Law Same sex marriage under review?

[Barney Gumble]

i have no hate for gays and lesbians but the nuclear family has taken a beating for at least the last half century, so maybe it's time to put more weight behind marriage and make it between a man and a woman again. again, i'm not motivated by bigotry but the nuclear family is in shambles. i don't know what this would mean for taxes and other benefits but i'm not qualified to say anything about that.

 

[Osculater]

100%. Only if we're allowed to use the F word in public.

That would be fabulous!

 

[Hellowhosthat]

That's the thing, you can't even give an inch to unreasonable lunatics, and that applies to gay activist, race hustlers, illegal migrants, etc... none of these people are looking to meet you halfway, as soon as you concede a little ground that Overton window shifts and they're looking for the next thing. So before you know it you go from "oh what's the harm" to men in women's sports and gay porn in your kids elementary school libraries.

Have you ever considered that it's not always the same people and that everyone who thinks differently to you isn't one big hivemind?

 

[Hellowhosthat]

Yeah, they can keep living as they're living, cohabitate with and fuck whoever they want, not much will change for them, but letting them adopt kids is sick and absurd and demanding that the church recognize their ridiculous lifestyle is stupid. Just do your weird thing and keep it to yourself.

What's absurd about letting gay couples adopt kids? Is it really better for a kid to grow up in the care system than in a loving home with same sex parents?

 

[Hellowhosthat]

100%. Only if we're allowed to use the F word in public.

You have freedom of speech in America brother, you can say it as much as you want.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Another topic to distract everyone from the govt stealing trillions

 

[Koro_11]

Have you ever considered that it's not always the same people and that everyone who thinks differently to you isn't one big hivemind?

I've considered it but it doesn't change anything when the most rabid radicals are always the loudest ones who end up dictating how it will be for the rest.

 

[Koro_11]

What's absurd about letting gay couples adopt kids? Is it really better for a kid to grow up in the care system than in a loving home with same sex parents?

Everything is absurd about it, but if you need it explained to you I can't help you.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

Everything is absurd about it, but if you need it explained to you I can't help you.

Explain what's absurd about it being better than a child having literally no parents.

 

[RockyLockridge]

That's the thing, you can't even give an inch to unreasonable lunatics, and that applies to gay activist, race hustlers, illegal migrants, etc... none of these people are looking to meet you halfway, as soon as you concede a little ground that Overton window shifts and they're looking for the next thing. So before you know it you go from "oh what's the harm" to men in women's sports and gay porn in your kids elementary school libraries.

most people dont acknowledge slippery slopes until they are sitting flat on their ass at the bottom of it.

 

[Takes Two To Tango]

Everything is absurd about it, but if you need it explained to you I can't help you.

There is nothing absurd about two loving parents, giving care and love to a child that needs it.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

most people dont acknowledge slippery slopes until they are sitting flat on their ass at the bottom of it.

Well the sensible thing is just to draw a line on the slope and say no when people try and push beyond it. Otherwise you get into the territory of people saying that people being allowed guns is a slippery slope to allowing them to have nuclear weapons.

 

[RockyLockridge]

Well the sensible thing is just to draw a line on the slope and say no when people try and push beyond it. Otherwise you get into the territory of people saying that people being allowed guns is a slippery slope to allowing them to have nuclear weapons.

I agree.

I think that same sex marrige in essence, is fine. but the problem is you have to change the definition of something else for it to exsist. That's where I start to think there should be a line.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

I agree.

I think that same sex marrige in essence, is fine. but the problem is you have to change the definition of something else for it to exsist. That's where I start to think there should be a line.

Eh, I think if you're going to draw a slope under what is effectively the holy matrimony argument then you might as well say nobody who isn't religious can get married.

 

[RockyLockridge]

Eh, I think if you're going to draw a slope under what is effectively the holy matrimony argument then you might as well say nobody who isn't religious can get married.

Perhaps they shouldn't.

 

[Damien Karras]

Everything is absurd about it, but if you need it explained to you I can't help you.

can you show me any scientific evidence of the harmful effects of same sex parents on children's upbringing and development?

 

[kflo]

Yeah, they can keep living as they're living, cohabitate with and fuck whoever they want, not much will change for them, but letting them adopt kids is sick and absurd and demanding that the church recognize their ridiculous lifestyle is stupid. Just do your weird thing and keep it to yourself.

look at this fuckin pos.....

 

[Fedor>Cain]

Yeah, they can keep living as they're living, cohabitate with and fuck whoever they want, not much will change for them, but letting them adopt kids is sick and absurd and demanding that the church recognize their ridiculous lifestyle is stupid. Just do your weird thing and keep it to yourself.

A lot would change lol.

The main reason the government is involved with marriage is for financial purposes.

 

[Confucamus]

I know Clarence told us after Rowe was overturned that same sex marriage and contraception needed to be addressed but are we here with some chick pleading about the sanctity of marriage when she's on her 3rd marriage?

Court to consider whether to hear challenge to same-sex marriage on Nov. 7

The court is scheduled to consider whether to hear Kim Davis’ challenge to same-sex marriage at their private conference on Friday, Nov. 7. As a general practice, the court does […]

www.scotusblog.com

Kim Davis has always been an annoying pain in the ass. She made herself out to be such a victim. The quoted section below, from the article, should be the end all be all for this can.

Earlier this year, the 6th Circuit rejected Davis’ appeal. It reasoned that Davis is protected by the First Amendment when she is a private citizen, but she was acting on behalf of the government when she denied Moore and Ermold’s marriage license – an action that was not protected by the First Amendment. The court of appeals acknowledged that in Obergefell the Supreme Court observed that “many people ‘deem same-sex marriage to be wrong’ based on ‘religious or philosophical premises.’” “But those opposed to same-sex marriage,” the court of appeals wrote, “do not have a right to transform their ‘personal opposition’ into ‘enacted law and public policy.’” “The Bill of Rights,” the court stated, “would serve little purpose if it could be freely ignored whenever an official’s conscience so dictates.”

 

[milliniar]

Marriage should be a union between a horse and woman.

Well they do call it animal husbandry.