Supreme Court hears arguments for Gay Marriages

[Trogdor]

?

[Kracka]

So... Will there be riots with glitter bombs?

[Goat Blower]

It's the only thing in the world more important right now than global warming.

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by Kracka

So... Will there be riots with glitter bombs?

I think they already do this every year. It's called Pride or something.

[1ViciousGSX]

I'll leave this right here.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcs1K7Gi9Pg&hd=1

[polishmafia]

^ That might be the stupidest thing I've seen all week. People need to get out of this 2000 year old, outdated definition.

His response about a thruple or quaduple (or whatever) doesn't fit into what the guy is asking. He is just circumventing the actual question with a bogus scenario.

Change the law so that "marriage" is defined as a union of two people, not a man and a woman - and not this stupid ass thruple crap.

If one person wants to enter a union of marriage with a member of the same sex, why not let them? How is that going to impact my life? I might see them in public!? GASP!

Yes, you could argue that if we let them get married, then they can file taxes jointly and not pay in as much, and that would take money out of the system. Our tax dollars are already blown on dumb shit already that this wouldn't even make a dent.

Originally Posted by Goat Blower

It's the only thing in the world more important right now than global warming.

I could not agree with this sarcastic statement more. This is so not important that it shouldn't even be at the Supreme Court level. Let them get married, be happy or be miserable. This shouldn't even be an issue.

[Halon]

Pete loves the cack.

[A//// Guy]

Pete if things dont work, me you and pat are getting thruppled.

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by polishmafia

^ That might be the stupidest thing I've seen all week. People need to get out of this 2000 year old, outdated definition.

His response about a thruple or quaduple (or whatever) doesn't fit into what the guy is asking. He is just circumventing the actual question with a bogus scenario.

Change the law so that "marriage" is defined as a union of two people, not a man and a woman - and not this stupid ass thruple crap.

If one person wants to enter a union of marriage with a member of the same sex, why not let them? How is that going to impact my life? I might see them in public!? GASP!

Yes, you could argue that if we let them get married, then they can file taxes jointly and not pay in as much, and that would take money out of the system. Our tax dollars are already blown on dumb shit already that this wouldn't even make a dent.



I could not agree with this sarcastic statement more. This is so not important that it shouldn't even be at the Supreme Court level. Let them get married, be happy or be miserable. This shouldn't even be an issue.

Oh, so the definition of "marriage" is the problem and not the fact that what he wants is really a "civil union"? Wrong. I love how all these "oppressed what-ever wannabes" need to rewrite everything to suit their wants. He is 100% correct that a "marriage is the joining of two complimentary sexes to form a family". You don't have to like it one bit, but it is a fact. And no matter how you want to divert from that, it's still a fact. And that was the point he was making. And he is correct that nobody is stopping him from getting married. It is his choice to be with another man, nobody is forcing that on him. He has the choice to get married to a person of the opposite sex, but chooses not to. So you can call it what ever you want, but is not a marriage by DEFINITION.

I do agree that the SCOTUS should leave this alone, its not their call to make. And you know why? Because nobody's Constitutional right are being violated.

At some point we need to look at the bigger picture of what's really important, and this ain't it.

[polishmafia]

Originally Posted by Halon

Pete loves the cack.

Only yours!

Originally Posted by A//// Guy

Pete if things dont work, me you and pat are getting thruppled.

Until this! We can get a few more dudes and form an octuple! So many wangs - but none of us are getting married. Not the five or six of us. Cause that is not marriage. Thats polygamy. I lived in Utah for 12 years. I know polygamy.

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

Oh, so the definition of "marriage" is the problem and not the fact that what he wants is really a "civil union"? Wrong. I love how all these "oppressed what-ever wannabes" need to rewrite everything to suit their wants. He is 100% correct that a "marriage is the joining of two complimentary sexes to form a family". You don't have to like it one bit, but it is a fact. And no matter how you want to divert from that, it's still a fact. And that was the point he was making. And he is correct that nobody is stopping him from getting married. It is his choice to be with another man, nobody is forcing that on him. He has the choice to get married to a person of the opposite sex, but chooses not to. So you can call it what ever you want, but is not a marriage by DEFINITION.

I do agree that the SCOTUS should leave this alone, its not their call to make. And you know why? Because nobody's Constitutional right are being violated.

At some point we need to look at the bigger picture of what's really important, and this ain't it.

You keep emphasizing your DEFINITION. Your fact. His fact. You two have so much in common maybe you should form a civil union.

I'm sorry, allow me to speak. This definition. Its outdated. Come towards the light... Who cares if its called a marriage or a civil union? That is the issue with that video you posted. The guy on the stage keeps throwing out examples of a definition.

I don't know if you are married, but if you are, why did you get married? Was it love? Was it that you wanted to be with that one person for the rest of your life? Or.. was it because you wanted the tax break?

Why should anyone give a fuck what two gay guys or two lesbians (which is HOT cause porn taught me so) want to get married?

Please answer my question as to how does two homosexual people who want to be "married" by whatever definition, lets just say two people together for life, impacts your own life?

Reasons not accepted: Because it makes for a stupid thread on a forum.

GO!

Oh, forgot, payban me again if you get frustrated, or cause of the LOLs.

[asshanson]

Um, marriage is way worse for us tax wise than being single. I'm guessing we pay at least 1-2k more a year in taxes by being married. Thus, his original question is bogus.

But in all seriousness, I really don't care if gay people want to get married. I was brought up to believe that it's wrong, but as I see it, it doesn't affect my life one bit. And if it makes them happy, what's wrong with that?

PS - I told Emily how much extra we're paying in taxes by being married, suggested a civil union instead, she didn't seem overly excited. Said it's worth the extra taxes I guess..... who knew. LOL

[Kracka]

LOL @ bringing up a civil union with your wife!!!

[A//// Guy]

Hahaha yea Im with Pete and Andrew. Has no affect on me and whatever views you have against it are purely based on probably your view of marriage via the Bible. But the bible has a lot of rules which Im sure you dont follow.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of...d_by_the_Bible

http://www.ranker.com/list/top-20-bi...na-wynn?page=3

The US sure has come a long way on a lot of issues.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/20...social-change/

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by polishmafia

You keep emphasizing your DEFINITION. Your fact. His fact. You two have so much in common maybe you should form a civil union.



I'm sorry, allow me to speak. This definition. Its outdated. Come towards the light... Who cares if its called a marriage or a civil union? That is the issue with that video you posted. The guy on the stage keeps throwing out examples of a definition.

It's not my DEFINITION, I don't get to re-write them like the LGBT community does. Nice attempt though.
So where does it end? If we have to re-write the definition of marriage to suit same sex couples, what about somebody who wants to marry a dog, or a horse, or their pet hamster? Of course the answer is, "Don't be rediculous, that's not natural", right? Well same sex marriage is not natural either. Let's call it what it is, a mental illness that gets a pass because it serves a bigger agenda. And at some point we have to look at the bigger picture and say enough is enough. In nature, without human intervention, the LGBT would have become extinct because same sex couples can't reproduce. Today, we just let them adopt,......

[Kracka]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, regardless of where their beliefs stem from. I personally do not agree with gay marriage...that is my right and not up for debate

If they want a civil union or something similar to marriage, that's fine. I'm all for giving them equal, but different, rights, just under a different name.

[A//// Guy]

lmao I KNEW someone would take it to marrying animals. hahaha

Science cant explain what causes attraction to the same gender. So far nothing DNA based. Also to call it an illness is quite ignorant. Illness usually can be treated, this is something that can not. You cant change someone into thinking another way. Give it a try, think super hard about penises, doubtful you will start having a hankering for a long one.

You claim you have a lesbian friend, yet you feel they dont have the right to get married because they are sick? Go ahead and tell them that, pretty sure they wont be friends with you much longer.

[Kracka]

True friends are accepting and respectful of their friends' beliefs and opinions.

[A//// Guy]

Yea so he probably wouldnt bring up the topic with them becuase if they are passionate about it, they wouldnt be too happy with his remarks. Weve all had political debates as friends, but this is on a whole other level if you were in their shoes.

While I feel it isnt "natural" either, homosexual acts in nature are common between animals. Just one of those things we cant explain yet. Maybe some day we will be able to. For now Id say that group of people who want to be equal, deserve that right.

Regardless, marriage these days is a sham in most cases. Is the ratio still 50% end in divorce, maybe higher?

Just give it some time, if it doesn't become a fedaral law, all states will eventually pass the law anyway.

[tpunx99GSX]

Everyone deserves equal rights to be miserable.

Its stupid to sit here and argue this. Letting gay people get married affects your marriage in no way shape or form. Does it cause your marriage to be less of a marriage? No. Will they force you to get divorced and marry a same sex person? No. So why bother? There is a thing called Separation of church and state, so using definitions given by a book of stories to make laws against someone based on their preference should not even be up for debate. Laws should not be written to take away rights of people. Get over it, its going to happen, and you will be on the wrong side of history.

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by A//// Guy

lmao I KNEW someone would take it to marrying animals. hahaha

Science cant explain what causes attraction to the same gender. So far nothing DNA based. Also to call it an illness is quite ignorant. Illness usually can be treated, this is something that can not. You cant change someone into thinking another way. Give it a try, think super hard about penises, doubtful you will start having a hankering for a long one.

You claim you have a lesbian friend, yet you feel they dont have the right to get married because they are sick? Go ahead and tell them that, pretty sure they wont be friends with you much longer.

Why not call it an illness? Because it might offend somebody? What about Pediohpiles? What about Pyromania? Beastiality? Those are illnesses related to the way people think. Should they get a pass too?

Yes, I do have a friend who is a lesbian, and she knows how I feel about it, and she respects my opinion. But in knowing her as long as I have, I also see other underlying issues in her personality that have a big influence,.. mental instability, anxiety disorder, fear of men from an overbearing father, etc. And if you look at it from that perspective, you might pick up on it when interacting with others in the LGBT community.

I do love the aurguments that Tom just made though, the "separation of church and state", well, except for when somebody wants the state to change the way the church thinks,......
And "laws should not be written to take away the rights of people", unless you want to maintain the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, or exersise you right to free speech, or gun ownership, or have water to irrigate your dying crops while flushing millions of gallons of fresh water into the ocean to protect a 3 inch minow (that will die when it gets flushed into the salt water), and so on,...