|
Post by MarchingOn on Jun 28, 2015 18:47:01 GMT -5
Why are you seemingly upset about people gaining equality and getting the ability to love who they want to?Gay marriage should have never been outlawed in the first place. You know, separation of church and state. And we all know damn well the overwhelming majority of homophobes/anti-gay marriage people are religious. First, can we just talk about how insane it would be to justify gay rights from a separation argument? The inception of the seperation interpretation was to enforce the establishment clause. Seperation is about government affiliation with religion, not with individuals. Arguing that the issue being a religious issue because it is popular among individuals who exercise religion makes it the opposite of what's related to separation. Individuals are free to exercise their opinions and vote based on them, and religion is one of those issues. If you banned marriage bans based on the beliefs of the individuals who want them, then you're really banning free exercise, not establishment. Also, the court didn't give gay people the ability to love who they want. They already had that. 37/50 states already let them get married, and in the other 13, they could still love whoever they want to. I think what's changed is that since the playing field just got slightly more fair, America's going to start seeing the great things (not just marriage) that gay Americans can do. Fair enough Juggs. But are you including politicians when you say "individuals"? I've always thought separation of church and state meant that religion shouldn't interfere with politics, period. As in, along with no government affiliation with religion, religion should not play a factor in shaping any politician's beliefs. But I guess that was incorrect of me to think? I was aware a good amount of states already allowed it. And yes, obviously gay people had the "ability" to love who they wanted to before this ruling took place. They've had that ability since time immemorial. Does any of that contradict what I said though? Maybe the way I worded that bit wasn't the best, but still. They gained the ability of being treated like equals all across the US, which was basically my main point there.
|
|
|
Post by Morkim on Jun 28, 2015 18:51:35 GMT -5
First, can we just talk about how insane it would be to justify gay rights from a separation argument? The inception of the seperation interpretation was to enforce the establishment clause. Seperation is about government affiliation with religion, not with individuals. Arguing that the issue being a religious issue because it is popular among individuals who exercise religion makes it the opposite of what's related to separation. Individuals are free to exercise their opinions and vote based on them, and religion is one of those issues. If you banned marriage bans based on the beliefs of the individuals who want them, then you're really banning free exercise, not establishment. Also, the court didn't give gay people the ability to love who they want. They already had that. 37/50 states already let them get married, and in the other 13, they could still love whoever they want to. I think what's changed is that since the playing field just got slightly more fair, America's going to start seeing the great things (not just marriage) that gay Americans can do. Fair enough Juggs. But are you including politicians when you say "individuals"? I've always thought separation of church and state meant that religion shouldn't interfere with politics, period. As in, along with no government affiliation with religion, religion should not play a factor in shaping any politician's beliefs. But I guess that was incorrect of me to think?I was aware a good amount of states already allowed it. And yes, obviously gay people had the "ability" to love who they wanted to before this ruling took place. They've had that ability since time immemorial. Does any of that contradict what I said though? Maybe the way I worded that bit wasn't the best, but still. They gained the ability of being treated like equals all across the US, which was basically my main point there. Pretty close to impossible.
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Jun 28, 2015 18:56:56 GMT -5
Fair enough Juggs. But are you including politicians when you say "individuals"? I've always thought separation of church and state meant that religion shouldn't interfere with politics, period. As in, along with no government affiliation with religion, religion should not play a factor in shaping any politician's beliefs. But I guess that was incorrect of me to think?I was aware a good amount of states already allowed it. And yes, obviously gay people had the "ability" to love who they wanted to before this ruling took place. They've had that ability since time immemorial. Does any of that contradict what I said though? Maybe the way I worded that bit wasn't the best, but still. They gained the ability of being treated like equals all across the US, which was basically my main point there. Pretty close to impossible. Right, I realize that. I simply thought there might have been something against it just to, at the very least, make it be known that ideally it shouldn't happen. Comparable to how there's laws against racism. But I guess I was wrong. Idk
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 19:17:29 GMT -5
Who says Im angry about anything?
Im just freely stating my opinion thats from the word of God and displaying my equal rights.
The only thing Im angry about in here is your dumbass Mo.
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Jun 28, 2015 19:20:24 GMT -5
Who says Im angry about anything? Im just freely stating my opinion thats from the word of God and displaying my equal rights. The only thing Im angry about in here is your dumbass Mo. <3
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 19:22:14 GMT -5
Who says Im angry about anything? Im just freely stating my opinion thats from the word of God and displaying my equal rights. The only thing Im angry about in here is your dumbass Mo. <3 Surely you dont have a problem with equal rights ...right?
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Jun 28, 2015 19:37:22 GMT -5
Surely you dont have a problem with equal rights ...right? Of course not! You're protected by freedom of speech to say what you want and have the opinion you want! I'm protected by freedom of speech when I say I find your opinion on gay marriage morally reprehensible! (provided you are actually anti-gay marriage) Freedom of speech definitely goes both ways
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2015 19:56:50 GMT -5
Surely you dont have a problem with equal rights ...right? Of course not! You're protected by freedom of speech to say what you want and have the opinion you want! I'm protected by freedom of speech when I say I find your opinion on gay marriage morally reprehensible! (provided you are actually anti-gay marriage) Freedom of speech definitely goes both ways Im not anti gay. Im anti anti God. I lump gay marriage right along with all of our other sins. Except this time,the scotus says its okay. Which Im not okay with, because they are not the ones who should be making these kinds of decisions. But seems to me that the government once again picks and chooses what they want to approve of based on the agendas at the time. If ya can fly a rainbow flag,that some deem offensive for what it stands for,then Im pretty sure you can fly a rebel flag also. Based on their logic. of course. But noone cares about the US flag being set on fire. Noone cares that the US flag was flown during times of slavery,and I dont see anyone clammoring for its removal. But its okay to light up the white house like a rainbow? Okay...the logic is mind boggling.
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Jun 28, 2015 20:15:18 GMT -5
Of course not! You're protected by freedom of speech to say what you want and have the opinion you want! I'm protected by freedom of speech when I say I find your opinion on gay marriage morally reprehensible! (provided you are actually anti-gay marriage) Freedom of speech definitely goes both ways Im not anti gay. Im anti anti God. I lump gay marriage right along with all of our other sins. Except this time,the scotus says its okay. Which Im not okay with, because they are not the ones who should be making these kinds of decisions. But seems to me that the government once again picks and chooses what they want to approve of based on the agendas at the time. If ya can fly a rainbow flag,that some deem offensive for what it stands for,then Im pretty sure you can fly a rebel flag also. Based on their logic. of course. But noone cares about the US flag being set on fire. Noone cares that the US flag was flown during times of slavery,and I dont see anyone clammoring for its removal. But its okay to light up the white house like a rainbow? Okay...the logic is mind boggling. I don't know why people keep saying SCOTUS shouldn't have been the one to make this decision. If not them, then who? What's separates Obergefell vs. Hodges from cases like Roe vs. Wade and Brown vs. the board of education? Should SCOTUS have not ruled on that? Some things are justifiable and important enough to override leaving it up to each individual state. This is one of those things imo. And your comparison to the Confederate flag/American flag is different. Gay marriage literally hurts no one. In the form of a rainbow flag, it carries no baggage. Which is unlike the Confederate flag, which stands for what the Confederates believed: Pro-slavery and white supremacy. As for the American flag, that encompasses everything this country has ever done, good and bad. It's different from the Confederate flag because that refers to a specific point in history and a certain geographical area in which the people held harmful beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by 101mitch on Jun 28, 2015 20:20:35 GMT -5
Im not anti gay. Im anti anti God. I lump gay marriage right along with all of our other sins. Except this time,the scotus says its okay. Which Im not okay with, because they are not the ones who should be making these kinds of decisions. But seems to me that the government once again picks and chooses what they want to approve of based on the agendas at the time. If ya can fly a rainbow flag,that some deem offensive for what it stands for,then Im pretty sure you can fly a rebel flag also. Based on their logic. of course. But noone cares about the US flag being set on fire. Noone cares that the US flag was flown during times of slavery,and I dont see anyone clammoring for its removal. But its okay to light up the white house like a rainbow? Okay...the logic is mind boggling. I don't know why people keep saying SCOTUS shouldn't have been the one to make this decision. If not them, then who? What's separates Obergefell v. Hodges from cases like Roe vs Wade and Brown vs. the board of education? Should SCOTUS have not ruled on that? Some things are justifiable and important enough to override leaving it up to each individual state. This is one of those things imo. And your comparison to the Confederate flag/American flag is different. Gay marriage literally hurts no one. In the form of a rainbow flag, it carries no baggage. Which is unlike the Confederate flag, which stands for what the Confederates believed: Pro-slavery and white supremacy. As for the American flag, that encompasses everything this country has ever done, good and bad. It's different from the Confederate flag because that refers to a specific point in history and a certain geographical area in which the people held harmful beliefs. It hurts people who think it is wrong (Like Jeff)
|
|