Supreme Court decision

[Beacon]

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?

[bluebooger]

the audio is not NSFW
Louis C.K.-Gay people_Who gives a sh#$
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb-JZSyhWSc

[LaterBloomer]

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.

[Devanna]

Oh dear...we just got done with one forum drama so I guess it's time for the next. xD

[sanantone]

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?

[Beacon]

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.

[sanantone]

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.

[bluebooger]

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

[Johann]

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.

[soliloquy]

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?