to you know where in a handbasket thnx SCOTUS

[mojo84]

I even mentioned some of the women that flash for beads get arrested. I am confident many of those are heterosexual. Therefore, I don't believe it is only the gays misbehaving.

Did you even take time to do the google searches I suggested and compared the two? You are the one that brought Mardi Gras up.

[VMI77]

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/06 ... -marriage/

This guy makes some good points on the subject, but he also points to a NYT article that inadvertently addresses what's really behind the prog agenda.

The thing which worries me about gay marriage is that the norms surrounding gay long-term relationships will be imported into the concept of marriage.

http://www.sfgate.com/lgbt/article/Many ... 241624.php

(The above is a media write-up of a study that found that in a study of 566 gay couples, only 45 percent had made the promise to be sexually monogamous. This is an example of a different moral norm surrounding gay long-term relationships.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29 ... .html?_r=1

(In the above link is a NYTimes piece arguing that homosexual marriage could modernise (that is import different norms into) marriage as an institution.), specifically; “The traditional American marriage is in crisis, and we need insight,” he said, citing the fresh perspective gay couples bring to matrimony. “If innovation in marriage is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages.”

The importation of a moral norm like the one above surrounding gay long-term relationships would destroy the institution of marriage for heterosexuals who wish to pursue a long-term mating strategy.

[cb1000rider]

Did you even take time to do the google searches I suggested and compared the two? You are the one that brought Mardi Gras up.

Sorry, can't do an internet search for that. I live near Austin: I'm aware of some of the Pride events and a few that are a bit more liberal that I avoid like the plague. I'm also familiar with a number of non-gay events that are "public" and the behavior is as nutty - or perhaps a bit more nutty...

[baldeagle]

Here's the real problem that I have with this ruling. The end goal is the destruction of marriage, not #lovewins. The intention is to destroy marriage and then the family. After that, the state controls everything you do. It's sad that people can see this, but they get all wrapped up in the emotional stuff and fail to see the forest for the trees. America is being destroyed, but most people won't even believe it until after the deed is done. Then they'll all sit around moaning about how somebody should have done something about it.

[philip964]

Kosher Bacon, does that offend anyone.

If the government licensed people to make and sell kosher bacon is that more offensive?

I think so.

Get the government out of the Marrying business.

[ShootDontTalk]

Should have exited the thread several posts ago when I mentioned it's obvious none of the nay sayers are going to open their mind.

I'll leave now and let you guys have your thread back so you can discuss this uncontested. The important thing is #lovewins

An open mind is not the panacea your college professors told you it is. There are basic tenets that demand a closed mind because the facts are not open to discussion. Take gravity for instance. When standing atop a high building and sincerely believing one can fly sans external contrivances, it would be better to close ones mind. A silly example perhaps, nonetheless very true.

Some things may be welcomed with an open mind. Other things are best left alone. Not all good ideas come from open minds. #lovewins is one. Only time will tell. I suspect it will not work out as well as some hope.

[anygunanywhere]

Why don't we approach gun control legislation and gun confiscation with an open mind?

[C-dub]

We're a melting pot.

Shhhhh, we're not allowed to say that any more. It's a microaggression.

[C-dub]

Any bets on whether a Christian church or an Islamic mosque gets sued first for refusing to perform a same sex marriage?

[cheezit]

Kosher Bacon, does that offend anyone.

If the government licensed people to make and sell kosher bacon is that more offensive?

I think so.

Get the government out of the Marrying business.

They have that, its made from turkey. Youll need to do better
I happen to enjoy it, its non offensive if you ask me.

This all just seems like another brown vs the board of education battle. Did not see anything about regulating schools in the constution
Civil rights are civil rights and the government has the ability to regulate equality that the states refuse or fail to.

[cb1000rider]

Any bets on whether a Christian church or an Islamic mosque gets sued first for refusing to perform a same sex marriage?

You can sue anybody for anything. I'd wager strongly that such a case is a big loser. I think it's much to-do about nothing. Just like OC blood in the streets.

Why am I not worried about it? Because I can't think of a rational legal argument to support such a position.

You might be surprised that a few of us that support "equal rights" on this issue also respect the personal liberty afforded the church and clergy.. I can say that I personally would never support such a lawsuit and I don't think I'm alone.

Kosher Bacon, does that offend anyone.

Yes. Actually. As does turkey bacon. Both are highly offensive.

The intention is to destroy marriage and then the family. After that, the state controls everything you do.

Are you talking about the SCOTUS case or just in general? If you're talking about the case, have you read the actual details? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - Not sure they're trying to destroy anything.
If you're not talking about the case, we're talking about some sort of grand conspiracy against the family to allow this state control. I'm open to that discussion, but I'd like to know who the puppet-masters are? The destruction of the family has to benefit someone, right?

[gljjt]

Any bets on whether a Christian church or an Islamic mosque gets sued first for refusing to perform a same sex marriage?

You can sue anybody for anything. I'd wager strongly that such a case is a big loser. I think it's much to-do about nothing. Just like OC blood in the streets.

Why am I not worried about it? Because I can't think of a rational legal argument to support such a position.

You might be surprised that a few of us that support "equal rights" on this issue also respect the personal liberty afforded the church and clergy.. I can say that I personally would never support such a lawsuit and I don't think I'm alone.

Kosher Bacon, does that offend anyone.

Yes. Actually. As does turkey bacon. Both are highly offensive.

Thick sliced, smoked bacon. Accept no substitute!

[baldeagle]

The intention is to destroy marriage and then the family. After that, the state controls everything you do.

Are you talking about the SCOTUS case or just in general? If you're talking about the case, have you read the actual details? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - Not sure they're trying to destroy anything.
If you're not talking about the case, we're talking about some sort of grand conspiracy against the family to allow this state control. I'm open to that discussion, but I'd like to know who the puppet-masters are? The destruction of the family has to benefit someone, right?

Read the entire article. Then we can talk. It's not a grand conspiracy. It's been discussed openly and repeatedly.

[cheezit]

Just an fyi. That artical was last edited an hour ago by an anonymous user.

[cb1000rider]

If we're talking about this link - It's hard for me to keep all that linked up on a global level.. It'd need to be too well organized across decades. Maybe I'll get there as I grow older and more paranoid (which is certainly inevitable). It reads like an Alex Jones expose...

Here's an opinion on the upside of the SCOTUS ruling and it's definitely brings us back on topic:
Did gay marriage just help nationwide concealed carry?