Marriage Now Fabulous, SCOTUS Rules for Same Sex Marriage

[Panchia]

Nothing wrong with it but need to figure out how certain aspects would work, nothing wrong with it as long as there is informed uncoerced consent, unable to give consent, unable to give consent.

Whoop, there it is.

Yes.

There it is.

Now, I assume a bible-holding gun-toting God-fearing Republican tea party Right would allow both incest and polygamy, considering that basically the Bible Belt for incest and your God given right for polygamy

[Des-Bal]

Loving your neighbor does not mean loving their sin. Given that you are evil enough to support incest, don't you dare think you have any knowledge of organized religion.

Yeah it's not like incest is in the bible or was totally acceptable until very recently.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

Marriage is not yet "equal". Bigots still do not allow people to marry their sister or mother. Hateful, polygamy-phobic people say you can only have one spouse. With homosexuality forced on the entire country, incest and polygamy are going to ask for the same.

This is only the beginning. Groups that refuse homosexual marriage will lose their tax-exempt status and be discriminated against when receiving federal charity grants. The Church will be painted as hateful and will be pushed out of the public square even more.

We live in an evil, evil world when three precent of the population can completely redefine an institution meant for reproduction and stability for children into an exhibitionist union meant for adults.

God have mercy on us all.

Hey, you know what. Let's allow the latter. And get to allowing the former once we figure out enough about fucking around with genes to correct geentic defects appearing due to it.

Where is your God now, if not partying hard that someone finally fucking got what "Love thy neighbor" probably was meant to mean?

My only issue with incest is that consent is iffy when the relationship dynamic is weird as that of a sibling or a parent.

[The Alma Mater]

B-But... polygamy! Incest! Bestiality! Pedophilia!

Not pedophilia and beastiality, moron.

-but incest and polygamy are not legal, so marriage is not "equal". Fight the incest-ophobe bigotry! Marriage for all consenting adults over eighteen without exception!

Agreed. We should.
And yes, I am serious.

[Mirakai]

FUCK YES!!!!!

[Ganos Lao]

But MSM donors are still told they're not allowed to, at least according to the FDA's website.

Which is why I am confused since that was changed. Did they not update it?

I believe they make a distinction. In fact, only 39 percent of the U.S. population is eligible to donate blood if you factor in all the groups who are deferred.

[Liriena]

We'll get there.

In the meantime, party hard... with rainbows!

We did that a while ago...

I was sleeping.

[Geanna]

Hey, you know what. Let's allow the latter. And get to allowing the former once we figure out enough about fucking around with genes to correct geentic defects appearing due to it. Where is your God now, if not partying hard that someone finally got what "Love thy neighbor" probably was meant to mean?

Loving your neighbor does not mean loving their sin. Given that you are evil enough to support incest, don't you dare think you have any knowledge of organized religion.

Judging someone is a sin love. Any service that preaches hate, has tainted the holy water with the venom of a snake.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

There needs to be an onamonapia for an exasperated exhale.

Not a single one of you has done anything to rebuke or challenge my opinion.

Do you support marriage "equality" or not? If you do, then you support all consensual "unions" between adults over the age of eighteen. If you do not, then you are a hypocrite.

[European Socialist Republic]

Marriage is not yet "equal". Bigots still do not allow people to marry their sister or mother. Hateful, polygamy-phobic people say you can only have one spouse. With homosexuality forced on the entire country, incest and polygamy are going to ask for the same.

This is only the beginning. Groups that refuse homosexual marriage will lose their tax-exempt status and be discriminated against when receiving federal charity grants. The Church will be painted as hateful and will be pushed out of the public square even more.

We live in an evil, evil world when three precent of the population can completely redefine an institution meant for reproduction and stability for children into an exhibitionist union meant for adults.

God have mercy on us all.

Your God can't save you now.

[The Kievan People]

Beauty of SCOTUS and balance of power

Just hope you don't live long enough for the courts to change their mind

[Neutraligon]

Hey, you know what. Let's allow the latter. And get to allowing the former once we figure out enough about fucking around with genes to correct geentic defects appearing due to it.

Where is your God now, if not partying hard that someone finally fucking got what "Love thy neighbor" probably was meant to mean?

My only issue with incest is that consent is iffy when the relationship dynamic is weird as that of a sibling or a parent.

Siblings less so, but with a parent there is always a power dynamic in play that makes informed noncoerced consent..difficult.

[Cannot think of a name]

We all remember how Roe v. Wade ended the abortion debate, don't we? Oh, wait.
This fight is far from over.
This ruling does not change the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. All it does is force the states to recognize a lie.

I made this joke earlier but it was just a joke since this is more along the lines of Loving v Virginia than it is Roe v Wade. There's going to be a lot of sound and fury for a bit, but eventually this will just be a thing and only a few holdouts will give a shit about it while our kids will wonder what stick was up our ass that this was ever an issue to begin with.

[Geanna]

Your buzz is really going to be harshed when marriage is truly "equal". Bigots don't let people marry their fathers and sisters or take more than one wife. Are you goign to let that oppression of a fundamental right slide?

Oh my god, man. Go eat some fucking chocolate or take a nap

He's attempting to combine a slipper slope fallacy, and play Devil's Advocate. Ironic really

[Keyboard Warriors]

1)Did they actually hunt down heretics and unbelievers back then? They personally engaged in witch hunts? 2)You hold your opinions because you're blessed to live in a time where you can listen and discuss plenty of different view points. 3)They didn't. Sometimes, people are bigots because they just don't know any better, not because they're fuckwits or whatever it was that you said before. 4)Their personal beliefs seem rather irrelevant to their accomplishments.

1) That was referring to your criticism of the Inquisition and the Crusades.
2) Yep.
3) Living in shit times with shit views doesn't really excuse said shit views. Understand them? Yep. Excuse? Nope.
4) Hence why I said the good and bad can/should be judged separately.

Seems you're putting yourself on a dangerous slippery slope where a large number of historical figures can be subject to personal criticism because they would have held views which are out of touch with modern ideas, even though their personal opinions would mean sweet fuck all in every single context because only their accomplishments still linger on the earth. In which case I have to ask, why even bother considering them at all? Is this part of an argument that you once had from somebody about the founding fathers being the moral compass for all America because that's the only way I could understand the relevance to the topic.

[Xanama]

awe yeah, saw this on the news this morning, this is great <3 I'd tell my girlfriend... Nah, she'll. Wake up

[Panchia]

There needs to be an onamonapia for an exasperated exhale.

Not a single one of you has done anything to rebuke or challenge my opinion.

Do you support marriage "equality" or not? If you do, then you support all consensual "unions" between adults over the age of eighteen. If you do not, then you are a hypocrite.

Source?

[Laerod]

There needs to be an onamonapia for an exasperated exhale.

Not a single one of you has done anything to rebuke or challenge my opinion.

Kinda hard to rebuke or challenge anything that has the consistency of a jellyfish...

[Hastiaka]

Do not abuse this right to the soil please. Lord, now what?

[Victoriala]

One step closer for being truly the land of the free.

[Mavorpen]

There needs to be an onamonapia for an exasperated exhale.

Not a single one of you has done anything to rebuke or challenge my opinion.

Do you support marriage "equality" or not? If you do, then you support all consensual "unions" between adults over the age of eighteen. If you do not, then you are a hypocrite.

That's because there's nothing to challenge. It's just the ramblings of someone expressing their butthurt on the internet.

[Torisakia]

I bet that 20 years or so from now, people will be absurd enough to want the right to marry their dog protected by law.

How much are you betting? Because I'm taking you up on that.

20 Wacky Bucks says Polygamy is legalized within the next ten years.

Also, I'm not telling anyone I told them so; but I told them so. (Kind of irrelevant but still linking)

[Liriena]

You can find all those in the nearest hentai website.

You're welcome.

I love u

And I love y'all.

[Val Halla]

We did that a while ago...

I was sleeping.

I wasn't paying much attention either >_<

Not pedophilia and beastiality, moron.

-but incest and polygamy are not legal, so marriage is not "equal". Fight the incest-ophobe bigotry! Marriage for all consenting adults over eighteen without exception!

Agreed. We should.
And yes, I am serious.

All consensual is good I suppose.

[Ganos Lao]

They probably worked with the assumption that the Constitution was saying something all this time about equality.

The constitution never said shit, the people who wrote it did and by and large they were pretty clear equality meant rich white men being equal. I don't like the idea of reinterpreting the framework of our country based on the standards of the day and I don't think you could reasonably say that this is something the drafters of the constitution would think of as unconstitutional. I feel like the purpose of the document should specifically be to resist reinterpretation. I think that when the constitution no longer represents our values we should amend it not pretend it says something else. In any case this is definitely a good thing. While I disagree with the way we handle the constitution if we live in this world where the constitution is reinterpreted rather than amended I'd prefer it led us in the most positive direction possible.

You know what I mean. I'm going simply by what I understand their views would stem from, as other people have done here.