gay marriage in the US

[walrus]

The problem is not being attacked to men, the problem is the act of homosexual sex. Yes I'll say it, I think gays are called to abstain from sex. I have urges and desires I don't give into as I know they are wrong and I look at gay sex as one of those.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, I wouldn't try to take the right from anyone. But everyone has to right to have an opinion on the opinion's and views of others, and all I can say is it makes me very happy to know that this stance against homosexuals is no longer the majority and no longer has any power. Equality is here, it's not going away and those opposed to it have lost decisively.

On the subject of religious freedom and whether or not stores should have the right to refuse service to gays on the grounds of religious freedom... freedom of religion gives you the right to practice whatever religion you want, it doesn't give you the right to arbitrarily deny the rights of others because it's not in line with your beliefs. Discrimination is not tolerated, society has determined that homosexual couples have the same rights to marriage as heterosexuals, so if that doesn't work for the churches then maybe they should start paying taxes because clearly they are inclusive and not doing a service to society as a whole.

I got a good laugh at all the homophobic Americans on twitter saying they're going to move up here to Canada because of the verdict. Gay marriage has been legal country wide up here for 10 years.

Yes, I'm not sure about a bakery denying a cake to a gay marriage. But aren't the Bakery owners entitled to deny service to customers. We had a couple cases in the US that ended up in court but I forgot the rulings. The courts can't demand churches that don't believe in gay marriage perform ceremonies but I can see some radical couples trying to push that issue as well. The only thing that could change gay marriage, which is now the law of the land, is a constitutional amendment which would probably fail. I would like to see it go back to the states to make the decision, still posses at the supreme court.

[SugarBoxing]

that's terrible news

[Beanflicker]

Yes, I'm not sure about a bakery denying a cake to a gay marriage. But aren't the Bakery owners entitled to deny service to customers. We had a couple cases in the US that ended up in court but I forgot the rulings. The courts can't demand churches that don't believe in gay marriage perform ceremonies but I can see some radical couples trying to push that issue as well. The only thing that could change gay marriage, which is now the law of the land, is a constitutional amendment which would probably fail. I would like to see it go back to the states to make the decision, still posses at the supreme court.

The bakery thing is a complicated issue for me.

On one hand, no, you're not allowed to deny service to an individual based on their colour/gender/creed/sexuality/ect. Nobody should have the right to deny service to anyone. A pizza place can't say "we don't serve gays", a grocery store can't say "we don't serve blacks", ect.

However, I don't think the government has any right to dictate what kinds of services and products and establishment offers. I don't think a bakery should be forced to carry gay-friendly products. I don't think it should be a crime for a bakery to not carry the supplies to create a gay-friendly cake (two grooms/brides figure, whatever). I don't think people should be forced to carry "gay" products.
But if you have a service where you make cakes and will put a message on it, you better be ready to write some gay shit on that cake.

To deny services to gays is just such a cunty thing to do. What does it accomplish? Pray to your god and tell him "listen, I know there's a lot of fag shit going on right now but I want you to know I don't like and have nothing to do with it" and you should be good, right?

[SlimTrae]

Damn, the US supreme court just legalized marriage in all fifty states.

I'm leaning on your Bible exegesis-time to shine walrus. Does the bible get its matrimony from another source? I think bible unites man and woman for pro creation. It is an original source for marriage imho. Binded by the creator. If true then civil unions are enough for gay couples.

I'm disappointed in the ruling. Don't get me wrong, although I find homosexuality itself repulsive and unnatural I would never dislike someone solely on the basis they are gay. It is the act of homosexuality I disagree with, not the human, if you follow me. Realizing homosexuals are, no matter how I feel about them I always thought civil unions were the appropriate way to go.

Yeah, why the frick does a gay couple need to have their union solidified by a homophobic book?
It is demonic to me-by definition. An act of deception to use the creator's words for uniting two of the same gender. A book that states for one men to lie with another man is detestable...is the book they want to consummate their union? If there is an individual spirit called devil, he must be laughing his ass off.


I don't agree with the court changing the definition of marriage which for over two thousand years has been betwixt a man and a women, under God.WTF, very disappointed in the US supreme court.

I am in total agreement. Let gays work where they show skill, let them own a home, property and the right to prosperity, but how does using a book called bible which is instruction for correction of self be used to justify ones sexual behaviour?

You are spot on for your questioning and reasoning. Gays have no rational explanation for why
Civil union that gives a right to spousal benefits wasn't enough. This decision that Obama and now the supreme court has given I'd say is nothing more than the collapse of morality as we know it.

It is prophecy revealed: the turning of man against God.

[Beanflicker]

Gays have no rational explanation for why
Civil union that gives a right to spousal benefits wasn't enough.

Because they want to be recognized as a legit couple, no different from any heterosexual couple.

[SlimTrae]

Gays have no rational explanation for why
Civil union that gives a right to spousal benefits wasn't enough.

Because they want to be recognized as a legit couple, no different from any heterosexual couple.

Legit in whose eyes?
The Bible is purportedly the word of a god. Some say the true God.
If so how do they think they can legitimize what that book flat out-ASS out CONDEMNED?!

[Beanflicker]

Legit in whose eyes?
The Bible is purportedly the word of a god. Some say the true God.
If so how do they think they can legitimize what that book flat out-ASS out CONDEMNED?!

If there is a god he doesn't give two fiddler's fucks if you fancy guys or girls.

Gay couples are legit in the eyes of our modern society. Those who don't see them as legit have LOST. Their opinions carry no weight, and that's a beautiful thing.

[SlimTrae]

@walrus is it 2nd Timothy? 3:16. or 2?

The book is for self correction, not justification.

[Beanflicker]

Your book stinks, and thankfully is fading into irrelevancy.

[SlimTrae]

Your book stinks, and thankfully is fading into irrelevancy.

Not my book, but if it stinks , surely what reason would gays need to have those biblical words read during their matrimony?
It's like the trifecta of hypocrisy.

[SlimTrae]

Loathe the Book gays want to use...In order to be legit, how laughable.

[walrus]

Your book stinks, and thankfully is fading into irrelevancy.

Not my book, but if it stinks , surely what reason would gays need to have those biblical words read during their matrimony?
It's like the trifecta of hypocrisy.

There is nothing wrong with living one's life by a moral code. The bible tells us homosexuality is wrong but also tells us not to judge. Just because a lot of people do something, does not make it right.

[Andre]

Your book stinks, and thankfully is fading into irrelevancy.

Not my book, but if it stinks , surely what reason would gays need to have those biblical words read during their matrimony?
It's like the trifecta of hypocrisy.

True. But wont the majority of gays avoid churches and the people there and go for a celebrant marriage under law?

I doubt a minister of the church other than the uniting church, will do the ceremony traditionally.

I doubt it will be happening in Catcholic C of E, Baptist, or Methodist .

[Bill Paxtom]

Damn, the US supreme court just legalized marriage in all fifty states. I'm disappointed in the ruling. Don't get me wrong, although I find homosexuality itself repulsive and unnatural I would never dislike someone solely on the basis they are gay. It is the act of homosexuality I disagree with, not the human, if you follow me. Realizing homosexuals are, no matter how I feel about them I always thought civil unions were the appropriate way to go. I don't agree with the court changing the definition of marriage which for over two thousand years has been betwixt a man and a women, under God.WTF, very disappointed in the US supreme court.

This is no regular Country anymore.

We stand for 'nothing'. It's as they say now .......... 'anything goes'.

Next up ............ Dogs and Cats living together.

[mrbig1]

Damn, the US supreme court just legalized marriage in all fifty states. I'm disappointed in the ruling. Don't get me wrong, although I find homosexuality itself repulsive and unnatural I would never dislike someone solely on the basis they are gay. It is the act of homosexuality I disagree with, not the human, if you follow me. Realizing homosexuals are, no matter how I feel about them I always thought civil unions were the appropriate way to go. I don't agree with the court changing the definition of marriage which for over two thousand years has been betwixt a man and a women, under God.WTF, very disappointed in the US supreme court.

Understand one thing. The Government is not your momma. If you are not hurting anybody the Government has no right to tell you how to live your life.