenting adults not related to each other in a union recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex. To deny gay Americans access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate is a Constitutional violation.

Just as un-Constitutional is to deny gay parents to adopt a child for no other reason than being gay; where gay parents are perfectly capable of caring for a child.

The ignorance, fear, bigotry, and hate you and others on the right seek to perpetuate against gay Americans – after the Supreme Court has ruled that conservatives are in fact wrong on this issue – again demonstrates that we are very much in need of the Constitution and its case law to protect all Americans from that rightwing ignorance, fear, bigotry, and hate.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

"right" that would encompass various forms of homosexual sodomy is pure fiction.

Google Lawrence v. Texas. The right to "sodomy" is now part of constitutional law

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If such a "right of privacy" existed, then it is absolutely certain that plural marriages would also be protected, as would incestuous marriages (adults only), and probably inter-species marriages...you know how much single women LOVE their dogs.

In addition, same sex couple were about to claim discrimination based on the fact that they were being treated differently than opposite sex couples who are essentially the same except for gender. Those seeking plural marriage would have a harder time claiming discrimination because there is no one else who they can point to who is the same as they are.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If such a "right of privacy" existed, then it is absolutely certain that plural marriages would also be protected, as would incestuous marriages (adults only), and probably inter-species marriages...you know how much single women LOVE their dogs.

In addition, same sex couple were about to claim discrimination based on the fact that they were being treated differently than opposite sex couples who are essentially the same except for gender. Those seeking plural marriage would have a harder time claiming discrimination because there is no one else who they can point to who is the same as they are.

Correct.

The ‘plural marriage’ nonsense is just another conservative red herring fallacy.

 

[Taz]

Something tells me that you don’t know how to back up what you say. Please learn. Or I can show you how it’s done.

Sure. Go ahead and show me sparky.

For the record , you posted the moronic statement that 13 states still do not allow same sex marriage. You linked to a news article to back it up EXCEPT that article pre-dated the SCOTUS decision on same sex marriage. Clearly it was shear stupidity or intentional deceit on your part.

Now, what the **** are you going to show me?

Look at my original post, I made a statement and backed it up with a link. If you want me to acknowledge what you said as credible, post a link that backs up what you say. That's how it's done. And lose the attitude, you sound childish.

Look moron, I showed you why that link was worthless. Are you really so ******* stupid as to think that there are still 13 states that do not allow same sex marriage? You don't even know what the Obergefell decision was, do you? Google it dumb ****. I'm not doing your homework for you.

Then you have nothing except fartsmoke. Now go away, you're stinking up the thread.

I'll take that as an admission that you are to ******* stupid to know that the Obergefell decision struck down all state bans on same sex marriage. Having to prove that is about the same as having to prove that Washington was the first president. Only the lowest functioning people do not know those things.

You have nothing, go stink up another thread.

 

[rightwinger]

"Most" Americans are too shallow and disinterested to have a cogent opinion on the subject. This goes in spades for most people who were born after 1980.

There are many reasons why the state legislatures might decide that they will sanction same-sex marriages in pretty much the same way that they sanction normal marriages. There are many reasons why this is stupid, but that's up to the legislature to decide, and I have no problem if they decide differently than I would.

As for the United States Supreme Court, marriage is a STATE issue entirely, and the only Federal concerns are that all the states and the Federal government recognize the legitimate actions of the other states. Specifically, that if a state recognizes a couple as married, the Feds and the other states must acknowledge this status when a legal issue arises within their jurisdiction.

But as for the "Right of Privacy" and the "Constitutional" right to marry someone of the same gender, these are patent nonsense. There is no right of privacy in the Constitution, and although there are privacy interests that are protected by the Fourth Amendment, a "right" that would encompass various forms of homosexual sodomy is pure fiction.

If such a "right of privacy" existed, then it is absolutely certain that plural marriages would also be protected, as would incestuous marriages (adults only), and probably inter-species marriages...you know how much single women LOVE their dogs.

We have had "gay marriage" for several years now, and while it is a part of our society going to shit, it's probably been no more harmful than everything Kardashian.

Marriage remains a state issue as long as they provide equal protection under the law. They weren’t
States were saying heterosexual marriage was acceptable but same sex marriages were “yucky” and not allowed
The courts challenged the states to prove where same sex marriages were a danger or where the state has a valid reason to forbid them

The states failed

 

[rightwinger]

If such a "right of privacy" existed, then it is absolutely certain that plural marriages would also be protected, as would incestuous marriages (adults only), and probably inter-species marriages...you know how much single women LOVE their dogs.

In addition, same sex couple were about to claim discrimination based on the fact that they were being treated differently than opposite sex couples who are essentially the same except for gender. Those seeking plural marriage would have a harder time claiming discrimination because there is no one else who they can point to who is the same as they are.

Correct.

The ‘plural marriage’ nonsense is just another conservative red herring fallacy.

Slippery slope....slippery slope

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sure. Go ahead and show me sparky.

For the record , you posted the moronic statement that 13 states still do not allow same sex marriage. You linked to a news article to back it up EXCEPT that article pre-dated the SCOTUS decision on same sex marriage. Clearly it was shear stupidity or intentional deceit on your part.

Now, what the **** are you going to show me?

Look at my original post, I made a statement and backed it up with a link. If you want me to acknowledge what you said as credible, post a link that backs up what you say. That's how it's done. And lose the attitude, you sound childish.

Look moron, I showed you why that link was worthless. Are you really so ******* stupid as to think that there are still 13 states that do not allow same sex marriage? You don't even know what the Obergefell decision was, do you? Google it dumb ****. I'm not doing your homework for you.

Then you have nothing except fartsmoke. Now go away, you're stinking up the thread.

I'll take that as an admission that you are to ******* stupid to know that the Obergefell decision struck down all state bans on same sex marriage. Having to prove that is about the same as having to prove that Washington was the first president. Only the lowest functioning people do not know those things.

You have nothing, go stink up another thread.

 

[Taz]

Look at my original post, I made a statement and backed it up with a link. If you want me to acknowledge what you said as credible, post a link that backs up what you say. That's how it's done. And lose the attitude, you sound childish.

Look moron, I showed you why that link was worthless. Are you really so ******* stupid as to think that there are still 13 states that do not allow same sex marriage? You don't even know what the Obergefell decision was, do you? Google it dumb ****. I'm not doing your homework for you.

Then you have nothing except fartsmoke. Now go away, you're stinking up the thread.

I'll take that as an admission that you are to ******* stupid to know that the Obergefell decision struck down all state bans on same sex marriage. Having to prove that is about the same as having to prove that Washington was the first president. Only the lowest functioning people do not know those things.

You have nothing, go stink up another thread.

Your concession is duly noted. Thanks for playing.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Look moron, I showed you why that link was worthless. Are you really so ******* stupid as to think that there are still 13 states that do not allow same sex marriage? You don't even know what the Obergefell decision was, do you? Google it dumb ****. I'm not doing your homework for you.

Then you have nothing except fartsmoke. Now go away, you're stinking up the thread.

I'll take that as an admission that you are to ******* stupid to know that the Obergefell decision struck down all state bans on same sex marriage. Having to prove that is about the same as having to prove that Washington was the first president. Only the lowest functioning people do not know those things.

You have nothing, go stink up another thread.

Your concession is duly noted. Thanks for playing.

Says the idiot who posted that same sex marriage is still not legal in 13 states, got caught in that lie, but is to mentally challenged to even know that he got his stupid ass kicked all over town over that issue.

| Freedom to Marry


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

 

[Taz]

Then you have nothing except fartsmoke. Now go away, you're stinking up the thread.

I'll take that as an admission that you are to ******* stupid to know that the Obergefell decision struck down all state bans on same sex marriage. Having to prove that is about the same as having to prove that Washington was the first president. Only the lowest functioning people do not know those things.

You have nothing, go stink up another thread.

Your concession is duly noted. Thanks for playing.

Says the idiot who posted that same sex marriage is still not legal in 13 states, got caught in that lie, but is to mentally challenged to even know that he got his stupid ass kicked all over town over that issue.

| Freedom to Marry


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

It had nothing to do with what you said, but that you needed to be schooled on how to debate. So it's a good day for you, you learned something today. Bravo.

And you're welcome.

 

[hobelim]

I'll take that as an admission that you are to ******* stupid to know that the Obergefell decision struck down all state bans on same sex marriage. Having to prove that is about the same as having to prove that Washington was the first president. Only the lowest functioning people do not know those things.

You have nothing, go stink up another thread.

Your concession is duly noted. Thanks for playing.

Says the idiot who posted that same sex marriage is still not legal in 13 states, got caught in that lie, but is to mentally challenged to even know that he got his stupid ass kicked all over town over that issue.

| Freedom to Marry


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

It had nothing to do with what you said, but that you needed to be schooled on how to debate. So it's a good day for you, you learned something today. Bravo.

And you're welcome.

You should have stuck with questioning fundamentalist nutjobs about kangaroos.

And you didn't believe the warning that if naughty boys stayed on Pleasure Island too long those donkey ears are there to stay... (Pinocchio 3:14)

Bravo taz..You could be the next president. lol...

Can I get a hee-haw?

 

[Taz]

You have nothing, go stink up another thread.

Your concession is duly noted. Thanks for playing.

Says the idiot who posted that same sex marriage is still not legal in 13 states, got caught in that lie, but is to mentally challenged to even know that he got his stupid ass kicked all over town over that issue.

| Freedom to Marry


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

It had nothing to do with what you said, but that you needed to be schooled on how to debate. So it's a good day for you, you learned something today. Bravo.

And you're welcome.

You should have stuck with questioning fundamentalist nutjobs about kangaroos.

And you didn't believe the warning that if naughty boys stayed on Pleasure Island too long those donkey ears are there to stay... (Pinocchio 3:14)

Bravo taz..You could be the next president. lol...

Can I get a hee-haw?

Apparently, god didn't make kangaroos, otherwise Noah would have had some.

 

[hobelim]

Your concession is duly noted. Thanks for playing.

Says the idiot who posted that same sex marriage is still not legal in 13 states, got caught in that lie, but is to mentally challenged to even know that he got his stupid ass kicked all over town over that issue.

| Freedom to Marry


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

It had nothing to do with what you said, but that you needed to be schooled on how to debate. So it's a good day for you, you learned something today. Bravo.

And you're welcome.

You should have stuck with questioning fundamentalist nutjobs about kangaroos.

And you didn't believe the warning that if naughty boys stayed on Pleasure Island too long those donkey ears are there to stay... (Pinocchio 3:14)

Bravo taz..You could be the next president. lol...

Can I get a hee-haw?

Apparently, god didn't make kangaroos, otherwise Noah would have had some.

lol...there ya go!

Don't you feel better now that you have been thrown back into your own element?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'll take that as an admission that you are to ******* stupid to know that the Obergefell decision struck down all state bans on same sex marriage. Having to prove that is about the same as having to prove that Washington was the first president. Only the lowest functioning people do not know those things.

You have nothing, go stink up another thread.

Your concession is duly noted. Thanks for playing.

Says the idiot who posted that same sex marriage is still not legal in 13 states, got caught in that lie, but is to mentally challenged to even know that he got his stupid ass kicked all over town over that issue.

| Freedom to Marry


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

It had nothing to do with what you said, but that you needed to be schooled on how to debate. So it's a good day for you, you learned something today. Bravo.

And you're welcome.

Holy Shit! You are actually going to deny that you STUPIDLY posted that 13 states still do not allow same sex marriage??!! I sort of anticipated that given your mental illness.

Who is going to school in debating you? What a ******* joke. You are truly pathetic.

 

[ding]

Discriminate how? By applying the same standard that they apply to everyone else?

You aren't looking at this correctly.

Do you really have your head so far up that smelly place where the sun don't shine as to not know that gay folks have been, and are in some ways still discriminated against? Or, are you just lying?

I don't believe they have. If you want an example of that you would have to go back to after the civil war when democrats refused to acknowledge that blacks were citizens after the 13th amendment and refused the right to marry. That was discrimination.

What you are describing isn't discrimination because the law was applied equally to all the exact same way.

Thank you for acknowledging that your head is so far up that smelly place where the sun don't shine

The regulation of LGBT employment discrimination in the United States varies by jurisdiction. Many, but far from all, states and localities prohibit bias in hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination, and compensation, as well as harassment on the basis of one's sexual orientation. Fewer extend those protections to cover sexual identity.
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States - Wikiped…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_employment_discrimina…

And then you think that you can get away with interjecting a red herring fallacy about southern democrats and blacks during the Jim Crow era? Just another logical fallacy. Besides being a red herring its a false equivalence fallacy. I'm not taking the bait.

False equivalence? That's what you are doing.

Blacks were denied marriage period. People who prefer to have sex with the same gender were not denied the right to marriage.

Gays are still not allowed to marry in some places. I bet one of them is where you live.

The 13 states that still ban same-sex marriage - CNN

Sure they can. Just like everyone else. The restriction to marry is the same for all. One man one woman. You can be gay and get married the same as everyone else. That was not true for blacks after the civil war.

 

[ding]

Do you really have your head so far up that smelly place where the sun don't shine as to not know that gay folks have been, and are in some ways still discriminated against? Or, are you just lying?

I don't believe they have. If you want an example of that you would have to go back to after the civil war when democrats refused to acknowledge that blacks were citizens after the 13th amendment and refused the right to marry. That was discrimination.

What you are describing isn't discrimination because the law was applied equally to all the exact same way.

Thank you for acknowledging that your head is so far up that smelly place where the sun don't shine

The regulation of LGBT employment discrimination in the United States varies by jurisdiction. Many, but far from all, states and localities prohibit bias in hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination, and compensation, as well as harassment on the basis of one's sexual orientation. Fewer extend those protections to cover sexual identity.
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States - Wikiped…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_employment_discrimina…

And then you think that you can get away with interjecting a red herring fallacy about southern democrats and blacks during the Jim Crow era? Just another logical fallacy. Besides being a red herring its a false equivalence fallacy. I'm not taking the bait.

False equivalence? That's what you are doing.

Blacks were denied marriage period. People who prefer to have sex with the same gender were not denied the right to marriage.

Gays are still not allowed to marry in some places. I bet one of them is where you live.

The 13 states that still ban same-sex marriage - CNN

You can't be serious Sparky. Did you not check the date on the article? It's pre Obergefell! Gays can in fact marry in every state. Could you possibly be that in attentive to detail? Or, did you think that it would really be that easy to bullshit people ?

They could always have gotten married in every state. Just like everyone else.

 

[ding]

Discriminate how? By applying the same standard that they apply to everyone else?

You aren't looking at this correctly.

Do you really have your head so far up that smelly place where the sun don't shine as to not know that gay folks have been, and are in some ways still discriminated against? Or, are you just lying?

I don't believe they have. If you want an example of that you would have to go back to after the civil war when democrats refused to acknowledge that blacks were citizens after the 13th amendment and refused the right to marry. That was discrimination.

What you are describing isn't discrimination because the law was applied equally to all the exact same way.

Thank you for acknowledging that your head is so far up that smelly place where the sun don't shine

The regulation of LGBT employment discrimination in the United States varies by jurisdiction. Many, but far from all, states and localities prohibit bias in hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination, and compensation, as well as harassment on the basis of one's sexual orientation. Fewer extend those protections to cover sexual identity.
LGBT employment discrimination in the United States - Wikiped…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_employment_discrimina…

And then you think that you can get away with interjecting a red herring fallacy about southern democrats and blacks during the Jim Crow era? Just another logical fallacy. Besides being a red herring its a false equivalence fallacy. I'm not taking the bait.

False equivalence? That's what you are doing.

Blacks were denied marriage period. People who prefer to have sex with the same gender were not denied the right to marriage.

Jesus ******* Christ! Can you really be that god damned obtuse!! They were denied the right to marry the person of their choice who they are sexually and romantically attracted to!

The restriction is applied equally. That's all that is legally required for equality.

Just because you have a sexual preference that does not negate the equality of the law.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

People give the politically correct answers to pollsters a lot.
The OP is wrong.
Most Christian denominations, the Catholic Church, Jewish denominations and Muslim sects will not perform same gender marriages.