Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a single person, I have little interest in subsidizing someone else's sexual relationship, regardless of where they might like to put it and with whom.
I have even less patience for efforts to force Orwellian double-think on me in the form of a new definition for normal that doesn't classify things like homosexuality as abnormal or even unnatural.
If you want to be normal, do what other people are doing and use your genitalia in the manner nature intended.
If that doesn't suit your fancy, accept the fact that you are not part of the norm and that institutions created to serve that which is normal are simply not for you.
As a single person, I have little interest in subsidizing someone else's sexual relationship, regardless of where they might like to put it and with whom.
I have even less patience for efforts to force Orwellian double-think on me in the form of a new definition for normal that doesn't classify things like homosexuality as abnormal or even unnatural.
If you want to be normal, do what other people are doing and use your genitalia in the manner nature intended.
If that doesn't suit your fancy, accept the fact that you are not part of the norm and that institutions created to serve that which is normal are simply not for you.
I would imagine you think you're so all out normal that don't need anyone to tell you how to run your sex life, huh?
unnecessary hysteria, nothing will happen, any reversal today is a legal clash that would confuse American law, for it brought with the court new legal issues that the effect of the previous decision caused, literally making the judiciary arm a legislator, since he would have to make several decisions for various types of problems that would derive from the primary decision.
you could return the marriage right to the states, the first question would be if the states can step back and annul the marriages already made? later the state would ask the court if it is obliged to recognize the marriage of other states? then whether the benefits granted and enjoyed by married couples can go back in law? then whether the processes of homoparenteral adoption could be suspended and the legal status of lgbt families in states that no longer recognize them? among other issues ....
I do not think that conservative judges are willing to face a new cultural war for a long-overdue decision and wear down the image of the supreme court ... it is far easier to overturn the abortion decision than gay marriage, because gay marriage has produced a series of rights where they did not exist and new social situations that were never brought before the court, when abortion created a single right.
OP most of the conservatives I know don't oppose Gay marriage, even the Baptist.
You really need to leave your parents hose in OK and get out in the real world.
I don't understand why you live in a place you hate so much. It's not healthy.
As a single person, I have little interest in subsidizing someone else's sexual relationship, regardless of where they might like to put it and with whom.
I have even less patience for efforts to force Orwellian double-think on me in the form of a new definition for normal that doesn't classify things like homosexuality as abnormal or even unnatural.
If you want to be normal, do what other people are doing and use your genitalia in the manner nature intended.
If that doesn't suit your fancy, accept the fact that you are not part of the norm and that institutions created to serve that which is normal are simply not for you.
I get that two people of the same gender having sex has an ick factor for you. Fundamentally, that what makes you and me and lots of other people heterosexual, but how can you seriously justify taking away rights and privileges afforded to consenting adults who don't fit the male-female mold while granting it to those who do?
It's doubtful the Supreme Court will attack gays or gay marriage directly. They will likely allow discrimination in the name of religious freedom which Trump supporters will love. Gays would be advised to take their money and education and move to a blue state.
why do you continually babble about Baptists? no one even mentioned Baptists
I know, I think he had a bad experience with them. I think he needs to leave his city. There's actually a Baptist church in my neighborhood that welcomes gays.
We could try, but we'd have to have the people fight a war against the corporate Gaystapo/Transtapo. True, we could do it with the Supreme Court, but the Left would just throw a big fit and eventually get the Supreme Court back and reverse it.
Besides, companies would be threatening all sorts of economic job loss and financial woe to any state or Congressman willing to confirm anyone willing to undo Oberfeld. Even Gorusch and Trump seem too chicken to overturn it, calling Oberfeld the "law of the land" (they're wrong, but if they won't help, that makes our job harder.)
We could try an Article V convention (we had about 30 state marriage amendments before the Politburo known as the Supreme Court overturned them all. All we'd need is 8 more states and then we could amend the Constitution via the state convention process to bypass Congress . However, as I said, the corporate Gaystapo/Transtapo would vow economic hell on any states that support this, so it would come to civilians cleaning house with these companies as to whether or not it gets passed.
Fine make gay marriage illegal in red states. They will not attract tech companies. More for us.
The tech companies can go roast in a very hot place! They are as UN-American as Joseph Stalin!
They do the following:
1.) Support "Dreamers"
2.) Support Amnesty for illegals and open borders
3) Support H1Bs and OPT up the wazoo
4.) Hate religious liberty and separate gender bathrooms.
5.) Torture children with Common Core/Fed Ed/College and Career Ready materials to shape them into a compliant servile workforce.
6.) Spy on and data mine us and sell that info to every Saddam, Dick, and Harry on the planet who will pay for it.
Whatever the old Robber Barons were, they had NOTHING on these guys in charge of the tech companies.
From what I'm finding, lots of former American programmers would have to disagree that the tech companies are worthy of being able to speak about what constitutes "discrimination".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
