What is your opinion on LGBT+ marriage?

[Kannap]

Pretty sure the words of the constitution mean whatever the fuck the Supreme Court wants them to mean, actually

taht is because previosu administrations have used the supreme court to subvert our checks and balances to pass whatever they want without regards to the constitution. their job is to make sure that decisions adhere to the document! not the document to the decision

The Supreme Court did their job, decided their decisions adhered to the document, explicitly laid out the reasons why it adhered to the document. You just don't like the decision or the reasons so you're saying they're wrong.

[Christenmark]

You and I both know what the 14th amendment was pertinent to, also I wish not to have the government involved AT ALL. What I don't understand is how you can conflate equal protection under the law, with, even if you do not believe that something should be done (it is a sin) YOU GOTTA DO IT OR BIG BROTHER IS A COMING AFTER YOU! NOW THAT would be violating the 14th amendment. The words of the constitution mean now what they meant then, not what we think it means, nor what we want it to mean. You aren't going to convince me at this rate.

Is Uncle Sam pointing a gun at your head right this moment and telling you to officiate same sex marriages or have sex with somebody of the same sex as you?

no, but some powerful people would love it to be because that opens them up to do the same for a whole slew of other things, "no vote for me?' *YOU GO TO GULAG*

also *cough* BAKE THE CAKE ringing any bells buddy?

[Munkcestrian Republic]

Pretty sure the words of the constitution mean whatever the fuck the Supreme Court wants them to mean, actually

taht is because previosu administrations have used the supreme court to subvert our checks and balances to pass whatever they want without regards to the constitution. their job is to make sure that decisions adhere to the document! not the document to the decision

Wrong

[Kannap]

Courts, lots of them, for many many decades. It's a strong precedent that marriage is a civil right, per the 14th amendment of the Constitution.



It's a strong precedent that marriage is a civil right, per the 14th amendment of the Constitution.

[....] The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. - Chief Justice Earl Warren, Loving v. Virginia, 1967

1. You don't have to call it marriage, doesn't hurt our feelings if you wanna keep your head in the dirt.
2. Nobody is gonna force you to participate, have sex with, or whatever else you fear with same-sex persons.

excuse me does: BAKE THE CAKE ring any bells?

Irrelevant to anything I said.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

also *cough* BAKE THE CAKE ringing any bells buddy?

That was a pretty moment yeah

[Kannap]

Is Uncle Sam pointing a gun at your head right this moment and telling you to officiate same sex marriages or have sex with somebody of the same sex as you?

no, but some powerful people would love it to be because that opens them up to do the same for a whole slew of other things, "no vote for me?' *YOU GO TO GULAG*

also *cough* BAKE THE CAKE ringing any bells buddy?

Irrelevant to anything that I've said, continue trying to change the subject though - after yelling at somebody else about changing the subject on the last page.

[Christenmark]

taht is because previosu administrations have used the supreme court to subvert our checks and balances to pass whatever they want without regards to the constitution. their job is to make sure that decisions adhere to the document! not the document to the decision

Wrong

"Wrong." is not an argument it is a dismissal of everything I have said, While I will admit I could be wrong you certainly won't do the same with your pseudo-moralistic delusions

[The Grims]

And other religions ?

never even implied wanting to force other religions, it is the secular people who want religious people to accommodate what we fundamentally disagree with, if another religion allows it, whoop di doo, IDC, they can do what they want, I am speaking of the ones that don't

You just said you refuse to acknowledge same sex marriages performed by other religions. So I ask again: what gives you the right to tell other religions what they can and cannot call marriage ?

[Christenmark]

no, but some powerful people would love it to be because that opens them up to do the same for a whole slew of other things, "no vote for me?' *YOU GO TO GULAG*

also *cough* BAKE THE CAKE ringing any bells buddy?

Irrelevant to anything that I've said, continue trying to change the subject though - after yelling at somebody else about changing the subject on the last page.

no the thread is about marriage that whole bake the cake thing was to do with a wedding. back then that other person was trying to shift from marriage to adoption.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

Wrong

"Wrong." is not an argument it is a dismissal of everything I have said, While I will admit I could be wrong you certainly won't do the same with your pseudo-moralistic delusions

I've never allowed myself to be wrong . When have I been moralistic?

[San Lumen]

Irrelevant to anything that I've said, continue trying to change the subject though - after yelling at somebody else about changing the subject on the last page.

no the thread is about marriage that whole bake the cake thing was to do with a wedding. back then that other person was trying to shift from marriage to adoption.

Your not going to answer then about same sex couples adopting? It falls under LGBT rights and is relevant to the thread.

[Christenmark]

never even implied wanting to force other religions, it is the secular people who want religious people to accommodate what we fundamentally disagree with, if another religion allows it, whoop di doo, IDC, they can do what they want, I am speaking of the ones that don't

You just said you refuse to acknowledge same sex marriages performed by other religions. So I ask again: what gives you the right to tell other religions what they can and cannot call marriage ?

never said they couldn't ask them to not try and force me to do so, you are seriously not listening to my point you have already categorized me as an anti-gay nazi, IDC if your gay,(politically, personally I weep to see any choose to sin, even myself, as I am guilty of such) I care if you want to manipulate the founding document to win arguments. also, I never mentioned what THEY call marriage, but exclusively what I call marriage

[Christenmark]

"Wrong." is not an argument it is a dismissal of everything I have said, While I will admit I could be wrong you certainly won't do the same with your pseudo-moralistic delusions

I've never allowed myself to be wrong . When have I been moralistic?

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became true fools"

[Christenmark]

no the thread is about marriage that whole bake the cake thing was to do with a wedding. back then that other person was trying to shift from marriage to adoption.

Your not going to answer then about same sex couples adopting? It falls under LGBT rights and is relevant to the thread.

any couple can be in a union or not, and adopt a child (effectively). thus it falls outside the purview of MARRIAGE

[Kannap]

Irrelevant to anything that I've said, continue trying to change the subject though - after yelling at somebody else about changing the subject on the last page.

no the thread is about marriage that whole bake the cake thing was to do with a wedding. back then that other person was trying to shift from marriage to adoption.

The discussion we were having was informing you that the Constitution - the 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause - actually does assure marriage is a civil right, including same-sex marriage - your attempt to change the conversation to baking cakes is irrelevant to the points I was making.

[Telconi]

no the thread is about marriage that whole bake the cake thing was to do with a wedding. back then that other person was trying to shift from marriage to adoption.

Your not going to answer then about same sex couples adopting? It falls under LGBT rights and is relevant to the thread.

Personally I think that should be up to the agency doing the adoption.

[Kannap]

You just said you refuse to acknowledge same sex marriages performed by other religions. So I ask again: what gives you the right to tell other religions what they can and cannot call marriage ?

never said they couldn't ask them to not try and force me to do so, you are seriously not listening to my point you have already categorized me as an anti-gay nazi

You're the only one categorizing yourself as an anti-gay nazi.

IDC if your gay,(politically, personally I weep to see any choose to sin, even myself, as I am guilty of such)

You care enough to argue with a bunch of folks online about it.

I care if you want to manipulate the founding document to win arguments.

Something nobody is doing.

also, I never mentioned what THEY call marriage, but exclusively what I call marriage

Good thing your definition of marriage isn't the standard upheld by the Constitution.

[Christenmark]

no the thread is about marriage that whole bake the cake thing was to do with a wedding. back then that other person was trying to shift from marriage to adoption.

The discussion we were having was informing you that the Constitution - the 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause - actually does assure marriage is a civil right, including same-sex marriage - your attempt to change the conversation to baking cakes is irrelevant to the points I was making.

It was a relevant example you wish not to address because it makes others who espouse your view are guilty of something, thus you jump to dismiss anything that does not fit that view, and even morph your view to never allow any way for me to display my reasoning, you are still assuming a document written in the 1860's was talking about what it was talking about, PLUS whatever you want it to talk about- including LGBT stuff, but It does not, it was written then to mean what it says, not what you think what it says means in today's over-politicized context. I have not been shown a good reason to change my stance, only reasons that you will never allow me to be taken seriously.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

never said they couldn't ask them to not try and force me to do so, you are seriously not listening to my point you have already categorized me as an anti-gay nazi

You're the only one categorizing yourself as an anti-gay nazi.

IDC if your gay,(politically, personally I weep to see any choose to sin, even myself, as I am guilty of such)

You care enough to argue with a bunch of folks online about it.

I care if you want to manipulate the founding document to win arguments.

Something nobody is doing.

also, I never mentioned what THEY call marriage, but exclusively what I call marriage

Good thing your definition of marriage isn't the standard upheld by the Constitution.

If he categorizes himself as “nazi anything” it’s not even worth arguing with him.

[Christenmark]

Your not going to answer then about same sex couples adopting? It falls under LGBT rights and is relevant to the thread.

Personally I think that should be up to the agency doing the adoption.

NOW THAT IS A LEGITIMATE POINT! bravo to you, but still we must focus on marriage, not adoption.

[Rubyna]

I'm bi, so of course i support it. Love is love, no matter what. Even though i tolerate, and to a extent, respect them. There is no evidence that you can turn gay, or that gay people are created by the devil. That's just plain wrong. Fanatic Christians are trying to supress marriage by only making it so that only heterosexuals can marry. No offensive to heteros, but this is a terrible thing to do. Like i said before, love is love, no matter what. Nothing those Fanatics can do will ever change that. EVER.

As long as homosexuals aren't trying to get married at churches, I do not care. Do whatever you want if you're an adult, but don't try to force it on anyone else.

-A Christian

[The New California Republic]

As long as homosexuals aren't trying to get married at churches, I do not care.

There are churches that allow same sex marriage...

[Christenmark]

You care enough to argue with a bunch of folks online about it.

I am only doing this because I am the only one with enough brain cells left in my age group where I live to even care about this kind of stuff, and thus I never am able to express and grow my ideas with their input as they have no input nor care to give. I enjoy this here because I can understand your position - without having to agree to it, sure - while rationalizing my own. but I feel I am not being afforded the same courtesy and I am alright if you do not, but I am sad that I won't get the full value of this as a dialogue.

[Christenmark]

As long as homosexuals aren't trying to get married at churches, I do not care.

There are churches that allow same sex marriage...

those are called heretical

[Munkcestrian Republic]

I've never allowed myself to be wrong . When have I been moralistic?

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became true fools"

You can't just take quotes from the Bible and use them against people You have to provide context too.

Also, do you seriously think everything in the Bible is correct?