Should gay marriage be overturned? (claim, female, amendment, community)

[godofthunder9010]

There are three sides to the gay marriage debate:

1. Gay people should have the right to be married just like anyone else. (Democrats and a lot of Republicans at this point.)
2. Marriage should only be between a man and a woman. (Some of the Republican Party.)
3. Why in the holy hell is government involving itself in marriage in any way whatsoever?? (Libertarian)

I subscribe to option 3.

[Pincho-toot]

Originally Posted by Eyebee Teepee

I philosophically disagree with the term "marriage" because it's a religious ceremony. But all adults should be free from unreasonable restriction on who they have a civil union with.

What religion?

[NDak15]

No it shouldn't. Come up with an argument without quoting Scripture. I'll wait.

[Eyebee Teepee]

Originally Posted by jjbradleynyc

And if you are unfortunate enough to be on the progressive or left side of things...

agreed.

but seriously - the SCOTUS is supposed to rule on the constitutionality of things. Not what 50%, 60%, 75% or even 95% think is the "right thing to do".

That's for Congress to decide, or your State Legislature.

[Pincho-toot]

Originally Posted by SAN_Man

Keep marriage for all, end "pride month" - which has become nothing but corporate pandering, so that these corporations aren't called out for all their other violations of labor laws around the world and conducting business in nations that aren't as open and accepting that we are.

Corporations are so scared they will be cancelled, that they display rainbow colors for an entire month. Problem solved, like magic!

So lets also get rid of the holiday season then? Orrr how about mind your own business. Corporate pandering evidently, is the "American way." I am not a fan of it, but we shouldn't "end" pride month. I would rather it be corporatised than non-existent.

[TheArchitect]

Yes gay marriage should be upheld. But I have no doubt the current right wing Supreme Court has gay marriage and church-state separation in their sights next. This is why religious evangelicals shouldn't be on the Court.

For you left-wingers who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 and Jill Stein in 2016, these are the consequences.

[BigCityDreamer]

Originally Posted by lookingaround12345

The majority think pride is too much but support gay marriage?

Exactly.

No discrimination, but no propaganda at the same time.

[Pincho-toot]

Originally Posted by momonkey

Abortion is a very low priority for most voters.

When the decision comes down, states will revert back to previous law or enact new laws.

If you are pro-abortion, you will continue to vote for pro-abortion politicians.

If you are pro-life, you will continue to vote for pro-life politicians.

Blue states will enact very permissive abortion laws and red states will protect life.

Not much will change.

Depleted bank accounts and unaffordable summer vacations will be something new and very important to voters.

The generic ballot (RCP) hasn't changed much since it flipped last fall.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...vote-7361.html

I don't see it changing much over the summer.

The pro-abortion types always think the vast majority of voters support unrestricted abortion on demand, but that has never been the case.

"Protect life." You mean like how the police in Uvalde protected the lives of those innocent children in Texas? Or the gun lobby protects life by making it easier for maniacs to get a gun? Or how red states were protecting lives by prematurely ending covid restrictions at the height of the pandemic?

[Pincho-toot]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

Abortion entails the killing of a potential life.

So, it requires a different level of scrutiny than gay marriage.

So does masturbation. Or any sexual act that does not lead to an egg being fertilised.

Of course the sort of people who oppose abortion don't exactly have a very flavourful intimate life to begin with so I guess it all makes sense.

[staystill]

Originally Posted by Retroit

Government shouldn't recognize any marriage. It is a private matter. Laws should not favor married people over singles.

I think the only reason the Government or should I say law recognizes marriage is because the wife takes the husbands last name and the courts get involved if they divorce then it really gets into legalities. Also for tax purposes. Even though not all married couples file together.

Married people will always be favored over single people. Especially if they have a child or children. Especially when a single person needs physical help with anything or needs disability. A married couple has the spouse to say "oh yes I have to help him/her with everything" or "I have kids this is more of a hardship because I have kids" but the single on gets " how do you do anything when you don't have anyone to help you do say you can't this or that". or they get told when they can't get up or off the x-ray table with a pissed off tone from the technician " how do you get out of bed in the morning?" but the ***** doesn't understand the patient isn't asking to be picked up just guide them. People get dizzy laying down on those slabs and calling medical alert companies to help get the up isn't fun. Oh but they are single and/or live alone so f*ck them who cares they aren't hurting or need help.

It does hurt to be treated like **** for being single and getting less than others do for being single when they have just as many bills, responsibilities as married couples do.