• US Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage nationwide
    517 replies, posted
[url=https://twitter.com/Free_Lives/status/614520097307275265]Best brand response was Broforce imo[/url] [img]http://i.imgur.com/5iUURRS.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Marden;48059201]What's next, people allowed to marry their pets?[/QUOTE] That fetish was always legal now it can just be made more official.
This is fantastic news! What a time to be alive. I wonder what we'll wake up to tomorrow?
[QUOTE=Marden;48059201]What's next, people allowed to marry their pets?[/QUOTE] I've never understood things like this. Dogs/animals and inanimate objects cannot legally consent to marriage so that will never happen. If you're going to argue slippery slope, at least say polygamy or something.
[QUOTE=OvB;48059378]I've never understood things like this. [B]Dogs/animals and inanimate objects [/B]cannot legally consent to marriage so that will never happen. If you're going to argue slippery slope, at least say polygamy or something.[/QUOTE] Ehhrm, no, they're not. I get what you're trying to say but animals are not objects and they're certainly not inanimate. Unless they're dead and stuffed, anyway. I think a better way to word it is animals lack [I]human-level sentience[/I], and thus cannot legally consent to marriage. [editline]d[/editline] In other news, I cannot read. Oopsie.
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;48059415]Ehhrm, no, they're not. I get what you're trying to say but animals are not objects and they're certainly not inanimate. Unless they're dead and stuffed, anyway. I think a better way to word it is animals lack [I]human-level sentience[/I], and thus cannot legally consent to marriage.[/QUOTE] "dogs/animals [B]and[/B] inanimate objects", not [B]are[/B]
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;48059415]Ehhrm, no, they're not. I get what you're trying to say but animals are not objects and they're certainly not inanimate. Unless they're dead and stuffed, anyway. I think a better way to word it is animals lack [I]human-level sentience[/I], and thus cannot legally consent to marriage.[/QUOTE] I ment it as the people who want to marry animals and the people who want to marry objects like a ferris wheel or their car.
[QUOTE=Potus;48057751]Tracking the Republican Candidates on this ruling has been great [url]https://rickperry.org/statement-on-supreme-court-gay-marriage-ruling[/url] [url]https://www.tedcruz.org/news/cruz-any-candidate-not-willing-to-make-2016-a-referendum-on-repealing-obamacare-should-step-aside/[/url][/QUOTE] To be fair, RP is one of the few people against the ruling that doesn't use the terms "god-given", "religion", "Barack Hussein Obama", or " gay agenda".
[QUOTE=OvB;48059378]I've never understood things like this. Dogs/animals and inanimate objects cannot legally consent to marriage so that will never happen. If you're going to argue slippery slope, at least say polygamy or something.[/QUOTE] I'd guess it's either intentional hyperbole as a matter of making fun of the enemy, or complete failure to even [I]understand[/I] the argument for gay marriage.
[QUOTE=DrTaxi;48059463]"dogs/animals [B]and[/B] inanimate objects", not [B]are[/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=OvB;48059603]I ment it as the people who want to marry animals and the people who want to marry objects like a ferris wheel or their car.[/QUOTE] Oh. Woops. Misread! Goes to show I should probably head for bed. Too much excitement for one day. :v:
The Fox News comments have basically degenerated into people flinging shit at each other for the past few hours and it's glorious [img]http://i.imgur.com/u94FJRS.png[/img]
how is good old santorum dealing with this?
[QUOTE=Fapplejack;48059614]To be fair, RP is one of the few people against the ruling that doesn't use the terms "god-given", "religion", "Barack Hussein Obama", or " gay agenda".[/QUOTE] Yeah, instead he says the ruling goes against the 10th amendment. ..But forgets about the 14th.
[QUOTE=Fapplejack;48059614]To be fair, RP is one of the few people against the ruling that doesn't use the terms "god-given", "religion", "Barack Hussein Obama", or " gay agenda".[/QUOTE] Mike Huckabee is basically suggesting treason: [quote]“The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do-redefine marriage. I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.[/quote] [editline]26th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Mattk50;48059808]how is good old santorum dealing with this?[/QUOTE] My sources tell me that Santorum is currently frothing.
The Onion is cashing in on this [quote]WASHINGTON—Shortly after turning in dissenting opinions in landmark federal rulings today that struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and conferred full federal benefits to married same-sex couples, Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John G. Roberts, and Samuel Alito reportedly realized today that they would someday be portrayed as villains in an Oscar-winning film about the fight for marriage equality. “Oh, God, the major social ramifications, the political intrigue, all the important people involved in the case—I’m going to be played by some sinister character actor in a drama with tons of award buzz, aren’t I?” said Scalia, joining his fellow dissenting justices in realizing they would be antagonists in a film potentially titled Defense Of Marriage and probably written by Tony Kushner. “I’m going to be portrayed as a closed-minded Neanderthal and the very symbol of backward thinking. And at the end of the movie, when my character realizes he’s on the wrong side of history, the audience will feel emotionally fulfilled because the hero attorney, probably played by George fucking Clooney, will have won. Great.” While they added that they aren’t looking forward to being vilified on screen, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas all agreed that the movie would probably be pretty good, and that they could see Paul Dano getting his first Academy Award nomination for his supporting role as a gay rights crusader.[/quote] :v:
Don't get too cocky folks. The republican hive has been kicked, and they are going to be out and motivated in 2016, with cash flowing like water. The Democrats are going to be fighting all the harder for this victory.
[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;48059874]Don't get too cocky folks. The republican hive has been kicked, and they are going to be out and motivated in 2016, with cash flowing like water. The Democrats are going to be fighting all the harder for this victory.[/QUOTE] The only thing the GOP can do at this point is push to completely stop recognizing marriage altogether, which would involve admitting that gay and straight marriage is the same thing. They're literally between a rock and a gay place.
[QUOTE=erfinjerfin;48058596]This is a picture of San Francisco City Hall from 2013. [url]http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/28/opinion/la-oe-chemerinsky-proposition-8-initiatives-20130628[/url][/QUOTE] Yes alright thank you lol I get it now I shouldn't immediately post things here I find on twitter :v:
While we're at it, could security escort the Louisiana and Mississippi State Attorney Generals out of their respective offices? They're making a huge mess throwing their bibles around and screaming.
[QUOTE=Marden;48059201]What's next, people allowed to marry their pets?[/QUOTE] My mom said this this morning.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;48059888]The only thing the GOP can do at this point is push to completely stop recognizing marriage altogether, which would involve admitting that gay and straight marriage is the same thing. They're literally between a rock and a gay place.[/QUOTE] I ain't talking on marriage, I'm talking on voting period. While they might not be able to get rid of gay marrage, the republican talking heads could still use this to rile up them up good so that they get out and vote.
I don't know why orthodox Christians can't just be like my grandpa and say "I believe homosexual activity is a sin but I support gay marriage because I do believe it's possible for two men to love each other, and they can get married and still be abstinent." This isn't unheard of either, one of the teachers at the Christian college in my hometown is gay married and he's abstinent.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;48060026]I don't know why orthodox Christians can't just be like my grandpa and say "I believe homosexual activity is a sin but I support gay marriage because I do believe it's possible for two men to love each other, and they can get married and still be abstinent." This isn't unheard of either, one of the teachers at the Christian college in my hometown is gay married and he's abstinent.[/QUOTE] I don't care if people think it's a sin or a crime against humanity: keep it to yourself and don't fuck with other people's bums Anti-gay people need to [I]get that stick out of their ass[/I]
[QUOTE=OvB;48059378]I've never understood things like this. Dogs/animals and inanimate objects cannot legally consent to marriage so that will never happen. If you're going to argue slippery slope, at least say polygamy or something.[/QUOTE] What about future androids ? Are their feelings real, or are they just programmed ?
[QUOTE=AntonioR;48060101]What about future androids ? Are their feelings real, or are they just programmed ?[/QUOTE] Is this an issue? Dildos are ok in the bible.
[QUOTE=01271;48060303]Is this an issue? Dildos are ok in the bible.[/QUOTE] And lo, Jesus said unto his disciples, "Thou shall not lay with Fistokind as with Mankind, for it is an abomination, and though the numbness will subside in a few hours, the corruption of sin is eternal."
ooh boy, time to receive the river of tears
It's about time. That's all I've got to say. Actually, I have one more thing to say. I'm tired of hearing my mom whine about how it's the "end times" because people of the same sex can get married. The world didn't end in Ancient Rome or Greece, it won't end here. The world isn't worse off because people can get married, that's absolutely ridiculous. But this makes the lives of a whole lot of people a whole lot better, and that's definitely a good thing. And I say that as a Christian. Why can't others?
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/jF11yrf.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;48056386]Yes. State laws cannot override the constitution.[/QUOTE] it's not a constitutional amendment. state laws can't give people less rights than federal laws.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.