Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Supreme Court decision
#1
There's a decision about to be made in the Supreme Court this month about gay marriage. This could be the homosexual Roe v. Wade. What does everyone think about this?
Reply
#2
the audio is not NSFW
Louis C.K.-Gay people_Who gives a sh#$
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb-JZSyhWSc
Reply
#3
I do not know the nuances of this case, but that won't stop me providing my $.02. The popularity of marriage is on the decline. Divorce is high. Why would anyone want to get married? With that in mind, I think we can solve this religious/moral versus legal divide fairly easily. Marriage will be allowed to all consenting adults, but the legal ceremony could only be done by a Justice of the Peace, or a state-sanctioned marriage celebrant. Those folks would have to marry anyone who appears before them to get married as long as they meet the legal requirements. Neither churches, nor temples, nor mosques nor any other religious institution would be able to provide a legal marriage. They can have a service, and call it a marriage, but it won't be recognized by the state.

As it is, states have to recognize marriages between men and women performed in other states. If you move, you don't have to re-marry in the new state. If even one state allows homosexual marriages, they should be recognized in all states.
TESU BSBA - GM, September 2015

"Never give up on a dream just because of the time it will take to accomplish it. The time will pass anyway." -- Earl Nightingale, radio personality and motivational speaker
Reply
#4
Oh dear...we just got done with one forum drama so I guess it's time for the next. xD
Goal: BA in American Studies - COSC (103/120)
In Progress: -
Completed - Straighterline: US History 2
CLEP - American Literature


Associate of Arts - COSC (August 31st, 2014)
Classes used to complete it:
Liberty University Classes: English 101, English 102, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Introduction to Probability & Statistics
Advanced Placement: Art History
Straighterline Classes: Introduction to Sociology, Introduction to Biology (w/ Lab), Personal Finance, Business Ethics, Introduction to Religion, American Government, Cultural Anthropology, Introduction to Nutrition, Introduction to Communications, U.S. History 1
CLEP: Analyzing & Interpreting Literature
COSC: Cornerstone
Reply
#5
Gay people getting married affects me in no way, shape, or form. If the government wants to give special treatment to married couples, then they should give same sex couples the same opportunity to receive that special treatment. It's amazing how some of the people who are so up in arms about same sex marriage are the same ones defending Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar's choice to let their oldest son molest their daughters repeatedly. What kind of twisted mindset is that?
Graduate of Not VUL or ENEB
MS, MSS and Graduate Cert
AAS, AS, BA, and BS
CLEP
Intro Psych 70, US His I 64, Intro Soc 63, Intro Edu Psych 70, A&I Lit 64, Bio 68, Prin Man 69, Prin Mar 68
DSST
Life Dev Psych 62, Fund Coun 68, Intro Comp 469, Intro Astr 56, Env & Hum 70, HTYH 456, MIS 451, Prin Sup 453, HRM 62, Bus Eth 458
ALEKS
Int Alg, Coll Alg
TEEX
4 credits
TECEP
Fed Inc Tax, Sci of Nutr, Micro, Strat Man, Med Term, Pub Relations
CSU
Sys Analysis & Design, Programming, Cyber
SL
Intro to Comm, Microbio, Acc I
Uexcel
A&P
Davar
Macro, Intro to Fin, Man Acc
Reply
#6
I'm not trying to change the topic, but Jimbob and Michelle have not chosen to let their son molest their daughters repeatedly. And if they did, I don't think anyone would defend that decision.
Reply
#7
Beacon Wrote:I'm not trying to change the topic, but Jimbob and Michelle have not chosen to let their son molest their daughters repeatedly. And if they did, I don't think anyone would defend that decision.

They left him in the home without any treatment after he confessed on two separate occasions. So, yes, they did choose to allow him to molest their daughters repeatedly. In 2002, they knew what was going on but did nothing. In early 2003, he molested again. They "punished" him and left him in the home. In mid-2003, he did it yet again. How do you explain that? They made the choice to leave their daughters around a sexual predator.
Graduate of Not VUL or ENEB
MS, MSS and Graduate Cert
AAS, AS, BA, and BS
CLEP
Intro Psych 70, US His I 64, Intro Soc 63, Intro Edu Psych 70, A&I Lit 64, Bio 68, Prin Man 69, Prin Mar 68
DSST
Life Dev Psych 62, Fund Coun 68, Intro Comp 469, Intro Astr 56, Env & Hum 70, HTYH 456, MIS 451, Prin Sup 453, HRM 62, Bus Eth 458
ALEKS
Int Alg, Coll Alg
TEEX
4 credits
TECEP
Fed Inc Tax, Sci of Nutr, Micro, Strat Man, Med Term, Pub Relations
CSU
Sys Analysis & Design, Programming, Cyber
SL
Intro to Comm, Microbio, Acc I
Uexcel
A&P
Davar
Macro, Intro to Fin, Man Acc
Reply
#8
sanantone Wrote:They left him in the home without any treatment after he confessed on two separate occasions. So, yes, they did choose to allow him to molest their daughters repeatedly. In 2002, they knew what was going on but did nothing. In early 2003, he molested again. They "punished" him and left him in the home. In mid-2003, he did it yet again. How do you explain that? They made the choice to leave their daughters around a sexual predator.

reminds me
Boy
Reply
#9
Getting back to gay marriage - it's been legal for quite a while where I live - Ontario, Canada. In fact, our Provincial Premier, Kathleen Wynne, married her partner, Jane Rounthwaite in 2005 - Fairlawn Ave. United Church, Toronto.

I was never against it, but 'way back I wondered why gays & lesbians really needed the right. My daughter-in-law provided one good explanation: Gay couples had already been able to adopt children for some time, here. However, if the couple is not married and one gay adoptive parent dies, the other loses custody of the adopted child(ren). In that case, the child(ren) automatically become(s) wards of the State. Not a good situation.

Legality of gay marriage ends that problem, 100%. I can think of other reasons "for," but none against. I'm for it. Helps many and in no way hurts me.

J.
Reply
#10
Johann Wrote:Getting back to gay marriage - it's been legal for quite a while where I live - Ontario, Canada. In fact, our Provincial Premier, Kathleen Wynne, married her partner, Jane Rounthwaite in 2005 - Fairlawn Ave. United Church, Toronto.

I was never against it, but 'way back I wondered why gays & lesbians really needed the right. My daughter-in-law provided one good explanation: Gay couples had already been able to adopt children for some time, here. However, if the couple is not married and one gay adoptive parent dies, the other loses custody of the adopted child(ren). In that case, the child(ren) automatically become(s) wards of the State. Not a good situation.

Legality of gay marriage ends that problem, 100%. I can think of other reasons "for," but none against. I'm for it. Helps many and in no way hurts me.

J.

A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights | Public Discourse

Try to see past the liberal conservative dogma and tell me if you think there are any legitimate arguments here?
Don't miss out on something great just because it might also be difficult.

Road traveled: AA (2013) > BS (2014) > MS (2016) > Doctorate (2024)

If God hadn't been there for me, I never would have made it. Psalm 94:16-19
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Supreme Court is primed to KEEP Trump on the Colorado ballot in blockbuster hearing LevelUP 5 1,107 03-06-2024, 09:47 PM
Last Post: LevelUP
  Sallie Mae Credit Cards Poor Decision armstrongsubero 34 5,067 07-08-2019, 02:05 PM
Last Post: videogamesrock

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)