Bitcoin Forum

USA finally approves gay marriage. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/26/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSKBN0P61SW20150626)  The shocking thing to me is not that it took so long for the bastion of "freedom" to make a decision on the issue, but the fact that the supreme court vote was 5-4.  That means that nearly 50% of our supreme court justices disagree with our constitutional right to freedom of religion.  I find this very worrying, but I guess after the constitution has been gutted the last 10 years or so it should not be too surprising.

Thoughts?

Huge +1million. Faith in humanity is microscopically restored.

The core problem/bane of this world is illogical religion. For example: The Greeks contributed massively to the growth of our species in Literature, Philosophy, art, etc, and they were a largely Polytheistic society. However, when Monotheism started taking over, a large decline came about in many fields and such is visible during the Middle Ages and after the downfall of Rome due to Christianity. Basically what I'm saying, is that Monotheistic societies are usually restricted immensely by their own religion due to their belief in irrevocable human imperfection, while Polytheistic societies with god's that are imperfect(Think the Pantheon of Greek God's and Goddesses each with their imperfections), led to immense growth in many fields.

The core problem is religion, but the type of religion that historically, take away human rights and liberties or stunt growth tend to be Monotheistic religions, like Islam, Judaism, Christianity.

I saw the topic and my first thought was "Who did America piss off this time?". But yeah, America's really taking great leaps forward! Really nice to hear this today.

The only thing I see as a negative is the supreme court has invented a right, not even the heterosexuals had. Now any president in the future will be able to invent a right too.

At least this should also be good news for the mormons and the muslim bakers with multiple wives here in the USA...

 8)

Watch the assholes out there flip over this and scream about it for weeks, I can already hear BaDecker typing away now :P

I thought it has been approved to the US long time ago or it is lesbian marriage who are only allowed?

Uhh...Gay? What happened to humans these days?

 knew it was going to happen, but I didn't think it would be such a close with 5-4 vote. THAT close. U.S. is really backwards, but not too much. But anyways this is good news.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/26/417717613/supreme-court-rules-all-states-must-allow-same-sex-marriages

I think think homosexual marriage in general was approved by the Obama, but it ended up being taken to the supreme court for a debate but with this ruling basically it will be completely legal and the state's won't be able to come up with many excuses for why it shouldn't be done. However there's a lot of opposition from idiots who have wormed their way into a lot of local government so they're going to screw around with the legislative process as much as possible, it was reported that some courhouses have decided to try and shut down marriage itself entirely because they hate the idea that much.

How did they invent a right? It appears to me they equally enforced a right that already existed. If the government is going to grant marriages, now they have to grant them to gay couples too. That's extending the right to marriage that already existed for some to all, not creating a new one.

Mormons don't have multiple wives. Maybe those crazy FLDS people do, but not the members of the official LDS church. 

But anyway, another day, and another state's right taken away. No big deal. Let's just sit back in awe as the federal government absorbs more power. Let's continue arguing about some silly flag while the TPP gets shoved down our throats just like the ACA did. But hey, at least the gays can get married now.

Yea, let's promote abolishment of the federal government and give the states all the power. Let's promote the confederate states of america and have the south recede from the north again. Let's let each of the 50 states make whatever laws they want with no repercussions to their actions /s.

Human beings are not biologically fit to operate without some sort of authority, even taking power away from the federal government and giving it to the states would be doing nothing but causing more confusion and mayhem as there's still central leaders/governments in each of the states with different views and cultural outlooks. True decentralization cannot exist at this point in time, so anarchists and the like will always fail. Studies done on leadership found in social groups shows this.

Keep drinking that kool aide and twisting people's words around. Good job.

It's an exaggerated version of what you implied, "But anyway, another day, and another state's right taken away. No big deal. Let's just sit back in awe as the federal government absorbs more power. Let's continue arguing about some silly flag while the TPP gets shoved down our throats just like the ACA did. But hey, at least the gays can get married now."

If you intended for something else, then read what you write before posting. If not, then you're an idiot.

What state right are you seeking to preserve here, the right to define marriage in a way to exclude gay people? How is that different from 'preserving' a state's right to to exclude certain races from education (i.e. segregation)? The one thing that is constant in our history is that an individual's rights always trump the state's rights. That's why the south was forced to integrate, because the individual's right to equal education trumped the state's right to educate the different races in the way they preferred ("separate but equal"), which the court ruled was inherently unequal.

The point of the federal government here is to protect individual's rights where states refuse to. The "state's rights" argument holds no merit where states trample individual rights, and as long as state governments are going to grant marriages, declining marriages to gay couples is not just and is not defensible; not for religious reasons, not for state's rights reasons, not for any reasons.

That's what this case got right in my opinion.

This was a great victory for American human rights.   :)  I am really happy for all my gay friends that can now get married and get benefits for each other.  One less reason to be embarrassed about being from Merica.

Well.. polygamy is a part of the Mormonism, although it is now outlawed by the mainstream Mormon church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the LDS). That was one of the reasons why the other fundamentalist Mormon groups, such as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS), the Apostolic United Brethren (AUC), and the Latter Day Church of Christ (LDC) broke away from the LDS.

Celestio and jaysabi, it would appear you both grossly misinterpreted what I wrote. The fact is that several states had already begun to allow gay marriage. And many more were in line to do so. It would have been only a matter of time before all 50 states got on board and allowed it. This move by the SCOTUS was nothing more than a power grab. Interpret that how you will. Call me an idiot if you want. I won't lose sleep over it.

Great, now they'll know how happy a marriage really is.

So which country do you think will be the next to approve this, China?

So? Is it bad or good? Gay marriage don't do any harm to normal people. So who cares? If you are not gay, then it's don't do any meanings to you.
I personally just don't care. Just let others live.

Congratulations to all. Modernity has reached America.

There is two rules in the world, God made rules and Man made rules. The whole universe is created by one God, and he is omnipresent and always live, he knows what is best and worst for his creations. A relationship which is opposed to a human man kind is totally ruthless and crossing the lines of nature peace living, men and women are made for each other to share their peace and love between them. I really oppose any relationship without a men and women being involved and do not even like to pronounce that xxy..... marriage stuff.

I'm not calling you an idiot mate, I'm just trying to understand your argument is all. You said this was a case of state's rights, and I explained my view of why it isn't. That's not misinterpreting what you wrote, it's directly responding to it. But you didn't address my points (if that's because they didn't address your points, fair enough, but explain how since it appears to me I directly addressed what you wrote). Regardless, I haven't seen a good explanation yet of why this was such a terrible court decision or what state's rights were taken away.

It being a matter of time isn't a justification for allowing states to take their sweet time recognizing individual rights. In time, integration might have been embraced too, and eventually slavery might have been abolished in the south on its own. "Eventually we'll get there" doesn't excuse the infringement of rights taking place right now. This isn't a question about state's rights, because you can't democratically elect to strip a group of people of their rights. So there is no prerogative of the states here that is being infringed.

I predict that before 2050, the SCOTUS will make marriage between humans and animals legal in the United States. They way things are going right now, that seems very much possible. BTW... now as the SCOTUS has legalized gay marriage, more and more states will try to secede from the Union, following the example of Texas.

I predict that before 2050, SCOTUS will not make marriage between humans and animals legal because that slope isn't nearly as slippery as a tenuous grip on reality would lead you to believe. I also predict 0 states, named Texas or otherwise, will try to secede over the issue of gay marriage, because I live in a world where a small percentage of people complaining about gay marriage doesn't equal a secession attempt.

This is without question a victory for reason, compassion, and equality. Still, I can't endorse the institution of marriage, which is obsolete feudal sexual restriction to my eyes, but it's about fucking time they told the south to STFU and gave LGBTs equal rights.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/GayMarriage.gif

http://www.motherjones.com/files/SSMgifEdited4.gif

I have no idea about the people that supporting gay marriage. It's right if they said gay never harm people, but it sounds not right to me. I think some people support gay marriage because the gay people can get their right to get married each other. So it doesn't be matter if the gays are a strangers. Then, what would you do if one of your family, son maybe, is a gay? Only retarded parent that don't get shock and support him immediately after hear it.

Oh is that the case? You're in for quite a shock then because your siser, wife, daughter, aunt, mother, grandmoher, that random girl at work, etc, are all Bisexual. More than half the people on this planet aren't straight, and it's due to human biology. Sexual arousal is different from romantic attraction, and people generally tend to define their sexuality due to their romantic attractions, and it's simply wrong. Sexual arousal/attraction is the main identifying factor of one's sexuality, and they are vastly different between men and women.

Your bible is wrong, your koran is wrong, your torah is wrong. If they were right, then your god treats women unfairly for supposedly making it impossible for them to be relatively straight, sexually. The whole world needs to wake up and learn these things, then discrimination/homophobia and such on the basis of sexuality would itself be as taboo as say a neo-nazi.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/fashion/12bisex.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/books/review/what-do-women-want-by-daniel-bergner.html
http://www.livescience.com/37834-women-sexuality-and-alloparenting.html -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2051284/More-half-women-bi-curious-attracted-women.html -

"Heterosexual women, Dr. Chivers and her colleagues found, were no more excited by athletic naked men doing yoga or tossing stones into the ocean than they were by the control footage: long pans of the snowcapped Himalayas. When straight women viewed a video of a naked woman doing calisthenics, on the other hand, their blood flow increased significantly."

"Dr. Chivers’s work adds to a growing body of scientific evidence that places female sexuality along a continuum between heterosexuality and homosexuality, rather than as an either-or phenomenon."

Jaysabi, I know you weren't calling me an idiot. Celestio is actually the one who used that term. I was simply addressing both of you in my post because I felt there was no need for two posts. Anyway, I really don't know of any other way to address the point. I honestly have no problem with gay marriage. However, this is still the United STATES of America. We have elected officials in each state whose purpose is to represent the constituents of that state. The power to decide who can get married has now been taken away from the state and given to the federal government. Some see that as a good thing, others see it as a bad thing. Just look at the graphic posted by Beliathon and it shows the progression of states which have overturned gay marriage bans. The number was steadily increasing. Politicians are flip flops by nature and even the most conservative of governors and state legislators would eventually have had no choice but to heed the call of the people to overturn the bans. I know, it wasn't happening fast enough. But it was happening. For me, this ruling has little to do with gay marriage. The federal government is absorbing too much power. If you think the Executive branch has the best interest of the people in mind, you are wrong. Barack Obama did not support gay marriage until he figured out he could use it to his advantage to be reelected. Hillary Clinton is the same way. She is just another politician who will say anything to get elected. She doesn't care about gays or gay rights, and neither does Obama. They are all the same, they worship power at the expense of the little people. I'm glad gays have the right to get married now. But a huge door just got flung wide open. What's next?

I think we can differ a attracted thing with marriage. Its okay if the gay strangers out there get married, but it be hard if your son is a gay, yeah maybe you will accept his decision and support him someday, but its still a hard thing you know. To be honest, in my opinion lesbian is more acceptable in society than gay.

The court ruling is about US state has no right to ban same sex marriage. This "marriage" is a legal status, not about ruling same sex marriage is morally right or wrong.

let them live as their married peers. There is no reason gay people shouldn't have the same rights and benefits straight people do

I don't care about homosexuality. what consenting adults want to do is their business. if two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together good luck

jayce

i feel sorry for your kids
if they got any problems they won,t be coming to tell you about them ;)  poor kids

Opposition to homo marriage tops 50% in many of the Southern states. The ruling by the SCOTUS will be seen by the religious conservatives as an attempt by the court to weaken their religion. That said, I don't think that suddenly everyone living there will take up arms and create a secession movement. But for sure, extremist groups will be witnessing a steep rise in their membership.

Well I'm sorry if you can't understand my words. So, what do you think about this gay marriage? You support it or not? You better give your opinion about it than feel sorry for me. And, do you support it if one of your sons is a gay? Don't make any nonsense words like he can what he want or its his right to get it, just tell me what will you do honestly.

There is no marriage equality if homosexuals can't reproduce. Can the Supreme Court let them procreate? God still rules. The emperor is naked.

They'll have all the same rights as hetero married couples, and they can adopt, so pretty much the same thing.

Timeline of Same-Sex Marriage Bans and Legalization by Effective Date of Laws


http://gaymarriage.procon.org/files/1-gay-marriage-images/same-sex-marriage-37-states-legal-13-states-banned.jpg



Sources:

    Associated Press, "Appeals Court Halts Gay Marriages in Alaska," usatoday.com, Oct. 15, 2014

    Associated Press, "Federal Judge Strikes Down SC Gay Marriage Ban," washingtonpost.com, Nov. 12, 2014

    Associated Press, "Judge Rules SD Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional," nytimes.com, Jan. 12, 2015

    Associated Press, "Justice Kennedy Blocks Gay Marriage Ruling for Idaho, Nevada," usatoday.com, Oct. 8, 2014

    Associated Press, "Kentucky Judge Rejects State's Gay Marriage Ban," time.com, Apr. 16, 2015

    Associated Press, "'We're Walking on Clouds': Gay Marriages Begin in Nevada," nbcnews.com, Oct. 9, 2014

    Saeed Ahmed, "Judge Overturns Alaska's Same-Sex Marriage Ban That Dates to 1998," cnn.com, Oct. 13, 2014
    Curt Anderson, "Federal Judge Rules Florida Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional, but Delays Issuing of Licenses," ap.org, Aug. 21, 2014

    Curt Anderson, "Judge Won't Lift Fla. Keys Gay Marriage Stay," ap.org, July 21, 2014

    Curt Anderson, "Ruling Allows Same-Sex Marriages for Florida Keys," ap.org, July 17, 2014

    Joseph Ax and Edith Honan, "New Jersey Judge Allows Same-Sex Marriage," reuters.com, Sep. 27, 2013

    David Bailey, "Minnesota Governor Signs Bill Legalizing Gay Marriage," reuters.com, May 14, 2013

    David Bailey and Kevin Murphy, "Kansas Ban on Same-Sex Marriage Unconstitutional: Judge," reuters.com, Nov. 4, 2014
    Robert Barnes, "Federal Judge Strikes Down Va. Ban on Gay Marriage," washingtonpost.com, Feb. 14, 2014

    Steve Barnes and Emily Le Coz, "U.S. Judges Overturn Gay Marriage Bans in Arkansas, Mississippi," reuters.com, Nov. 26, 2014

    Eve Batey, "Farewell Prop 8: SF City Attorney Vows to Litigate Aggressively to Ensure Marriage Equality for California," www.sfappeal.com, June 26, 2013

    Barb Berggoetz, "Indiana Won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages Performed Last Month," indystar.com, July 9, 2014

    Greg Botelho, "Same-Sex Marriages on Hold in Idaho, Given Go-Ahead in Arkansas," cnn.com, May 15, 2014

    Greg Botelho and Bill Mears, "Texas Ban on Same-Sex Marriage Struck Down by Federal Judge," cnn.com, Feb. 27, 2014
    Cable News Network (CNN), "Same-Sex Marriage in the United States," cnn.com, Oct. 14, 2014

    Cable News Network (CNN) staff, "Federal Judge Overturns Montana's Ban on Same-Sex marriage," cnn.com, Nov. 19, 2014

    Cindy Carcomo, "New Mexico Becomes Latest State to Legalize Gay Marriage," latimes.com, Dec. 19, 2013

    Bill Chappell, "Alabama Courts Issue First Marriage Licenses to Same-Sex Couples," npr.org, Feb. 9, 2015

    Andrew DeMillo, "Arkansas High Court Suspends Gay Marriage Ruling," ap.org, May 16, 2014

    Andrew DeMillo and Christiana Huynh, "Judge Strikes All Arkansas Bans on Gay Marriage," ap.org, May 15, 2014

    Doug Denison, "Gay Marriage in Delaware to Become Legal July 1," www.delawareonline.com, May 7, 2013

    Lyle Denniston, "Same-Sex Marriage May Go Ahead in Kansas," scotusblog.com, Nov. 12, 2014

    Lyle Denniston, "Sixth Circuit: Now, a Split on Same-Sex Marriage," scotusblog.com, Nov. 6, 2014

    Erik Eckholm, "Same-Sex Marriage Gains Cheer Gay Rights Advocates," www.nytimes.com, Nov. 7, 2012

    Erik Eckholm, "Oklahoma’s Ban on Gay Marriage Is Unconstitutional, Judge Rules," www.nytimes.com, Jan. 14, 2014

    Zachary Fagenson, "State Judge Strikes Down Florida's Gay Marriage Ban, Stays Ruling," reuters.com, July 25, 2014

    Zack Ford, "Federal Judge Orders Indiana to Recognize Terminally Ill Woman’s Same-Sex Marriage," thinkprogress.org, Apr. 10, 2014

    Andrew M. Francis, Hugo M. Mialon, and Handoe Peng, "In Sickness and in Health: Same Sex Marriage Laws and Sexually Transmitted Infections, Appendix: Legal References and Notes," Emory Law and Economics Research Paper No 11-97, www.emory.edu (accessed Aug. 10, 2012)

    Human Rights Campaign, "Marriage Center," www.hrc.org (accessed Aug. 10, 2012)

    Lawrence Hurley, "Supreme Court Allows Gay Marriage to Proceed in South Carolina," reuters.com, Nov. 20, 2014

    Brendan Kirby, "Federal Appeals Court Denies Alabama's Bid to Extend Delay on Same-Sex Marriages," al.com, Feb. 3, 2015

    Rachel La Corte, "Washington Voters Approve Gay Marriage," Associated Press, Nov. 9, 2012

    Lambda Legal, "In Your State," www.lamdbalegal.org (accessed Aug. 10, 2012)

    William P. LaPiana, "Domestic Partnership Chart," www.actec.org (accessed Aug. 10, 2012)

    Miranda Leitsinger, "Same-Sex Marriage on Hold Temporarily in Alabama: Judge," nbcnews.com, Jan. 25, 2015

    Chuck Lindell, "Travis County Clerk Issues First Legal Gay Marriage License in Texas," Austin American-Statesman website, Feb. 19, 2015

    Tom LoBianco, "Court Puts Indiana Gay Marriage Ruling on Hold," ap.org, June 27, 2014

    Marriage Law Foundation, "Marriage Statutes," www.marriagelawfoundation.org (accessed Aug. 10, 2012)

    Bob Moen, Associated Press, "Wyoming Becomes Latest to Legalize Gay Marriage," abcnews.go.com, Oct. 21, 2014

    Michael Muskal and Maura Dolan, "As Colorado Issues Gay Marriage Licenses, 9th Circuit Joins Chorus," latimes.com, Oct. 7, 2014

    National Conference of State Legislatures, "Child Support and Family Law," www.ncsl.org (accessed Aug. 10, 2012)

    Scott Neuman, "Federal Court Rules Against Missouri's Gay Marriage Ban," npr.org, Nov. 7, 2014

    Brendan O'Brien, "Gay Marriage on Hold in Wisconsin Pending Appeal," reuters.com, June 13, 2014

    Evan Perez and Tom Cohen, "Holder: Government to Recognize Michigan Gay Marriages," cnn.com, Mar. 28, 2014

    Adam Polaski, "Federal Judge Rules in Missouri, Paving Way for the Freedom to Marry in Show Me State," freedomtomarry.org, Nov. 7, 2014

    Adam Polaski, "St. Louis, Missouri to Begin Issuing Marriage Licenses after Victory in State Court," freedomtomarry.org, Nov. 5, 2014

    Lauren Raab, "Texas' Same-Sex Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional, County Judge Rules," latimes.com, Feb. 17, 2015

    Lauren Raab, "Third Judge Finds Florida's Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional," latimes.com, Aug. 4, 2014

    Nicholas Riccardi, "Court Rules for Gay Marriage in Oklahoma Case," ap.org, July 18, 2014

    Nicholas Riccardi, "Judge: Gay Couples Can Keep Marrying in Colorado," ap.org, July 10, 2014

    Katharine Q. Seelye, "Rhode Island Joins States That Allow Gay Marriage," www.nytimes.com, May 2, 2013

    Cynthia Sewell, "Otter May Continue Fight to Stop Gay Marriage," idahostatesman.com, Oct. 13, 2014

    Maya Srikrishnan, "Denver Clerk Joins Boulder in Issuing Same-Sex Marriage Licenses," latimes.com, July 10, 2014

    Jordan Steffen, "Adams Judge Tosses Colorado Gay Marriage Ban but Stays Ruling," denverpost.com, July 9, 2014

    Jordan Steffen, "Colorado Supreme Court, Suthers Clear Way for Same-Sex Licenses," denverpost.com, Oct. 7, 2014

    Jordan Steffen and John Ingold, "Colorado Supreme Court Puts Halt to Boulder Gay Marriage Licenses," denverpost.com, July 30, 2014

    Jason Stein and Patrick Marley, "Court Rules against Wisconsin's, Indiana's Gay Marriage Bans," Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal-Sentinel, Sep. 4, 2014

    Letitia Stein, "Florida Same-Sex Marriage Ban Declared Unconstitutional in Fourth Ruling," reuters.com, Aug. 5, 2014

    Tribune Wire Reports, "Florida Becomes 36th State to Legalize Gay Marriage," chicagotribune.com, Jan. 6, 2015

    USA Today, "Gay Marriage in Va. May Begin Next Week," usatoday.com, Aug. 13, 2014

    Carson Vaughan, "U.S. Judge Rules Nebraska Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional," reuters.com, Mar. 2, 2015

    Elizabeth Weise, "Federal Judge Allows Gay Marriages to Continue in Utah," usatoday.com, Dec. 23, 2013

    Pete Williams, "Judge Strikes down Wyoming Gay Marriage Ban," nbcnews.com, Oct. 17, 2014

    Pete Williams and Tracy Connor, "Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Utah's Same-Sex Marriage Ban," nbcnews.com, June 25, 2014

    Reid Wilson, et al., "States Issue First Marriage Licenses after Supreme Court Declines Appeals," washingtonpost.com, Oct. 9, 2014

    Michael Winter, "Utah to Appeal Gay Marriage Case to Supreme Court," usatoday.com, July 9, 2014

    Richard Wolf, "Alaska, Arizona Become Newest Same-Sex Marriage States," usatoday.com, Oct. 17, 2014

    Richard Wolf, "Appeals Panel Strikes Down Virginia Gay Marriage Ban," usatoday.com, July 28, 2014

    Richard Wolf, "Supreme Court Blocks Same-Sex Marriages in Virginia," usatoday.com, Aug. 20, 2014

    Richard Wolf, "Supreme Court Puts Utah Same-Sex Marriage on Hold," usatoday.com, Jan. 6, 2014

We should understand one important thing here.
USA supreme court approved gay marriage only in state government offices, not in the churches.
Churches still can, based on their teachings and doctrine, refuse to marry same-sex couple and it's still completely legal and legitimate.
So, same-sex couples can get married in any state Office but only in churches that accept such couples.

It seems that gradually becomes civilized civilization...

Your point is taken, I understand the local autonomy argument. But the fact still remains, there are rights that can't be voted away, and where some states would choose to do that (e.g. where the majority in a state vote in representatives who restrict the rights of the minority), the federal government's job is to protect the rights of the minority. That's really where the debate ends in my book because there is no counter to that. The primary role of government is to protect rights, and where some states won't protect rights of certain individuals, they need to be forced to. That's not the federal government absorbing more power, that's it using the power it already possessed to force state's that are violating their primary function to recognize an individual's rights they had been unduly restricting.

Sounds like religious conservatives need to learn the difference between civil and religious marriage.

Not that simple. Most of the religious nuts oppose faggot marriage just because it is against their religion. But there are people like myself, who oppose it as my tax payer money will be used for the promotion of sodomy and the spread of HIV. If homo marriage is legalized, then they will be eligible for child benefits and tax cuts, which are now available only for the heterosexual couples.

im not even in america but in europe its also developed that law in my country and its happiness for gays well who is not stays the same but ok its a break trhought in factors of freedom and rights

whats up with you :D :D
did you catch your son in your wifes high heels and wearing her lipstick  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
and you cannot handle it :D :D :D :-*

or are you gay and scared to tell your dad :D :D :D

right if my son told me he was gay i would say.. and what son i love you no matter what and if you need to tell me anything come and tell me if you have any problems and we will sort it out..
and don,t forget son i always love you and i am proud of you  ;) ;D then give him a big hug

does that answer your question ;D
 plus if you teach your kids to love and not hate and give them a good chance at an education
they should turn out great humans
so don,t worry who they sleep with as long as no one getting hurt ;)

Well those are some of the dumbest and least informed reasons yet enumerated on the topic.

Gay marriage has always been accepted by me. Glad to see an official recognition.

I think the govs. must prohibit marriage. And i'm not talking about gay marriage, i mean, any kind of marriage. We are in 2015 now, people are smarter now and we can see how marriage fail most of times. Enrol with 1 person for your life is not a good idea, life is too short to do that.   :P

I don't think that there is any country in Africa where gay marriage is legalized (with the exception of South Africa). Most of the African nations are either Christian or Muslim, and homosexuality is banned in both the religions. Also, traditional African religion and local traditions never supported homosexuality, with the exception of isolated incidents.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ssmworld4.png

Wow, I'm happy to hear that, you're best dad he ever had. Then, I hope all of you sons are gay, and guess what, it doesn't matter to you, you will accept him and his boyfriend with opened hand.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/03/gay-community-won-battles-on-marriage-but-may-be-losing-war-on-hivaids

And well, since most of users here are supporting gay marriage, I just wanna say congrats to you all, you are able to marry each other then. Come to me girls, they are gay, I'm not.

What if all the girls turn to be Lesbians? Imagine a situation where you are the only straight guy out there. Neither the girls will find you attractive, nor the boys. May be you should travel to the Middle East and marry a camel or a goat.


This is actually called natural selection. The reason why these homos get HIV is not because of their sexual orientation. They catch HIV, because rather than staying with one single partner, these people engage in sex with hundreds of people.

Oh come on bryan, you're just ruining my hope  :(  And I will be a priest or monk then. It's not a bad decision right?



If we want natural selection, so we don't need doctors or polices anymore. Let nature do what it want.

it does not tell me much but just the freedom of religion factor and personal select of sexual factor not my case of marriage into Europe but i agree like 80% with it just don't think its a even measure that affects me much.

Even if you go against religion and say that anyone who believes in religion is crazy with going against this, there are still so many other things that are wrong. First, the Supreme Court, with the urging of the President, decided that they get to determine what marriage is. There is no right in the Constitution that states that the Supreme Court gets to make this kind of decision. In cases where it is not explicitly given to the Supreme Court to make these decisions, the decision is automatically given to the states. Many states said they did not want this. The voices of the people said they did not want this in every place it was voted on. Despite this, the Supreme Court went over states rights when it did not have the authority to do this. This alone should scare people to death that the President and the Supreme Court now get to make decisions that you have no say in. How far will this go? Maybe Obama will go for that whole third term like he keeps threatening (kidding) for the past few months.

Next, the issue of how this is being carried out since the decision is disturbing. Yes, fine, while I do not believe gay marriage is a good idea, it is now legal. It is still my right, in this free America, for me to believe that gay marriage is a bad thing. No I cannot go out and murder gay people or tar and feather them, but it is my right to say I do not like this decision. Isn’t that the whole argument the gay marriage platform was on? The right to freedom of choice? This is my choice. So why is it I am an antiquated Christian who is stupid and shouldn’t be allowed to think anything? Just because I do not believe the same thing that you do does not mean I cannot feel this way. If I have to believe the same as you all of the time, you just lost your whole platform for gay marriage.

The idea of marriage has been around for thousands of years. Are we saying that we are so much better than all of these great dynasties to say that we are the only one to do it right? Who’s to say that soon my marriage is going to count anymore? I am not gay so soon my marriage will probably not mean anything because it is against the gay marriage agenda. I believe that soon it will get to that person and my right to be married to a man as I choose is going to be wrong just because they do not like it.

So many people have already been persecuted because they go against gay marriage. A shop owner lost thousands of dollars and had to close because they did not want to put two gay people on top of a cake. I feel that was a lot about attention and money on the part of a gay couple. How hard is it to just get the cake and put your own topper on it? There is a threat that churches will lose their nonprofit status if they refuse to marry gay couples. This starts to bring the government into religion, things that even the liberals believe should stay separate in cases where religion starts to interfere with them. We will continue to fund Planned Parenthood as a nonprofit despite selling baby parts illegally and performing abortions, but priests who follow a doctrine around for thousands of years and who refuse to go against it because a few gay couples want to be in the news and claim they are in that religion, will raise a stir, will lose their nonprofit.

Even if you do not like Christian religions, think of it this way. They save you money. It is estimated that private schools, Catholic and Lutheran as well as other Christian schools, save the taxpayers over a billion dollars in taxes each year. And these parents are still paying in taxes even though their children do not attend the schools this money is going to.

The gay marriage issue as well as the issues with Planned Parenthood, as well as much else that is going on in this country, make me really nervous to see where we are going to end up in the future. Where do the personal rights end and the morals start to come back?

I doubt if any religion could openly endorse homosexuality.
It was virtually a taboo, until a few decades back. Most religions are older than that and they can't abruptly change their stance.

Well.. as far as I know, there are no religions which allow homosexuality. The world religions can be broadly divided in to two:

1. Religions which explicitly prohibit homosexuality: Islam, Christianity, Judaism.etc
2. Religions which either ignore, or don't have specific laws regarding homosexuality: Buddhism, Shintoism, Shamanism.etc