Same sex marriage legalized nationwide (US)

  • Welcome to Skyrim Forums! Register now to participate using the 'Sign Up' button on the right. You may now register with your Facebook or Steam account!

Seanu Reaves

The Shogun of Gaming
That is what it was meant to do, as cases have to be brought to the supreme Court. They don't just make decisions they just determine the constitutional nature of a law. So this was already a law, and somebody sued it all the way to the SC.

It is interesting to see how long it takes before most people relax about it (mixed racial marriage, anyone?). A lot of issues there is a vocal minority holding up a progress the majority is indifferent or accepting of.
 

Mighty Pecan Pie

The secret American
For me, as a Christian and a Libertarian, the problem is not that it was legalized, but how. I believe the Supreme Court should have stayed out of it and left the states to decide whether or not they wanted it. If all 50 states had legalized it on their own, all well and good, but the federal government doing all that? Too much power for my liking.

My opinion, of course.

This is exactly why the Supreme Court has to make the law. It's in my view ridiculous that a state would be able to deny it's people from a basic freedom. Sometimes, something needs to be forced. And I think this law is an example of it. Sure, it's not very democratic because it has been decided for the people now.

Maybe a weird comparison, but gay people don't choose to be gay. So why would the state get the choice to allow straight marriage and deny gay marriage?
Welcome to American politics, Nyoxios, where everyday you want to punch certain politicians in the face! No, wait, you want to punch all of them! ;)

Now, to return to the subject at hand. The underlying point I was trying to make (and did so rather ambiguously, I apologize) was that if the SC can do this, what else might they try to legalize? What happens when you have certain people in certain seats of government pass something that can literally split a nation in two? Call me paranoid, but that concerns me.

Oh, and the vote was 5-4, in favor, for those of you who are wondering.

No need to be sorry, I know you aren't against same sex marriage of course. But yeah, I now understand better what you meant :)
 

-The Ice Queen-

Rightful Queen of Skyrim
This is exactly why the Supreme Court has to make the law. It's in my view ridiculous that a state would be able to deny it's people from a basic freedom. Sometimes, something needs to be forced. And I think this law is an example of it. Sure, it's not very democratic because it has been decided for the people now.

Maybe a weird comparison, but gay people don't choose to be gay. So why would the state get the choice to allow straight marriage and deny gay marriage?
Welcome to American politics, Nyoxios, where everyday you want to punch certain politicians in the face! No, wait, you want to punch all of them! ;)

Now, to return to the subject at hand. The underlying point I was trying to make (and did so rather ambiguously, I apologize) was that if the SC can do this, what else might they try to legalize? What happens when you have certain people in certain seats of government pass something that can literally split a nation in two? Call me paranoid, but that concerns me.

Oh, and the vote was 5-4, in favor, for those of you who are wondering.

No need to be sorry, I know you aren't against same sex marriage of course. But yeah, I now understand better what you meant :)
Actually, I don't agree with it, but it ain't my life. If people want to do that, then they can go right on ahead. In the meantime, I'll just sit back and enjoy some sugar cookies and some lemonade.
 

Mighty Pecan Pie

The secret American
Actually, I don't agree with it, but it ain't my life. If people want to do that, then they can go right on ahead. In the meantime, I'll just sit back and enjoy some sugar cookies and some lemonade.

That's good enough, you can't agree with anything. But you let people be, and that's the most important.

Now.. where are my cookies?
 

-The Ice Queen-

Rightful Queen of Skyrim
Actually, I don't agree with it, but it ain't my life. If people want to do that, then they can go right on ahead. In the meantime, I'll just sit back and enjoy some sugar cookies and some lemonade.

That's good enough, you can't agree with anything. But you let people be, and that's the most important.

Now.. where are my cookies?
I'm throwing them at you. Unfortunately, I think they're all landing in the Atlantic Ocean.
 

Kohlar the Unkilled

Time for some ale
As an agnostic I'm perfectly fine with it.

What disturbs me is what happened with the afore mentioned bakery that refused to bake a cake for a gay couple. To be clear, I don't agree with the bakers' stance and don't believe what they believe. But, as it's their business, I believe in their right to refuse service to anyone they choose. Refusing service isn't a good business model; they should've just served the couple... but they have the right not too. There must be plenty of bakerys in town, I would think the gay couple would prefer to be served by someone that's happy to do so. They (the couple) could then promote this business to their peers, instead of choosing to destroy the other.
 

-The Ice Queen-

Rightful Queen of Skyrim
As an agnostic I'm perfectly fine with it.

What disturbs me is what happened with the afore mentioned bakery that refused to bake a cake for a gay couple. To be clear, I don't agree with the bakers' stance and don't believe what they believe. But, as it's their business, I believe in their right to refuse service to anyone they choose. Refusing service isn't a good business model; they should've just served the couple... but they have the right not too. There must be plenty of bakerys in town, I would think the gay couple would prefer to be served by someone that's happy to do so. They (the couple) could then promote this business to their peers, instead of choosing to destroy the other.
I agree. You wouldn't force a sign shop owned by homosexual to make signs for Westboro Baptist (ignoring the irony).
 

Nocte Aeterna

Sir Not-Appearing-in-This-Film
All I can say is that it's about damn time, America. I no longer have to worry about my future children (if I ever have any) facing scrutiny on the basis of their sexuality as far as legislation goes. Unsurprisingly, however, this maneuver is being met with opposition, mainly from the southern states. I read in an article somewhere that the states of Alabama and Mississippi stopped issuing marriage licenses entirely. Not sure if that's true or not, and I'd frankly be surprised if it was, but if it is in fact true, then it just reinforces my belief that nearly all right-wing politicians are overgrown children in suits.

Nevertheless, I'm glad that the Supreme Court made the correct decision on the matter. The fight isn't over, but this is a humongous step forward in the realm of American rights.

(Also, to the multitude of people threatening to move to Canada in protest of gay marriage becoming legal here - you're in for a massive disappointment. Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for over a decade.)
 

Dabiene Caristiana

Your friendly neighborhood weirdo
If Ireland can do it, and we know how Ireland is on being CATHOLIC.... Then so can the USA. About damn time.

I have a friend who is gay and has a beau. He was very happy about the ruling. Of course, when I flipped through channels and saw Huckabee on Fox complaining about it, I wasn't surprised.

I also wasn't surprised that Texas and a few other states decided be little brats about this whole thing and REFUSED TO DO ANY MARRIAGES. PERIOD.

Cry me a river. Pete's sake. When something doesn't go their way they throw a grade A hissy fit that would make certain celebrities run in the other direction. I think we know who those are.

So with out further adu...ado?..adue... Bah.. I saw this post that a friend shared on facebook: Taken from http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a-30-second-guide-to-how-gay-marriage-ruling-affects-you/

If You Are a Homosexual and Are Already Married:

If you had been lucky enough to live in a state that allowed gay marriage, the federal government already recognized your marriage as a thing, and you were eligible for tax, health, and pension benefits under federal law like any other married couple. Previously, if you had moved to another state that didn't recognize gay marriage, that state didn't have to recognize your marriage. Now, your marriage is recognized everywhere, the same as anyone else's.

If You Are a Homosexual and Want to Get Married:

Where before this came down to whether or not your state had legalized it, now you are free to do so regardless of which state you live in.

If You Are a Heterosexual and Do NOT Want to Enter into a Homosexual Marriage:

You will not be required to marry a gay person. This is a common misunderstanding. This decision actually does not affect you in any way.

If You Are Currently in a Heterosexual Marriage:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Heterosexual Who Is Not Currently Married:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Heterosexual Who Hopes to Eventually Marry:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Member of a Church That Performs Wedding Ceremonies but That Does Not Believe in Gay Marriage:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Religious Official Who Performs Wedding Ceremonies but Who Thinks Gay Marriage Is Wrong:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are an Individual Who Believes Gay Marriage or Homosexuality in General Is Wrong for Religious Reasons, and Wish to Continue Expressing Those Beliefs:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are an Individual Who Believes Gay Marriage or Homosexuality in General Is Wrong for Non-Religious Reasons, and Wish to Continue Expressing Those Beliefs:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Heterosexual Who Fears This Decision Adversely Affects Your Marriage or the Concept of Marriage in General:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Heterosexual Who Fears This Decision Negatively Affects You in Some Way:

This decision does not affect you in any way.

If You Are a Heterosexual Who Suffers Anger or Anxiety at the Thought of Gay Couples Getting Married as an Abstract Concept, and Believes the Only Cure Is to Legally Prevent Gay Marriage:

This decision will cause you some degree of anger or anxiety. Otherwise, this decision does not affect you in any way.

Hope this helps!
--------------------- Courtesy of David Wong

Now, onto my own views.

If you are voting against gay marriage because it goes against your beliefs.

You are voting against someone that you have never even met, probably will never meet, and forever changing their life because they don't agree with your PERSONAL or RELIGIOUS VIEWS. Something that EVERYONE HAS and is/are DIFFERENT. Think about that. You're being a jackass to someone that you have never met that lives 1000 miles away. Good job!

EDIT: Think about this as well. If you are forcing your beliefs on someone else regardless if you know them or not, or say "Gay marriage isn't viable because it isn't in my bible or part of MY religion"... What about Athiests? People who practice other religions? Might want to check the First Amendment while you're at it...

If you think that it is against moral code or nature because gays cannot reproduce.

It's been shown animals doing homosexual activity. And we are animals. And those people live alone. In their house. Away from you. Without harming you... How is this affecting you? Seriously?

If you believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman due to reproduction reasons.

You're an ass. Holy crap. My dad married twice and his second wife died whom he loved very much. Would you walk up to a Widow or Widower and say, "Hey, get married. God says you must get married to love and reproduce." Seriously? Now, probably wouldn't happen due to age but, what if a young man/woman had their heart ripped out with their loved one getting in a fatal accident? Would you walk up to them and say, "God says you should get married. And have babies." When they just suffered something horrible? Some people can never get over their death and go on the rest of their lives not married again.

EDIT: And also... you do realize we have a population problem... right? There are KIDS TO ADOPT. No one complains about that!

Or what about single parents that have got along fine? Which leads to....

If you believe gays shouldn't get married because children need to have a 'mommy and a daddy'.

The hell? To heck with you! My dad did just fine raising me. I don't go around doing stupid crap and getting into trouble with the law. And kids around here do. And you know what? They have a mommy and a daddy too!! If a single parent needs to get remarried to raise a kid 'correctly' according to your 'views', to heck with marriage. Honestly? Two dads and two moms can do the job just fine. In fact, I wouldn't dare bully a kid with two moms. Two pissed off moms? Or two pissed off dads?

Yeah, that kid is definitely safe. I call BS on this logic of one mom and one dad needed. (No offense to all the great moms and dad's out there that have awesome kids!! Good job!)

If you're this person... "GOD SAYS YOU'RE GOING TO HELL FOR YOUR SINFUL ACTS AND HORRIBLE CRIMES YOU DISGUSTING PERSON! WHAT'S NEXT?! BESTIALITY? PEDOPHILIA?! GAAAAAAAAAH!"

*long sigh* I just... I can't even... I'm not gonna even touch this failure of human logic. Your God gave you a brain didn't He? Kind of an insult to waste such a 'gift'. Then again, if your stupid brain is the equivalent of a gifted turd, then... You must be the snot and mud crusted bow on top, eh?

If you are NOT religious or are religious but are uncomfortable with the idea of marriage for whatever reason aside from above...

Just go with it. They aren't gonna bother you. They aren't going to go around lopping peoples heads off or going to do horrible crimes and such. Talk to a gay couple, socialize. You may make new friends. They aren't aliens that are going to abduct or 'convert' you. :rolleyes:

If you are religious and think this is awesome and full of love...


Awesome! Great! Next!

If you think Marriage should only be between a man and a woman...


Here is the real debate. Now, where did the term or concept of 'marriage', come from? I've read a lot about it and I have seen/heard different answers. Taken from Wikipedia-Marriage (may or may not be taken seriously because it's Wikipedia..)

"The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife."[5] The related word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition."

So, one for marriage between man and a woman would say to this: "bingo! I win". However, the concept of it goes way back. Further than religion I would say. The 'barbarian' tribes from what I read (so don't quote me on this) would have ceremonies held to join a man and a woman in a diplomatic way. In short, if two tribes were at war, on rocky edge, or simply wanted to improve relations, they would have someone get married to that clan/tribe member. Marriage is still used as a political tool today. It hasn't lost its roots.

There is also the term, marry. Which comes from the latin word, maritus. Which means husband, lover, mate, nuptial, spouse, suitor. Or together. To be married. Union. Although it says husband and one might say "Aha!" still goes for gays... And what about the terms 'together', or... suitor? Or spouse? One might say, "Well I think" or "Well it's always been"... Man and woman. Well, it's your opinion. And culture. Or custom. Someone can have a different view of the word/term.

See where I'm getting at? Gay used to mean happy, joyful. Now it's something else. Cultures and custom are different everywhere. And they CHANGE.

So to cap off... To define marriage indefinitely based on personal views, (in my humble opinion) is folly. Tradition isn't a bad thing. Neither are customs, beliefs, person opinions. However, to quote a common internet saying...

"It's ok to have a wang. Or a vajayjay. Everyone has one. Just don't wave it around and stuff it down peoples throats without asking. That's not ok. That's just rude."

What I find amusing is this. When I was little we were taught many lessons. The important ones were:

-Treat others the way you wish to be treated, not how you want them to be treated.
-If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all.

And yet, the elders in all their glory shove their doohickeys down peoples throat. Without asking. Gee, thanks man.

And for the final one...

If you think you know what's best for someone because of your experience or personal or religious belief, ie, believing you are 'saving' gays from a 'horrible lifestyle'...


I worry for your children if you have any. One mistake that I have seen parents or people in general do that is potentially damaging is, don't live your expectations through other people. And don't live your life to the expectations of other people. Everyone is different. So suck it up, spit it out, brush your hair, clean your teeth, pull up your big girl/boy pants, and quit whining about how people aren't living your life views. Quit being alive and living in fear. Live! No, that's not the same as being alive. And I think that's what the LGBT community were asking/fighting for. Living, while being happy.

Deal with it.

:cool:

(PS: I'd say sorry to anyone I offended. But y'know what? I'm tired of people being offended. Deal with it.)

(PSS: I have Christian friends who pretty much live their life by the bible, and they welcomed the ruling with open arms. So I'm in no way saying that religious people are bad. There are good guys out there.)
 
Last edited:

Dabiene Caristiana

Your friendly neighborhood weirdo
Oh and for more facepalmness....

Many couples in Australia and the USA threatened to divorce if Same Sex Marriages became legal in the USA and/or Australia.

...Seriously?

If your marriage is based on the fact that you could make a stink face at gay couples and say "neener neener! You can't get married! You can't get maaaaarried!" like a bunch of bratty children, you need to rethink on your marriage values. Makes you look like a souless, heartless bastard/b*tch.

Just sayin'!
 

AS88

Well-Known Member
Staff member
It comes down to the whole Freedom of Expression thing in the US Constitution, too.

On one hand, the freedom of expression would allow same-sex marriage, and allow the court to force the churches to allow it.

However, does that infringe upon the freedom of expression and religion that churches have, and those that worship there with certain beliefs about homosexuality (regardless of the morality of those beliefs)?

I'm all for equality, but there's an interesting legal debate to be had around that if typical US news outlets would get down off their high horses on one side or the other. Although I don't really have an opinion on same-sex marriage (I'm not qualified with experience to have a real opinion), I can see why some Americans feel as though their freedom of expression is being compromised. I don't know if forcing all churches to perform same-sex marriages is the right action. Perhaps a opt-out system would be better, wherein churches would be assumed to agree to perform them, unless they opted out.

I was in London on Saturday (I'm from northern England), and there had been a huge gay pride event on. On the tube, there were two Americans; one dressed fairly normally (except for some fabulous rings) and the other was wearing a flowery dress and a black bowler hat with a pink ribbon on. They got a few funny looks, but almost everyone either a) ignored them to get on with their lives completely, or b) smiled or had fun with it. We live in a culture that has made so much progress these past few decades, and long may that progress continue.

Besides, the whole message of almost all religions, before they are twisted for an economic or idealogical goal on behalf of someone else, (including the 'Abrahamic religions' Judaism, Christianity and Islam) seems to be this

54954528.jpg
 

Dabiene Caristiana

Your friendly neighborhood weirdo
I believe the ruling says that while States must now recognize the marriage of a gay couple, churches views don't have to change.

I also think this allows churches to deny getting couples married in their building. I could be wrong but I think I got that right. They may also still have the right to deny access to said church. I'm not sure though. Whole thing is a bit vague to me.

So while this is a huge monumental step for gays, lesbians, etc., churches still have the right to deny or stay true to their beliefs. Which still respects their first amendment right.

It's the same way with businesses. I mean, we all know the rule, "No Shirt! No Shoes! No SERVICE!" right? Same thing, stores and therefore any business, company, group, etc, have the freedom to deny service. I don't think that goes for EMT's and Hospitals though. And the police. They are required to help.

However I'm not well versed in the laws of the land. Ironic, considering Americans are pretty much drowned from birth in pride of the history of our nation and yet most adolescents and adults can't remember half the amendments or their basic rights.

So this explains why even though churches have the right to deny, some States like Texas are refusing marriages all together. Because they now have to recognize the legal recognition of a gay marriage. And we all know how conservative Texas is.

It's Texas baby. Or nothin'.
 
As an agnostic I'm perfectly fine with it.

What disturbs me is what happened with the afore mentioned bakery that refused to bake a cake for a gay couple. To be clear, I don't agree with the bakers' stance and don't believe what they believe. But, as it's their business, I believe in their right to refuse service to anyone they choose. Refusing service isn't a good business model; they should've just served the couple... but they have the right not too. There must be plenty of bakerys in town, I would think the gay couple would prefer to be served by someone that's happy to do so. They (the couple) could then promote this business to their peers, instead of choosing to destroy the other.

Actually while there was a bit of a scuffle by the couple and the bakery, I don't believe the couple sued them. If I remember right, they moved on to another bakery that was happy to serve them. I believe what ended up happening is that people got so upset with said bakery they chose not to patronize them anymore. And so the bakery shut down. As you said, it was a bad business model. I do agree to a certain extent the right to refuse business to anyone, but in situations like this one I get mixed feelings. :/ I mean is it right to refuse service to someone due to you not agreeing with their lifestyle? I don't think so. I'm not even sure that falls under the right to refuse service. It's a grey area IMHO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Bruynzeel

*ー* SHEW *ー*
11011528_10153180598799998_4629916032476244430_n.png


Marriage should always have been fully legalized. We state several places throughout our most honored papers about the equality of man (that being the humanity of mankind not just men) And yet we have also put restrictions that it has taken decades and sometimes centuries to overcome. And we still have so much further to go. Wage equality, domestic terrorists, true separation of church and state. I can boil my argument down to one statement.


If you want to influence the government through your religion and church by being political with those beliefs then you should be taxed. See how many churchs shut-up when their protected status that no atheist can share is eroded away.
 

Dabiene Caristiana

Your friendly neighborhood weirdo
11011528_10153180598799998_4629916032476244430_n.png


Marriage should always have been fully legalized. We state several places throughout our most honored papers about the equality of man (that being the humanity of mankind not just men) And yet we have also put restrictions that it has taken decades and sometimes centuries to overcome. And we still have so much further to go. Wage equality, domestic terrorists, true separation of church and state. I can boil my argument down to one statement.


If you want to influence the government through your religion and church by being political with those beliefs then you should be taxed. See how many churchs shut-up when their protected status that no atheist can share is eroded away.

From what I noticed, religion is a huge part of politics. I mean, if a catholic republican or democrat walked up to a bunch of puppies and kicked them on live camera, they'd probably say, "It's ok! He's/She's Christian!"

Ok maybe that's a bit farfetched. My point is, even if you are a deranged lunatic, as long as you are affiliated with either the Republican party, or the Democratic party, and most importantly RELIGIOUS, you have a shot at being President or getting into some kind of big office.

So if you genuinely care about America, love America, want to see it get better and be completely selfless about it and treat it as a huge job (being President) while being mature about it... It won't matter unless you are in either party and religious.

We never had an Atheist Independent President for a reason. I don't have a definite clue as to why, but maybe it's because most view religion as a 'moral compass' and associate the person with it. "Oh, he/she is religious and is a Christian. Must be a good person." And as for being in an official party... I have no idea what that's about. It's like cliques I guess. You have to be in the group of the popular kids to get elected for anything. Sad really. It's like the Roman Senate.

Also the fact the person should have a charming smile and speak to a certain people and talk to them as if they are the victims and they are their super hero.

So overall there should be separation of Church and State. Otherwise we won't shake our Medieval roots and we know how that era of peoples turned out! >_> America is so deeply into religion though that it would be hard to officially and fully separate the two unfortunately.
 

Bruynzeel

*ー* SHEW *ー*
What distresses me is the rhetoric of the religious of a war on religion. I have never heard of athiests going to blows, burning someone at the stake, or leading a crusade against any religion. And yet daily I hear some nutter say there is a war on religion.

So let me understand they can have freedom of religion which to them means freedom to impose thier ideals on others but when anyone non religious responds that is a attack. Like it takes religion to have a moral compass? I don't think so. Wouldn't it be more moral to act toward the welfare of others knowing there was nothing to fear for a afterlife, No sin, or compulsion from an all powerful diety.

1*onCEha4zx1dnu0crkEahcg.png
 

Kaelbu

Well-Known Member
As a Christian (in the south, no less) with a gay brother, I'm pretty torn emotionally.

- I'm happy for everyone who is happy. Love is love, whoever it may be between. The world needs more love. Always.

-Marriage is not necessarily the be all and end all of "love". But it makes me feel good that the government acknowledges my heterosexual marriage, so I'm sure homosexual couples feel the same way. If the government didn't recognize my marriage, that wouldn't stop me from being married, but that's another topic.

- It doesn't matter if I recognize gay marriage or not. I am not offended by homosexuality, nor am I disgusted by it, or afraid of it, and it wouldn't matter if I was. It really doesn't affect me, as an individual.

- I have wildly contrasting posts flooding my Facebook newsfeed. Nothing hateful, but both sides are very vocal. It's a little exhausting.

- I can't change what is in the Bible. I believe in it. All of it. I can't pick a piece I like and ignore parts that are harder to swallow. It would be far more convenient to just omit the parts that make me "sad", for lack of a better word. But I can't do that.
I don't view myself as a fanatic and I don't preach at people. There have been a lot of sorry examples of "Christians" that the media has zeroed in on (Wesboro?) and I can't relate to them at all... I will continue being a peaceful person who believes in the Bible.

-That being said, blasting my beliefs everywhere will change nothing. We've got to realize that nobody is going to switch sexual orientations because they can marry whoever they want now. Everyone who was straight will remain so. Everyone who was gay will do the same. Nothing is really changing here. Only now, we can ALL partake in whatever happiness and stability legal marriage can afford.

- I AM NOT IN A POSITION TO JUDGE. ONLY TO LOVE.
Thought that was an important part of how I feel, so, caps.

- As far as separation of church and state go, I have to agree. A lot of religious values align with laws (no murder, no stealing, etc.) but no one religion should govern us. In this case, gay marriage isn't harming anybody else. It is a civil right. A freedom.

Those are... my thoughts. I haven't shared them with anybody yet, but there they are. I really do wish everybody the best.
 

Mighty Pecan Pie

The secret American
I believe the ruling says that while States must now recognize the marriage of a gay couple, churches views don't have to change.

I also think this allows churches to deny getting couples married in their building. I could be wrong but I think I got that right. They may also still have the right to deny access to said church. I'm not sure though. Whole thing is a bit vague to me.

So while this is a huge monumental step for gays, lesbians, etc., churches still have the right to deny or stay true to their beliefs. Which still respects their first amendment right.

It's the same way with businesses. I mean, we all know the rule, "No Shirt! No Shoes! No SERVICE!" right? Same thing, stores and therefore any business, company, group, etc, have the freedom to deny service. I don't think that goes for EMT's and Hospitals though. And the police. They are required to help.

However I'm not well versed in the laws of the land. Ironic, considering Americans are pretty much drowned from birth in pride of the history of our nation and yet most adolescents and adults can't remember half the amendments or their basic rights.

So this explains why even though churches have the right to deny, some States like Texas are refusing marriages all together. Because they now have to recognize the legal recognition of a gay marriage. And we all know how conservative Texas is.

It's Texas baby. Or nothin'.

It's illegal here for churches to deny marrying a gay people. Sure, the pastor or whatever might disapprove it, he might not like it, Everyone has the right to believe in what they want and have their own opinion but he can't refuse to marry them.
The pastor would be in trouble if the couple would sue him.
And it should be that way in my view. If a pastor allows a straight couple to marry and denies a gay couple, it's sexism.

I think in general you know about your own community which church welcomes you when you are gay. It would be weird to choose to get married in a church you know rather not marries gays, but do it since they have to. Your wedding day needs to be perfect after all ;)

Maybe it restrict some "freedom", but making a church able to deny a marriage is denying the couple of their freedom to marry, which they now have to full right to.

About the no shirt thing, I don't think we have a law on them. But the social pressure makes sure most normal people won't go shopping shirtless. I've maybe seen a few instances of people shirtless in public (apart from beaches, pools, etc).

But I have to say: I find the "no shirt, no service" on a whole other scale than gay marriage. For me, this is on the same scale as the whole black/white thing. You know, the bars that were for "whites only" and all that nonsense. Think about how ridiculous that was and compare that with a church saying: "Straight couples only".

We never had an Atheist Independent President for a reason. I don't have a definite clue as to why, but maybe it's because most view religion as a 'moral compass' and associate the person with it. "Oh, he/she is religious and is a Christian. Must be a good person." And as for being in an official party... I have no idea what that's about. It's like cliques I guess. You have to be in the group of the popular kids to get elected for anything. Sad really. It's like the Roman Senate.

I think the moral compass is way to much embedded into religion. A Christian is automatically a good person. While an Atheist can't be any good because an Atheist never learned the moral compass. Now I have to say that the most of religious people I've met were indeed very good people. But I also know a lot of atheist people who are just as good.

Ofcourse, religion is a very good way to raise people with good morals. I'd never want to ban out religion as it does so much good for the world around us. Sure, there are people who abuse religion, think about terrorists and extremists. But there are always rotten ones in any "group".

In the end, it's not what we believe what makes us good. The morals are what make good people. And if you learned those from your religion or from something else, that isn't important.

I like to believe that IF god exists, the good atheist people still be accepted. "So, Pete. Now you stand at the gate of Heaven. You've been an excellent person. However, you are not Christian so to Hell with you".

Well, this turned out to be a long, long post.. Oops.. :oops:

EDIT:
We never had an Atheist Independent President for a reason.

George Washington was independent. And I thought Washington, Franklin and Jefferson weren't religious. Jefferson and Washington were president. So I think Washington was the Atheist Independent one.
 
Last edited:

-The Ice Queen-

Rightful Queen of Skyrim
I believe the ruling says that while States must now recognize the marriage of a gay couple, churches views don't have to change.

I also think this allows churches to deny getting couples married in their building. I could be wrong but I think I got that right. They may also still have the right to deny access to said church. I'm not sure though. Whole thing is a bit vague to me.

So while this is a huge monumental step for gays, lesbians, etc., churches still have the right to deny or stay true to their beliefs. Which still respects their first amendment right.

It's the same way with businesses. I mean, we all know the rule, "No Shirt! No Shoes! No SERVICE!" right? Same thing, stores and therefore any business, company, group, etc, have the freedom to deny service. I don't think that goes for EMT's and Hospitals though. And the police. They are required to help.

However I'm not well versed in the laws of the land. Ironic, considering Americans are pretty much drowned from birth in pride of the history of our nation and yet most adolescents and adults can't remember half the amendments or their basic rights.

So this explains why even though churches have the right to deny, some States like Texas are refusing marriages all together. Because they now have to recognize the legal recognition of a gay marriage. And we all know how conservative Texas is.

It's Texas baby. Or nothin'.

It's illegal here for churches to deny marrying a gay people. Sure, the pastor or whatever might disapprove it, he might not like it, Everyone has the right to believe in what they want and have their own opinion but he can't refuse to marry them.
The pastor would be in trouble if the couple would sue him.
And it should be that way in my view. If a pastor allows a straight couple to marry and denies a gay couple, it's sexism.

I think in general you know about your own community which church welcomes you when you are gay. It would be weird to choose to get married in a church you know rather not marries gays, but do it since they have to. Your wedding day needs to be perfect after all ;)

Maybe it restrict some "freedom", but making a church able to deny a marriage is denying the couple of their freedom to marry, which they now have to full right to.

About the no shirt thing, I don't think we have a law on them. But the social pressure makes sure most normal people won't go shopping shirtless. I've maybe seen a few instances of people shirtless in public (apart from beaches, pools, etc).

But I have to say: I find the "no shirt, no service" on a whole other scale than gay marriage. For me, this is on the same scale as the whole black/white thing. You know, the bars that were for "whites only" and all that nonsense. Think about how ridiculous that was and compare that with a church saying: "Straight couples only".

We never had an Atheist Independent President for a reason. I don't have a definite clue as to why, but maybe it's because most view religion as a 'moral compass' and associate the person with it. "Oh, he/she is religious and is a Christian. Must be a good person." And as for being in an official party... I have no idea what that's about. It's like cliques I guess. You have to be in the group of the popular kids to get elected for anything. Sad really. It's like the Roman Senate.

I think the moral compass is way to much embedded into religion. A Christian is automatically a good person. While an Atheist can't be any good because an Atheist never learned the moral compass. Now I have to say that the most of religious people I've met were indeed very good people. But I also know a lot of atheist people who are just as good.

Ofcourse, religion is a very good way to raise people with good morals. I'd never want to ban out religion as it does so much good for the world around us. Sure, there are people who abuse religion, think about terrorists and extremists. But there are always rotten ones in any "group".

In the end, it's not what we believe what makes us good. The morals are what make good people. And if you learned those from your religion or from something else, that isn't important.

I like to believe that IF god exists, the good atheist people still be accepted. "So, Pete. Now you stand at the gate of Heaven. You've been an excellent person. However, you are not Christian so to Hell with you".

Well, this turned out to be a long, long post.. Oops.. :oops:

EDIT:
We never had an Atheist Independent President for a reason.

George Washington was independent. And I thought Washington, Franklin and Jefferson weren't religious. Jefferson and Washington were president. So I think Washington was the Atheist Independent one.
Woah, man! Just because someone isn't Christian, doesn't mean they're a bad person. Are all sociopaths bad people, just because they are lacking of a conscience (don't get sociopath confused with psychopath)?

In Chrisitanity, one doesn't go to Heaven by works. How one goes to heaven is by accepting that Christ died for everyone (yes, including Hitler) and rose again (John 3:16). Think of Jesus as a father who gets disappointed at the bad actions of humans, but still loves everybody.

One thing I was raised with was to separate the action from the person. I may not agree with the action of homosexuality, but it doesn't mean I treat folks any less because of it. I've been around Adam from the show "Ghost Hunters", and he's just a ball to be around. And he sung "Let It Go." Now that's awesome. ;)
 

Mighty Pecan Pie

The secret American
Woah, man! Just because someone isn't Christian, doesn't mean they're a bad person. Are all sociopaths bad people, just because they are lacking of a conscience (don't get sociopath confused with psychopath)?

That was what I meant to say. I'm an Atheist myself, and I like to think I'm a good person. (Somewhere, deep down.. lol)

I was making an example of why it was false, a bit sarcastic. I meant to say that being a religious person doesn't automatically makes one good. Or a non-religious person bad.

I might have had to word it better..
 

Recent chat visitors

Latest posts

Top