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.
Now, read very slowly and maybe you'll be able to understand this.
We've been told time and time again of the myriad pitfalls of gay marriage. You know, the usual litany of ignorance and lies. Churches would be forced to marry gays. People would soon be marrying their dogs and/or their furniture. Society would collapse.
As it turns out, legalizing same-sex marriage has had only one result.
It's not like there aren't historical parallels for this.
Remember when integrating the armed forces was going to destroy them? Remember when allowing women to serve, and then to serve in combat roles, was going to do the same? Remember when allowing gays to openly serve was also going to do so?
Remember when desegregating the public schools was going to destroy society? When allowing blacks to vote was going to ruin everything?
Remember when striking down the interracial marriage bans was going to destroy the white race?
You see, when something is legalized, it proves all the clueless and/or lying doomsayers wrong. All the crazy BS they claimed would happen, doesn't actually happen. And then a lot of people who believe the BS being spewed reconsider, and change their minds.
You know what's really funny? The complete inability of some people to learn anything - anything - from history.
FYI: 42.7% of all statistics are just made up on the spot.
While cute in a pitiful sort of way, your post neither proves nor refutes anything, as these statistics were not simply made up on the spot. Support for same-sex marriage has been growing steadily for a while now, and this trend is showing no signs of reversal.
BUT, they are not actually approving it. So, what this does is it puts the ball back in the lower courts to decide. I would be OK with this IF the us supreme court would have issued a clear ruling last year. If they would have said that states have a right to determine their own marriage laws then thats fine. However, their open-ended ruling left us with the mess that we are in now. Taken at face value, the decision to not take the case is like saying that it (gay marriage) is not a big enough issue. And, I can also agree with that... (once again) IF they had CLEARLY let the states decide for themselves.
The real problem here is that we give so much power to the US supreme court. By not ruling, they want their cake and eat it too. WE THE PEOPLE need to decide how we want to live. Its is OUR country, and OUR government. The supreme courts, the president, cops, teachers, etc... THEY WORK FOR US! I wish that someone (with a big stage and microphone) would explain that to everyone!
They generally don't rule if there isn't conflict between courts. That's not always the case, but it's the general practice. At this point every federal appeals court has struck gay marriage bans down. If the 6th comes back with a ruling upholding it or the 5th, then it's likely they will intervene.
While cute in a pitiful sort of way, your post neither proves nor refutes anything, as these statistics were not simply made up on the spot. Support for same-sex marriage has been growing steadily for a while now, and is showing no signs of slowing down.
define "support". Look at california, the home of the gays... The people voted against gay marriage. If the people could decide then there would be no such thing as gay marriage. But, we have judges, courts, politicians, lawyers, media, hollywood actors, college professors, and Europeans who are pushing for gay marriage. Most of us are sick of hearing about it. The problem is that gays want to be accepted for who they are. BUT, when someone points out that they are not normal, gays throw a fit. You can't have it both ways. If a woman takes her shirt off and no one looks, then she does jumping jacks. If they get attention that they don't want then they accuse others of being perverts.
They generally don't rule if there isn't conflict between courts. That's not always the case, but it's the general practice. At this point every federal appeals court has struck gay marriage bans down. If the 6th comes back with a ruling upholding it or the 5th, then it's likely they will intervene.
I thought Louisiana upheld the ban? Anyway, your post sounds correct, but it also seems fishy. Maybe the government should get out of the marriage business altogether?
It's always been like that. The courts function (one of them, rather) as a check and balance against public opinion. They've done it before, and they'll it again if needed.
How is it a fallacy? The courts ruled on a perceived fairness issue, not on the definition of marriage.
Who are the sell-anointed kings who decided only two people can marry? How is that fair to the people who want plural marriage? How does their three person marriage affect your two person marriage? It doesn't.
At some point the courts will choose to arbitrarily discriminate.
Will they say two sisters cannot marry?
Will they say marriage is only for two people, even though a gay couple might use the same surrogate mother to birth all their children?
Will the courts say two gay men cannot marry their children's surrogate mother? How is that fair? How is that in best interest of the children???
The definition, purpose and function of marriage has been blown up, and now marriage is not what you or I or an entire sate might say it is, it's whatever activist judges say it is.
define "support". Look at california, the home of the gays... The people voted against gay marriage. If the people could decide then there would be no such thing as gay marriage. But, we have judges, courts, politicians, lawyers, media, hollywood actors, college professors, and Europeans who are pushing for gay marriage. Most of us are sick of hearing about it. The problem is that gays want to be accepted for who they are. BUT, when someone points out that they are not normal, gays throw a fit. You can't have it both ways. If a woman takes her shirt off and no one looks, then she does jumping jacks. If they get attention that they don't want then they accuse others of being perverts.
And 4 years later 4 other states voted in the opposite direction, so that sticks a fork in your theory doesn't it?
I thought Louisiana upheld the ban? Anyway, your post sounds correct, but it also seems fishy. Maybe the government should get out of the marriage business altogether?
Yeah he did, but since the 5th circuit hasn't heard the appeal yet it's not something they will get involved in.
And 4 years later 4 other states voted in the opposite direction, so that sticks a fork in your theory doesn't it?
4 states? I thought the US was comprised of 50 states?
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.
