# Supreme Court overturns Defense of Marriage Act



## roninmedia (Jun 26, 2013)

> The U.S. Supreme Court today overturned a 1996 federal law that limits the definitition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
> 
> The court, in a 5-4 decision, found the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act was an unconstitutional deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment.
> 
> ...







> The court's 5-4 vote said the Defense of Marriage Act, known as Doma, denied equal protection to same-sex couples.
> 
> The decision means that legally married gay men and women are entitled to claim the same federal benefits available to opposite-sex married couples.
> 
> ...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23068454


*UPDATE*   Supreme Court is letting lower court decisions stand on California's Proposition 8 claiming no jurisdiction.


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

Outstanding.


----------



## navy (Jun 26, 2013)

Scalia...U Mad bro? 26 pages...hahahahahahahaahahahhaha!!!!


----------



## Harmonie (Jun 26, 2013)

Wonderful. Now tell me when they make it have to be legalized for all states, including mine. Because, otherwise I get the feeling I could be waiting 100 years or more for it to be legalized here.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jun 26, 2013)

So, does it mean gay marriage is legalized in the whole country, or only in some states? I dunno how US's politics work.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 26, 2013)

Dragon D Luffy said:


> So, does it mean gay marriage is legalized in the whole country, or only in some states? I dunno how US's politics work.



Worry about what goes on in your Country. Fuck Blanka.


----------



## navy (Jun 26, 2013)

Dragon D Luffy said:


> So, does it mean gay marriage is legalized in the whole country, or only in some states? I dunno how US's politics work.



Still only certain states.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jun 26, 2013)

Look's like DOMA's proponents

( •_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)

Didn't have a strong defense

*YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH*


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

Dragon D Luffy said:


> So, does it mean gay marriage is legalized in the whole country, or only in some states? I dunno how US's politics work.



The SCOTUS basically upheld a ruling by a lower court that the denial of marriage benefits for same sex couples, even in states where same sex marriage is allowed (Connecticut e.g.), is unconstitutional.

Thus, DOMA is unconstitutional and will be eventually evaporated.



Hand Banana said:


> Worry about what goes on in your Country. Fuck Blanka.



Dat's cold, son.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jun 26, 2013)

navy said:


> Still only certain states.


What it does mean is those who are gay married will be able to get the same federal benefits as straight couples.

Like in the case that was brought before there, if the spouse dies, then the other spouse gets surviving spouse tax benefits. And doesn't have to pay estate tax and other such things.


----------



## Elias (Jun 26, 2013)

Basically if you live in a state where gay marriage is already legal, you now have the same rights (filing taxes and etc) as straight couples.

The other case was basically found to not have standing, so gay marriage would appear to be legal in California now.

Nothing else has changed.


----------



## navy (Jun 26, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> What it does mean is those who are gay married will be able to get the same federal benefits as straight couples.
> 
> Like in the case that was brought before there, if the spouse dies, then the other spouse gets surviving spouse tax benefits. And doesn't have to pay estate tax and other such things.



Yes,  basically.


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jun 26, 2013)

Thanks for the answer. So the states where gay marriage is illegal still have to change the law so it becomes legal in the whole country, right?

Well, that was a nice step into a more civilized society. Congratulations.



Hand Banana said:


> Worry about what goes on in your Country. Fuck Blanka.



You don't have to be rude like this.

And refusing to know anything that happens outside your country is something only an ignorant person does.


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

Dragon D Luffy said:


> Thanks for the answer. So the states where gay marriage is illegal still have to change the law so it becomes legal in the whole country, right?
> 
> Well, that was a nice step into a more civilized society. Congratulations



Well it's kinda moot for those who have it still illegal, but it ensures federal benefits for the states that allow it...so it's a small step.



> You don't have to be rude like this.
> 
> And refusing to know anything that happens outside your country is something only an ignorant person does.



He's just trippin', homey.


----------



## KidTony (Jun 26, 2013)

damn, historic decisions flying left and right. It's weird too, some of them are conservative slanted, and some progressive slanted decisions. 

Anyways, this is tremendous news.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 26, 2013)

Good. Federal legalization of same-sex marriage is pretty much the next step, which means even the regressive states down here will have to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples.


----------



## Toroxus (Jun 26, 2013)

Time to party.


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

Half of those people look like they need to drop a deuce badly.


----------



## very bored (Jun 26, 2013)




----------



## EvilMoogle (Jun 26, 2013)

Dragon D Luffy said:


> So, does it mean gay marriage is legalized in the whole country, or only in some states? I dunno how US's politics work.



DOMA being overturned means that the federal government has to recognize gay marriages performed in states that allow them.  It has no particular impact in states that do not currently allow gay marriage.

Prop 9 being dismissed on standing means that the California Supreme Court ruling holds and it is overturned (meaning gay marriage is legal under California's constitution).


----------



## Roman (Jun 26, 2013)

It's a small step toward progress, but convincing those states which still make it illegal that same sex marriage should be embraced will be really difficult. Hopefully this will stick.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 26, 2013)

Freedan said:


> It's a small step toward progress, but convincing those states which still make it illegal that same sex marriage should be embraced will be really difficult. Hopefully this will stick.



It'll have to be forced through law like it always has.


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

When the SCOTUS bears down on you, the purple states tend to change tune quickly.


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

Get a room you two.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jun 26, 2013)

On to the next frontier: polygamy. 

Now that we've done away with one man and one woman, why not? The arguments against it are similar to the arguments against gay marriage.


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

Shinigami Perv said:


> On to the next frontier: polygamy.
> 
> Now that we've done away with one man and one woman, why not? The arguments against it are similar to the arguments against gay marriage.



I thought it was zoophilia that they were going to petition for next.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jun 26, 2013)

You could. Animals can't really consent.

The argument against polygamy boils down to "ewww". It would just require a few legal modifications for property law, custody law and marriage/criminal law.


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

Shinigami Perv said:


> You could. Animals can't really consent.
> 
> The argument against polygamy boils down to "ewww". It would just require a few legal modifications for property law, custody law and marriage law.



Well ask ultralib Swedes like Grrblt.  They'd advocate zoophilia and wreck the entire LGBT train all in one go.


----------



## navy (Jun 26, 2013)

You put guys kissing instead of hot females and wonder why people dont support gays?


----------



## Bioness (Jun 26, 2013)

navy said:


> You put guys kissing instead of hot females and wonder why people dont support gays?



Do you really want to go there?

 And those aren't just two random guys that is John Barrowman and Scott Gill.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 26, 2013)

Mael said:


> Well ask ultralib Swedes like Grrblt.  They'd advocate zoophilia and wreck the entire LGBT train all in one go.



You mean they advocate legalizing zoophilia, which is something entirely different and usually based on the fact that we don't require animal consent for pretty much everything else. We kill them, we eat them, we experiment on them, we enslave them, we keep them in our house or in confined spaces for our enjoyment, but *having sex* without their consent? Surely that's wrong!


----------



## Ari (Jun 26, 2013)

navy said:


> You put guys kissing instead of hot females and wonder why people dont support gays?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 26, 2013)

Are we seriously gonna debate zoophilia here?


----------



## Black Superman (Jun 26, 2013)

Freedan said:


> It's a small step toward progress, but convincing those states which still make it illegal that same sex marriage should be embraced will be really difficult. Hopefully this will stick.



Don't convince them, let them continue to mire in their own ignorance, let them live in the 19th century if they want. Generationals, just won't flock there. They'll die a slow and painful death. If they want to be like the third world, good for them.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 26, 2013)

Dragon D Luffy said:


> So, does it mean gay marriage is legalized in the whole country, or only in some states? I dunno how US's politics work.



Basically what was happening was individual states had gay marriage and others didn't.  What DOMA was was a federal ban on gay marriage, so the national government wouldn't recognize a homosexual marriage even if the state you were in did.

Now the federal government will be forced to recognize any marriage that's recognized in a state.

There are still individual states that have gay marriage bans in effect but they did _essentially_ shoot down Californias gay marriage ban.

So all in all a very good day for gay rights but the fight continues.


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> You mean they advocate legalizing zoophilia, which is something entirely different and usually based on the fact that we don't require animal consent for pretty much everything else. We kill them, we eat them, we experiment on them, we enslave them, we keep them in our house or in confined spaces for our enjoyment, but *having sex* without their consent? Surely that's wrong!



This is why I think Europeans are fucked in the head...aside from being responsible for most of the shit in the past 100+ years.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 26, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Are we seriously gonna debate zoophilia here?



Ask Mael, he brought it up.



Mael said:


> This is why I think Europeans are fucked in the head...aside from being responsible for most of the shit in the past 100+ years.



Very rational argument, thank you.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 26, 2013)

I don't bother arguing with Sauf. Lost cause that one is.


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

I'm not wrong about the responsibility though...and the zoophilia was because anti-same sex marriage advocates have argued using animals in the past.

And if people like Grrblt exist, something's wrong with either Scandinavia or Western Europe as a whole, aside from that Eurozone.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 26, 2013)

Hand Banana said:


> I don't bother arguing with Sauf. Lost cause that one is.



Another great rebuttal. Welp, I guess I need to reconsider my position because you guys think sex with animals is icky and should therefore be illegal.


----------



## Black Superman (Jun 26, 2013)

When will people come to their senses and realize how immoral it is....Gay or straight, marriage is wrong.


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Another great rebuttal. Welp, I guess I need to reconsider my position because you guys think sex with animals is icky and should therefore be illegal.



Because it is...like fucking your brother or a decayed corpse.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jun 26, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> You mean they advocate legalizing zoophilia, which is something entirely different and usually based on the fact that we don't require animal consent for pretty much everything else. We kill them, we eat them, we experiment on them, we enslave them, we keep them in our house or in confined spaces for our enjoyment, but *having sex* without their consent? Surely that's wrong!



We don't allow animals to enter into contracts.

Marriage, as defined by the state, is a contract.

Sex has very little to do with marriage (ask anyone that's married  )


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 26, 2013)

Also, we use animals for food and labor as it is essential to our survival, and domesticated animals can't survive in the wild (and they often became domesticated to serve for purpose of survival), so releasing them would be pretty inhumane. Just like having sex with an animal is...why do you think something like dogfighting and cockfighting is illegal?


----------



## Saishin (Jun 26, 2013)

High Court's decision is a great step toward an eventual national legalization of gay marriage and a good sign for the LGBT community :33 


Mael said:


> Well it's kinda moot for those who have it still illegal, but it ensures federal benefits for the states that allow it...so it's a small step.


So the federal benefits will be ensured only on those states that recognize the gay marriage or also on all the 50 states?


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

Siash, please read what I said again.


----------



## Saishin (Jun 26, 2013)

Mael said:


> Siash, please read what I said again.


Okay now I've understood


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 26, 2013)

Mael said:


> Because it is...like fucking your brother or a decayed corpse.



No, it really isn't. What you were trying to say is "Sex with animals is icky, these things are also icky, therefore they're similar", which is still the same nonsense from before.



EvilMoogle said:


> We don't allow animals to enter into contracts.
> 
> Marriage, as defined by the state, is a contract.
> 
> Sex has very little to do with marriage (ask anyone that's married  )



Nobody said anything about marrying animals.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Also, we use animals for food and labor as it is essential to our survival,



It's not essential to survival at all, it's just delicious and comfortable. Who would die without fur clothing? Who would die if they went vegetarian or vegan? Millions of people pull it off just fine, so don't give me that cheap pretext for your rejection of zoophilia.



> and domesticated animals can't survive in the wild (and they often became domesticated to serve for purpose of survival), so releasing them would be pretty inhumane.



Many can and do survive in the wild, actually. Not to mention the fucked up logic behind "we're doing them a favor by enslaving and eventually killing them, because otherwise they might die".



> Just like having sex with an animal is...why do you think something like dogfighting and cockfighting is illegal?



Because the law is inconcsistent and made by people who pander to the base emotions of others.

I'll give you credit for being the only one who addressed my argument, though.


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

Yet Sauf I fail to see why it needs to be argued BEYOND that, since it boggles the mind as to why people would even consider having sex with a duck or a horse.

But yes confirmed for not only hating on the concept of pets but also okay with fucking animals.  Good to know.  German stereotype confirmed.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 26, 2013)

Mael said:


> Yet Sauf I fail to see why it needs to be argued BEYOND that, since it boggles the mind as to why people would even consider having sex with a duck or a horse.



And some people cannot comprehend why a man would want to have sex with another man or why a woman could feel attracted to another woman. Better tell the surpreme court that this is sufficient reason to outlaw something.



> But yes confirmed for not only hating on the concept of pets but also okay with fucking animals.  Good to know.  German stereotype confirmed.



When did I say any of that? Pets are great and fucking animals is animal cruelty that should be frowned upon by society.


----------



## lacey (Jun 26, 2013)

I was worried over this. I'm so glad they're supporting marriage equality.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jun 26, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Nobody said anything about marrying animals.


Then you're being off topic in a thread about marriage decisions.


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> And some people cannot comprehend why a man would want to have sex with another man or why a woman could feel attracted to another woman. Better tell the surpreme court that this is sufficient reason to outlaw something.



Because last time I checked zoophilia wasn't a genetic predisposition the way homosexuality was.  



> When did I say any of that? Pets are great and fucking animals is animal cruelty that should be frowned upon by society.



Yet you keep wanting you advocate legality because for some reason you hate the concept of emotion or just basic decency towards animals in that regard.


----------



## Pliskin (Jun 26, 2013)

EvilMoogle said:


> Then you're being off topic in a thread about marriage decisions.



No fun allowed.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 26, 2013)

EvilMoogle said:


> Then you're being off topic in a thread about marriage decisions.



He's off topic in real life


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 26, 2013)

Mael said:


> Because last time I checked zoophilia wasn't a genetic predisposition the way homosexuality was.



That really shouldn't factor into it at all. To some degree there are individuals predisposed to pedophilia, that shouldn't make it any less despicable and illegal.



> Yet you keep wanting you advocate legality because for some reason you hate the concept of emotion or just basic decency towards animals in that regard.



No, I hate the concept of unfair, inconsistent laws. I'm also against criminalizing cheating on your boyfriend/girlfriend. Not because I hate emotion or because I hate basic decency towards one's partner, but because it is an ethical issue that should be governed by social norms, not the state.

If some day we require animal consent for everything we do with or to them (and I hope that day never comes) then we must logically also require their consent for sexual intercourse and thus zoophilia should then be illegal. However, in the current state of affairs criminalizing zoophilia is basically saying that rape is worse than murder and slavery.

And let's not forget that the animals have sex without consent either way, since they're usually forced to breed in captivity.



EvilMoogle said:


> Then you're being off topic in a thread about marriage decisions.


----------



## soulnova (Jun 26, 2013)

Elim Rawne said:


> He's off topic in real life




Oooh


----------



## Big Mom (Jun 26, 2013)

I thought Prop 8 was overturned as well?


Also, this is certainly an improvement, however:

-Not all of DOMA was overturned
-30 States...enough said

I am insanly furious at how slow this is taking. This is a simple decision!!!!


----------



## LesExit (Jun 26, 2013)

Yay a big step forward for marriage equality! Still moving to slow for my liking though  I figure by the time I'm ready to get married it'll be pretty much legal everywhere in the states though.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jun 26, 2013)

Hiruzen Sarutobi said:


> I thought Prop 8 was overturned as well?


Not exactly, the US Supreme Court ruled that they didn't have foundation to review it federally.

Which means it goes back to the California Supreme Court decision that overturned it.


----------



## stab-o-tron5000 (Jun 26, 2013)

Just had to share this from Cracked.com because it might help clear up a few misconceptions around here.





> *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.
> 
> ...



(not the whole article, just the most important part)


----------



## Taco (Jun 26, 2013)

Big step forward, but there's still much to be done.


----------



## navy (Jun 26, 2013)

Still no hot lesbian celebration i see. Well fuck this shit ,DOMA should return.


----------



## Daxter (Jun 26, 2013)

That's fantastic news.

US is getting a little gayer every day. I am okay with this.


----------



## Al Mudaari (Jun 26, 2013)

Cannot WAIT when homosexual i*c*st and necrophilia marriages will be legal too in the name of equality.

USA USA USA


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

Al Mudaari said:


> Cannot WAIT when homosexual i*c*st and necrophilia marriages will be legal too in the name of equality.
> 
> USA USA USA



Cannot WAIT when Islamism is finally squashed for the plague it is.


----------



## navy (Jun 26, 2013)

Al Mudaari said:


> Cannot WAIT when homosexual i*c*st and necrophilia marriages will be legal too in the name of equality.
> 
> USA USA USA



i*c*st? Possibly. 

The others? Only if they can consent.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 26, 2013)

Al Mudaari said:


> Cannot WAIT when homosexual i*c*st and necrophilia marriages will be legal too in the name of equality.
> 
> USA USA USA



I just find it ironic that a person whose religion puts a guy that married and raped a nine-year old girl, among many others, is going to try this angle.


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I just find it ironic that a person whose religion puts a guy that married and raped a nine-year old girl, among many others, is going to try this angle.



You know Islamists...their way or the violent way.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 26, 2013)

Well God is in control of everything and the time is only getting closer...


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

narutoXhinata=love said:


> Well God is in control of everything and the time is only getting closer...



So we had the Islamic derp post, and now we've got the Christian derp post.

Where's your evidence?

Oh I forgot, you rely on some existential belief.  Let's all point and laugh at this guy.

Btw we're all waiting...hasn't it been announced hundreds of thousands of times that the end time is coming?  We're waiting.  C'mon and tell us man.  We're waiting.  Give us something credible.

I forgot.  You can't.  Faith doesn't produce solid results.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 26, 2013)

narutoXhinata=love said:


> Well God is in control of everything and the time is only getting closer...



The time was supposed to come when his disciples were still around. Sure is taking a while.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jun 26, 2013)

In little known news, the Court just issued it's first advisory opinion on a constitutional question.


----------



## Al Mudaari (Jun 26, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I just find it ironic that a person whose religion puts a guy that married and raped a nine-year old girl, among many others, is going to try this angle.




I find it ironic that an Islamophobe actually thinks his confirmation bias, inaccurate, hate orientated opinion is actually something that any intellectual would give an ounce of value to. 



Mael said:


> Cannot WAIT when Islamism is finally squashed for the plague it is.




Oh brilliant come back there, great rebuttal. Almost made my argument invalid.


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

You never had an argument to begin with, Qutb.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 26, 2013)

> Islamophobe actually thinks his confirmation bias



That's not what confirmation bias is.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jun 26, 2013)

narutoXhinata=love said:


> Well God is in control of everything and the time is only getting closer...


You know, Jesus said 'love thy neighbor', 'be a good samaritan', and 'let he is without sin cast the first stone'. Yet you do none of that, yet consider yourself a Christian? Most conservative 'Christians' don't even understand Jesus' teachings, nor do they care about them. They just want to use the Bible as a tool to justify their own hatreds and prejudices. 

Now which one do you think YOU are?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 26, 2013)

Al Mudaari said:


> I find it ironic that an Islamophobe actually thinks his confirmation bias, inaccurate, hate orientated opinion is actually something that any intellectual would give an ounce of value to. .



Mohammed slaughtered, pillaged, and even raped in his supposedly divinely-guided campaign. Every time he wished to indulge in something that was agreed upon to be immoral, there was suddenly a divine revelation that he and only he, was allowed to take part in such actions. One most notable example being Aisha, others being taking the wives of slaves and his followers; and I think an atrocious rule that a woman's silence is her consent.

So again, I find it really hilarious that for one that follows a religion that was founded by such a hypocritical, self-indulgent individual, and whose religion increasingly puts more emphasis on the person is going to talk at all on this matter. In the contemporary period, it seems the region where this religion dominates have a lot more issues they need to worry about than whether or not two people of the same-sex want to spend their lives together.


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Mohammed slaughtered, pillaged, and even raped in his supposedly divinely-guided campaign. Every time he wished to indulge in something that was agreed upon to be immoral, there was suddenly a divine revelation that he and only he, was allowed to take part in such actions. One most notable example being Aisha, others being taking the wives of slaves and his followers; and I think an atrocious rule that a woman's silence is her consent.
> 
> So again, I find it really hilarious that for one that follows a religion that was founded by such a hypocritical, self-indulgent individual, and whose religion increasingly puts more emphasis on the person is going to talk at all on this matter. In the contemporary period, it seems the region where this religion dominates have a lot more issues they need to worry about than whether or not two people of the same-sex want to spend their lives together.



Al Mudaari's reply: Well...ISRAEL ZIONISM!  Inshallulz!  I know everything because a fictional being is telling me things.  It ain't schizophrenia!  It's my perverted sense of knowledge!


----------



## Zaru (Jun 26, 2013)

A positive development, but I find it worrying that the decision was only 5-4. Which basically means one vote was the make or break there, too close for comfort.



Mael said:


> Cannot WAIT when Islamism is finally squashed for the plague it is.





Seto Kaiba said:


> I just find it ironic that a person whose religion puts a guy that married and raped a nine-year old girl, among many others, is going to try this angle.


I don't want to sound too pessimistic but I hope you guys realize that there's a small sliver of truth in what that troll said. Not regarding "homosexual i*c*st and necrophilia marriages" but other things.
Homosexuality was once extremely reviled yet is slowly but surely moving towards acceptance, at least legally. So, with this "deviant from the norm" sexuality winning its long fight, you can bet that other sexual deviants are licking their lips over this big chance. They saw that if you somehow get the liberal media on your side and make yourself into a victim (which homosexuals undoubtably were, don't misunderstand), while also pointing at "it's not a choice, it's natural", you have a chance to move something into public acceptance.

With pedophilia being as widespread in the media industry as it is, I won't be surprised if lowering the age of consent is next, accompanied by pedophilia acceptance movements.
But only time will tell. It will probably take decades at the least. Watch out for seeing glimpses of it during your lifetime.

Of course, stuff like necrophilia is too far out because their numbers are too low and thus their influence on changing any public opinion is too small to do anything, so that's a ridiculous claim right now. Although, if people can marry objects in some parts of the world....

(And we'll probably get more consanguineous marriage with the spread of islam to europe, since the map of consanguineous marriage percentages in the world almost looks identical to a map of islamic countries, but that's a story for a different time)


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

Wow Zaru it's like you completely forgot to acknowledge the relative differences between them and the concepts of mental capacity.

What's next, a rape approval movement?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 26, 2013)

Zaru said:


> A positive development, but I find it worrying that the decision was only 5-4. Which basically means one vote was the make or break there, too close for comfort.



Yet another reason decisions like this shouldn't be left to the supreme court.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 26, 2013)

Zaru said:


> A positive development, but I find it worrying that the decision was only 5-4. Which basically means one vote was the make or break there, too close for comfort.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Homosexuality, in contrast to pedophilia and necrophilia involve consenting adults, no different from a heterosexual relationship except for the fact that the individuals involved are of the same sex, so the comparison really doesn't fly.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 26, 2013)

Mael said:


> What's next, a rape approval movement?



He is a hardcore MRA


----------



## Al Mudaari (Jun 26, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> *




And here's me, expecting some valid response, cannon material, potentially some Academic quotations, studies, including the views of historians.

But nope, just an Islamophobe saying whatever his hate filled heart desires.



Seto Kaiba said:


> Homosexuality, in contrast to pedophilia and *necrophilia involve consenting adults*, no different from a heterosexual relationship except for the fact that the individuals involved are of the same sex, so the comparison really doesn't fly.




It's called a "Will".




Zaru said:


> A positive development, but I find it worrying that the decision was only 5-4. Which basically means one vote was the make or break there, too close for comfort.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wasn't a troll, just saying how it is. 

Nvm, I'm done with this thread.


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

Apparently you're not, Qutb.

I mean you preach absurd violence against kuffar, yet homosexuals frighten you.  Is progress really that scary to you or your twisted version of Allah?


----------



## Zaru (Jun 26, 2013)

Mael said:


> Wow Zaru it's like you completely forgot to acknowledge the relative differences between them and the concepts of mental capacity.
> 
> What's next, a rape approval movement?


I didn't forget about that at all. It will no doubt be harder for them than for homosexuals but that probably won't stop them from trying. 
At least regarding the age of consent, it's notably high in the USA right now. It's way lower in Mexico which is outsourcing its population to the USA, and slightly lower in Europe, which doesn't care any less about mental capacity than the USA does. So that change is probably going to happen sooner or later, and only the christian conservatives will protest.

As for actual pedophilia, playing the victim and appeal to nature cards will work against logic and reason in the long run. You seem to underestimate how much planting seeds in the media can influence public opinion in the long run (I'm talking about decades here). I reckon a major milestone will be making them seem like victims of hate crimes and thus shield them with political correctness.

And don't kid yourself, the vast majority decades ago thought homosexual marriages would never be legal or accepted, with the same certainty that you're dismissing this now.
. Example quotes:



> It is difficult today, [...], to imagine any mainstream group making anything like such a claim. But if it is shocking to realise how dramatically attitudes to paedophilia have changed in just three decades, it is even more surprising to discover how little agreement there is even now among those who are considered experts on the subject.





> A liberal professor of psychology who studied in the late 1970s will see things very differently from someone working in child protection, or with convicted sex offenders. There is, astonishingly, not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm.





> But not all paedophiles are child molesters, and vice versa: by no means every paedophile acts on his impulses, and many people who sexually abuse children are not exclusively or primarily sexually attracted to them. In fact, "true" paedophiles are estimated by some experts to account for only 20% of sexual abusers. Nor are paedophiles necessarily violent: no firm links have so far been established between paedophilia and aggressive or psychotic symptoms. Psychologist Glenn Wilson, co-author of The Child-Lovers: a Study of Paedophiles in Society, argues that "The majority of paedophiles, however socially inappropriate, seem to be gentle and rational."





> This is radical stuff. But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia "is a sexual orientation" and therefore "unlikely to change".



It's already happening. Don't dismiss it because you think it's unlikely, because the same was said about Homosexuality.



Elim Rawne said:


> He is a hardcore MRA


That'd be funny if I had spent more than 5 seconds on any MRA website


----------



## Elim Rawne (Jun 26, 2013)

> It's called a "Will".



Good luck getting that ratified, or observed


----------



## Al Mudaari (Jun 26, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Homosexuality, in contrast to pedophilia and necrophilia involve consenting adults, no different from a heterosexual relationship except for the fact that the individuals involved are of the same sex, so the comparison really doesn't fly.




One last thing, it's not always about consent, as _highly civilized_ countries like Denmark have clearly demonstrated -


----------



## B Rabbit (Jun 26, 2013)

The first step in the right direction.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 26, 2013)

Jesus Christ...Zaru, it's not just because of the 'liberal media' as you put it that changed people's attitudes towards homosexuals, it was a decades-long process of having a greater understanding of human psychology, and mental health that was the biggest step. When the APA removed homosexuality as a mental illness most notably; such research at the time also conducted on pedophiles and those with pedophilic tendencies, which are more than established as mental illness; what's more is understanding that a child is physically and mentally underdeveloped to properly consent to and engage in relations with an adult, and understanding the negative effects overwhelmingly it has on a child's development.

For once, just contain your craziness about "x" media.


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

Al Mudaari said:


> One last thing, it's not always about consent, as _highly civilized_ countries like Denmark have clearly demonstrated -



Because that'll fly in the US, right?

Troll your Islamism elsewhere.  I heard Morsi is looking for young bullshitters.

I also thought you were done here.


----------



## Mider T (Jun 26, 2013)

Why does this thread keep going back to zoophilia?


----------



## Ash (Jun 26, 2013)

AWESOME :WOW Now to legalize marriage nationwide.

SUCK IT HATERS


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 26, 2013)

Mael said:


> Because that'll fly in the US, right?
> 
> Troll your Islamism elsewhere.  I heard Morsi is looking for young bullshitters.
> 
> I also thought you were done here.




*Spoiler*: __ 





> Police declined to pursue the matter, saying that there was not enough evidence to convict on a charge of cruelty to an animal, which ... carries a maximum penalty of one month in jail or a 1,000-baht fine, or both. Under Thai law bestiality, as such, is not an offence. For legal reasons the perpetrator cannot at present be named."







> _ Sodomistic intercourse with animals has also been removed from the list of criminal sexual offenses in France, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, Holland and Russia. Such cases are now dealt with under indecency and animal cruelty regulations and are most unlikely to receive a prison sentence. In those countries such as Great Britain, which have not updated their laws, the penalty is, normally, still life imprisonment, i.e.; the modern equivalent of a death sentence. _



Source: 

The following citation for Poland was three years ago, which as the article makes clear was bound to change:



Surprise, surprise, he's being dishonest. Most of these nations have animal welfare and cruelty laws for which acts of bestiality are punished, so they do not have laws specifically forbidding the act. Very few actually allow the act.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jun 26, 2013)

Al Mudaari said:


> Cannot WAIT when homosexual i*c*st and necrophilia marriages will be legal too in the name of equality.
> 
> USA USA USA


i*c*st is already legal amongst the South

Also I think the necrophila thing wouldn't fly because well one, you're marrying an object which by its very nature is inanimate.

On the point of a will, generally contracts have to be simultaneously agreed upon. Also there's the line 'til death do us part'.

Then there's a matter of percentages. ~10% of all people are homosexual. Much larger minority than any of those.


Finally, I'm pretty sure I'm speaking for most in finding it insulting that you would compare two adults of sound mind wanting to be wed with i*c*st and corpsefucking. i*c*st has a solid societal reasons against it. Most notably that progeny from that have a proven higher likelihood of birth defects. Negative effects of gay marriage? Absolutely nothing.

And oh yeah, the old testament which Islam also believes in?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jun 26, 2013)

Oh my god, zoophilia debate 

Please continue


----------



## Patchouli (Jun 26, 2013)

Well, I can't say I'm surprised that zoophilia is now the topic. That's always brought up on anything gay marriage related. And it's always the best part of the debate.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jun 26, 2013)

What I don't get is why doesn't the slippery slope ever go the other direction?

"If Texas can ban gay marriage in the state what's to stop them from banning all marriage?  We need to make our stand now and stop this before everyone's divorced by overreaching government!"


----------



## Megaharrison (Jun 26, 2013)

Just one more step until I can marry an M2 Bradley.


----------



## Lina Inverse (Jun 26, 2013)

zoophilia


----------



## Narcissus (Jun 26, 2013)

The winds carry the sounds of baconbits crying himself to sleep...

Excellent news. It is a definite win and a step in the right direction. This argument over zoophilia is dreadful though and you should all be ashamed of yourselves. 

And as for the religious people, your religion has enough immortality of its own to deal with. Anything you have to say using religion as a basis is invalid.


----------



## navy (Jun 26, 2013)

Megaharrison said:


> Just one more step until I can marry an M2 Bradley.



Take an M2 Bradley to court with you and see if they say no.:amazed


----------



## morgaine4 (Jun 26, 2013)

I just wanna dance dance dance and celebrate.

DOMA struck down.

SCOTUS took the cowardly approach to Prop H8, but at least same sex marriage is now legal in CA.

It's not enough, there's much more work to do for women, minorities, the LGBTQ community etc etc but man...today I'm just inspired to fight harder for a more perfect world...


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jun 26, 2013)

Shinigami Perv said:


> Oh my god, zoophilia debate
> 
> Please continue





Patchouli said:


> Well, I can't say I'm surprised that zoophilia is now the topic. That's always brought up on anything gay marriage related. And it's always the best part of the debate.











Megaharrison said:


> Just one more step until I can marry an M2 Bradley.


I don't blame you. That is one sexy machine.


----------



## Mael (Jun 26, 2013)

I'll marry and M1A3 Abrams, Mega, and I'll blast your ass to smithereens.


----------



## morgaine4 (Jun 26, 2013)

Sorry if this has been asked already, but how would this affect legally married couples who move to a state that does not recognize same sex marriage?  Would they still receive Federal Marriage benefits??


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jun 26, 2013)

morgaine4 said:


> Sorry if this has been asked already, but how would this affect legally married couples who move to a state that does not recognize same sex marriage?  Would they still receive Federal Marriage benefits??


Currently they would not. If someone moved from say California to Alabama, they wouldn't be considered married while they are there.

Though apparently Obama administration is looking in to fixing that. Idk, that's what I heard.


----------



## morgaine4 (Jun 26, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> Currently they would not. If someone moved from say California to Alabama, they wouldn't be considered married while they are there.
> 
> Though apparently Obama administration is looking in to fixing that. Idk, that's what I heard.



Interesting, thanks for answering.  So much more to do...


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 26, 2013)

The southern states are never going to voluntarily legalize same-sex marriage, they'll have to be forced to.


----------



## morgaine4 (Jun 27, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> The southern states are never going to voluntarily legalize same-sex marriage, they'll have to be forced to.



For sure.

Hell, technically it was only 2000 that Alabama voted to over-turn an interracial marriage ban (I remember it clearly, because my cousin got married to someone of another race in 2000 after the vote).


----------



## Dragon D. Luffy (Jun 27, 2013)

Cracked.com explaining this better than anyone:



It's funny because the same thing has been happening here in Brazil since they approved gay marriage. All the conservatives are crying "OMG, they will force us to become gay and ban heterosexual marriage". It's hilarious.


----------



## Zaru (Jun 27, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Jesus Christ...Zaru, it's not just because of the 'liberal media' as you put it that changed people's attitudes towards homosexuals, it was a decades-long process of having a greater understanding of human psychology, and mental health that was the biggest step. When the APA removed homosexuality as a mental illness most notably; such research at the time also conducted on pedophiles and those with pedophilic tendencies, which are more than established as mental illness; what's more is understanding that a child is physically and mentally underdeveloped to properly consent to and engage in relations with an adult, and understanding the negative effects overwhelmingly it has on a child's development.
> 
> For once, just contain your craziness about "x" media.



Calm your tits Seto. This time, I only meant that liberal media tends to be progressive when it comes to all the social stuff and they are more likely to endorse things that the conservative media hates. Scientific findings don't do much when nobody knows about them or they are dismissed, the USA are one gigantic pot of truth for that. Someone has to throw that info out there and endorse it. Are you saying the conservative, right-wing media did that for homosexuality? Come on.

And I just linked  a researched view of the current situation which doesn't make it sound like it's "well established" at all, and moving into the opposite direction. Did you even read that? We both agree that it should be SEEN as a mental illness or at least something bad, but how do you know we won't be seen as fossilized bigots in a 100 years ( forget that we won't be alive then) who are against "the wonderful love that crosses generations"? Look back at western societies 100 years ago and see how much they changed.

Heck, I hope I'm wrong. But the chance is clearly there, and I don't want to be in retirement and go

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgpnrOUS2BE[/YOUTUBE]



Shinigami Perv said:


> Oh my god, zoophilia debate
> 
> Please continue


Bronies are only the first step


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 27, 2013)

Al Mudaari said:


> Cannot WAIT when homosexual i*c*st and necrophilia marriages will be legal too in the name of equality.
> 
> USA USA USA


Seto, Mael...get the drones.


----------



## Al Mudaari (Jun 27, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> And oh yeah, the old testament which Islam also believes in?




Lmao, no we don't.

Anyways, I just made my point. There's a huge amount of hypocrisy here, where most of the people that support gay marriage here, would for absolutely no reason be against i*c*st homosexual marriages. They just can't stomach the idea of their sister/mother, or brother/father having an intimate relationship, even though it is no different to any homosexual relationship.

People (particularly Atheists and those who aren't that religious) are conditioned by their society in terms of what they believe is right and what they believe is wrong. Their belief is volatile based on what Society tells them, the same thing they may consider unacceptable, may all of a sudden, in 10 years be something they can fully accept. There's no doubt, that had they been living a 100 or so years ago, they'd see black people are sub-human and consider things like Torture as perfectly fine methods of justice.

Just slaves to your environment.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 27, 2013)

Hilarious. Such a religion with twisted morals, whose founder was a twisted individual and you're trying to tell people off. Islamists are really hopeless.


----------



## Zaru (Jun 27, 2013)

Al Mudaari said:


> People (particularly Atheists and those who aren't that religious) are conditioned by their society in terms of what they believe is right and what they believe is wrong. Their belief is volatile based on what Society tells them, the same thing they may consider unacceptable, may all of a sudden, in 10 years be something they can fully accept. There's no doubt, that had they been living a 100 or so years ago, they'd see black people are sub-human and consider things like Torture as perfectly fine methods of justice.
> 
> Just slaves to your environment.



Religious people are conditioned by their society and religion in terms of what they believe is right and what they believe is wrong. Their belief is volatile based on what their religious leaders/clerics, imams etc. tell them, the same thing they may consider unacceptable, may all of a sudden, in 10 years be something they can fully accept, while something else is deemed unacceptable despite all reason and logic against it, and the belief system of converts rapidly changes in just few years. There's no doubt that they are CURRENTLY seeing non-religious people as sub-human and consider things like torture as perfectly fine methods of justice (e.g. stoning).

Just slaves to your indoctrination from birth. If you had grown up in a christian society with christian parents, the chance is 99% that you would be a christian. If you had grown up in China with Chinese parents the chance is 99% that you would believe in whatever the Chinese believe in.


----------



## Mael (Jun 27, 2013)

Al Mudaari, fapping to the brutal murder of Theo can Gogh since 2007.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 27, 2013)

Some people already know, but I used to be a homophobic, evangelical, socially conservative Christian.


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 27, 2013)

One more step towards marrying mai waifu. :33


----------



## Hero (Jun 27, 2013)

What made you change seto kaiba


----------



## Hitt (Jun 27, 2013)

As it stands we've reached the inflection point on this whole gay marriage thing.  (Some would say we reached it long earlier, but this is hugely significant).  This is mostly powered by a younger generation entering into the electorate who simply see no problem with homosexuals getting married.  

This whole process of allowing gay marriage will accelerate further when the Republican party finally realizes that if they don't realign themselves with at least with respect to this (and women's reproductive rights) they'll be chased right out of Washington.  When that happens it'll likely turn into a domino effect, with only the most backwards southern states (my state, SC, and the like) holding out.  You know, just like the civil rights movement in the 60s.  

Time flows like a river, and history repeats.


----------



## Zaru (Jun 27, 2013)

Hitt said:


> As it stands we've reached the inflection point on this whole gay marriage thing.  (Some would say we reached it long earlier, but this is hugely significant).  This is mostly powered by a younger generation entering into the electorate who simply see no problem with homosexuals getting married.
> 
> This whole process of allowing gay marriage will accelerate further when the Republican party finally realizes that if they don't realign themselves with at least with respect to this (and women's reproductive rights) they'll be chased right out of Washington.  When that happens it'll likely turn into a domino effect, with only the most backwards southern states (my state, SC, and the like) holding out.  You know, just like the civil rights movement in the 60s.
> 
> Time flows like a river, and history repeats.


I suspect that this has been said about republicans for at least half a century if not much longer, and it didn't hurt the ratio of republican to democratic presidents much...


----------



## Hitt (Jun 27, 2013)

Zaru said:


> I suspect that this has been said about republicans for at least half a century if not much longer, and it didn't hurt the ratio of republican to democratic presidents much...



How many Republican candidates do you think would win today if one were to openly proclaim mixed marriages were the tools of the devil and an abomination upon God?

You know, just like they did back in the 70s.

I'm not saying the party is finished, they just need to realign themselves and pursue other socially conservative interests, or better yet, focus on economic conservatism which has much higher support among all ages.


----------



## Zaru (Jun 27, 2013)

Hitt said:


> How many Republican candidates do you think would win today if one were to openly proclaim mixed marriages were the tools of the devil and an abomination upon God?
> 
> You know, just like they did back in the 70s.
> 
> I'm not saying the party is finished, they just need to realign themselves and pursue other socially conservative interests, or better yet, focus on economic conservatism which has much higher support among all ages.



Nixon was president into the 70s and that guy turned out to say stuff like "total jewish media domination" and "the whole problem is really the blacks". Granted, not in public, but it's not like you can't show a different face to the public.


----------



## Hitt (Jun 27, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Nixon was president into the 70s and that guy turned out to say stuff like "total jewish media domination" and "the whole problem is really the blacks". Granted, not in public, but it's not like you can't show a different face to the public.



Of course.  Heck there are several Republicans right now (and some Democrats...) who are racist bigoted fucks.  But they're damn sure not public about it.

And hence what I mean by "openly".  The time is rapidly closing, if not already closed, where a Republican can stand there and say gay marriage/homosexuality is an abomination and not expect to get thrown to the curb by public opinion.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 27, 2013)

Mael said:


> So we had the Islamic derp post, and now we've got the Christian derp post.
> 
> Where's your evidence?
> 
> ...



Credibility? For that God is in control or the end time? Even Jesus said he does not know when the Father will come. He says the time is always near because our lives our but a vapor. What will really matter 300 million years from now? We will be remebered? Will it matter who won the NCAA championship? Will it matter what next game console came out? No all that will matter is who is in Heaven and who is in Hell. All I ever want or care about is everyone's eternity because I would love to see you in Heaven one day Mael.



Seto Kaiba said:


> The time was supposed to come when his disciples were still around. Sure is taking a while.



Like I said no one knows but I know I will be ready if I am alive when He comes back. Also I can't remember the verse I'll look it up later but I think it's in one of the gospels or Revelations that it says the end time will have signs that storms will be crazy, kids will disobey, and all that jazz.



SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> You know, Jesus said 'love thy neighbor', 'be a good samaritan', and 'let he is without sin cast the first stone'. Yet you do none of that, yet consider yourself a Christian? Most conservative 'Christians' don't even understand Jesus' teachings, nor do they care about them. They just want to use the Bible as a tool to justify their own hatreds and prejudices.
> 
> Now which one do you think YOU are?



Lol what bro? All I said was God is in control. I didn't come on here and say, "Abombination! Burn all Homos!" Lol I dislike that this was overturned yes, but I follow God's teaching and morals so those are the standards I chose to live by. Heck we could get into a whole gay argument right now but I'd rather not. So I don't know where you got all that out of what I said.


----------



## Mael (Jun 27, 2013)

You're implying all of it, you nut.

You've basically resigned yourself to an existential concept, to which I kindly request you turn your human card in and just live about like a slug.  After all it's God's hands and you coming in here spouting that kind of nonsense is pretty indicative of your belief that allowing gays to enjoy federal marriage benefits is somehow going to create the wrath of God.


----------



## Zaru (Jun 27, 2013)

narutoXhinata=love said:


> Even Jesus said he does not know when the Father will come.



"Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.  And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.  And he will send out his angels with a trumpet blast, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.  "Learn a lesson from the fig tree. When its branch becomes tender and sprouts leaves, you know that summer is near.  In the same way, when you see all these things, know that he is near, at the gates.
Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.  Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. " (Matthew 24:29-35 NAB)


----------



## Mael (Jun 27, 2013)

It's been almost 2000 years.

Tick tock, Mr. Christian.


----------



## soulnova (Jun 27, 2013)

narutoXhinata=love said:


> Credibility? For that God is in control or the end time? Even Jesus said he does not know when the Father will come. He says the time is always near because our lives our but a vapor. What will really matter 300 million years from now? We will be remebered? Will it matter who won the NCAA championship? *Will it matter what next game console came out? *



 don't you dare going there.


----------



## Zaru (Jun 27, 2013)

The console wars are a ploy by satan to distract us from our virtues and deliver us into sin.


----------



## Mael (Jun 27, 2013)

soulnova said:


> don't you dare going there.



I remember when I went to Infantry Advanced Training at Fort Benning I had some kid explain to me that college and officer school wasn't worth it because only God knows when your time is up so there's no need to delay it and get to heaven.

If bludgeoning someone like that with my M16A4 wasn't a crime...


----------



## Hitt (Jun 27, 2013)

Hilariously, Christianity is supposed to be a fulfillment of a failed apocalyptic prophecy in the book of Daniel, which is in ITSELF a failed apocalyptic prophecy from an even earlier work.

That is, a Messiah will come to save the Jews, and the temple will be destroyed, and then God's final judgement will happen.   There were many so called "Messiahs" in this time period who thought they were bringing about this prophecy.

So yes, Christianity at its core is nothing more than an apocalyptic cult, that has since tried to expand on that when it became brutally clear to everyone it wasn't going to happen anytime soon.


----------



## Mael (Jun 27, 2013)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUn84C8xQ98[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Hitt (Jun 27, 2013)

Mael said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUn84C8xQ98[/YOUTUBE]



Separation of Church and State.

If only more politicians would point that out and announce it.  Cause apparently some of us need to be reminded of that fact.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 27, 2013)

Hero said:


> What made you change seto kaiba



I read the Bible, and lots of Encyclopedias.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jun 27, 2013)




----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jun 27, 2013)

I am amazed how poorly understood the institution of civil marriage actually is. It is not any part of the marriage itself, and simply does the following. 

a) It ascribes a certain legal status for questions involving certain laws for marriage, bankruptcy, child care, etc.
b) It binds a series of third parties to recognizing the marital status of the primary parties to the contract.
c) It grants certain tax privileges.
d) It gives special consideration in some public employment.
e) It enables easier access to certain government programs.
f) It frustrates access to certain government programs.

'b' and to some lesser extent 'e' are examples of where any marriage legally demands private individuals to accept it. But seeing as the consensus on this forum is that freedom from discrimination trumps freedom of association, that shouldn't concern anyone here.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 27, 2013)

What the hell is your problem here? Most people do understand that.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 27, 2013)

Ugh, getting really tired of other Christians.


----------



## Mael (Jun 27, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Ugh, getting really tired of other Christians.



Now you know how I feel too when I see people like Bachmann or narutoxhinata=love.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 27, 2013)

Mael said:


> Now you know how I feel too when I see people like Bachmann or narutoxhinata=love.


Bachmann is a softheaded tit.


----------



## lacey (Jun 27, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Ugh, getting really tired of other Christians.



#storyofmylife


----------



## Bioness (Jun 27, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I read the Bible, and lots of Encyclopedias.



Who would have thought the bible of all places could change a person's mind to be against religion. Now if only more people actually read it instead of misquoting it just to see how much shit is really inside.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jun 27, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> What the hell is your problem here? Most people do understand that.



I don't think they do. I support marriage equality after a fashion, but the congressmen aren't being precise with their language. For starters, first in that video is wrongly conceding that the decision about DOMA strengthens gay marriage in states. (Although the language of majority opinion is clearly intended to pave the way for a future decision requiring states to allow it). From there he is very confused.

1. "This decision was not imposed on the American people."

Well, what else is the _purpose_ of civil marriage if not to do exactly that? Although both parties tend to have differing views on what marriage _is_ and _ought to be_, they agree that marriage is a public good. Therefore, any law regarding marriage does impose whatever view inherent on it to all parties it binds to marriage contracts and any taxpayer provided for the benefits.

I would think he meant what I meant about DOMA except for this.

"It merely ratified what was in the hearts and minds of the great majority of the American people."

Is he speaking about support for DOMA being struck down or for the legalization of gay marriage? If the latter, I don't know what he can possibly mean by "the great majority" since I think the last number I saw was 55%. Even in the case of DOMA, it isn't at all clear that Section III of DOMA was opposed by "the great majority". I think it was 59%. Clear majorities, but not enough to push the repeal of DOMA through legislative means. Which means that the use of the word "ratification" heavily clouds what just happened. 

See, the issue here is that the their platform considers gay marriage a constitutional right, which puts it beyond the democratic process. However, only 53% of Americans, the last time I checked, believe gay marriage is a Constitutional right. Seeing as more and more Americans are warming up to gay marriage but few are willing to jump directly from "no gay marriage" to "Supreme Court requirement that all states allow gay marriage" they don't want to come across as undemocratic. So you get situations like with DOMA where President Obama pushed the case through two stages of appeal to affirm a decision that all parties were favorable to and which did not seek redress to any injury to either party. This forces the Democratic Party to present the issue as an affirmation of federalism that reflected the views of the voting public rather than as a constitutional decision on the rights of individuals. 

Then what is said next is the most clear indication that the issue of what civil marriage constitutes is being clouded. Rather than frame it in the often inflammatory rhetoric of "your freedom of association doesn't give you the freedom to discriminate", they present the issue in this way.

"If you don't want to recognize it from a religious point of view, that's your business."

Except then there would be no point to civil marriage. The purpose of the civil institution of marriage is to bring a uniform recognition to marriage not just from all levels of government, but from top to bottom in the private sector. Insurance companies, adoption agencies, hospitals, homeowner's associations, employers, etc, etc, etc. Now on this forum, I wouldn't expect opposition to that, because here, belief in the separation of Church and State is strong enough to contend that discrimination of any kind on religious grounds in the private sector is not to be tolerated. But I would prefer that be an open point of discussion.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Jun 27, 2013)

Mael said:


> You're implying all of it, you nut.
> 
> You've basically resigned yourself to an existential concept, to which I kindly request you turn your human card in and just live about like a slug.  After all it's God's hands and you coming in here spouting that kind of nonsense is pretty indicative of your belief that allowing gays to enjoy federal marriage benefits is somehow going to create the wrath of God.



Well if God destroyed Sodom for homosexuality something must of been wrong with it...



Zaru said:


> "Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.  And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.  And he will send out his angels with a trumpet blast, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.  "Learn a lesson from the fig tree. When its branch becomes tender and sprouts leaves, you know that summer is near.  In the same way, when you see all these things, know that he is near, at the gates.
> Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.  Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. " (Matthew 24:29-35 NAB)



Thanks Zaru 



Mael said:


> It's been almost 2000 years.
> 
> Tick tock, Mr. Christian.



Yup and nobody knows when He is coming so we better be ready!



soulnova said:


> don't you dare going there.


LOL! Yeah I didn't mean video games weren't fun or anything just in 300 million years it won't matter when the PS4 came out. haha



Mael said:


> I remember when I went to Infantry Advanced Training at Fort Benning I had some kid explain to me that college and officer school wasn't worth it because only God knows when your time is up so there's no need to delay it and get to heaven.
> 
> If bludgeoning someone like that with my M16A4 wasn't a crime...



Woah! Now thats what God does not want us to do. Jesus came to give life and give it abundantly! Most people just waste their whole lives waiting for "the end" when they could of done so much more with their lives!

Also I wanted to know what branch you where or are in Mael I asked before but never got a response broski?


----------



## Mael (Jun 27, 2013)

Yet you have no evidence it was God that did anything if Sodom actually did exist.

You Christfags are a hoot.

I'd tell you about the Army if I respected you, but I don't.  I don't respect you one molecule.  You are one of the worst people I've ever seen, not through any intentional malice but through the sheer ignorance of your religiosity.  I only wish the worst things upon people like you.  You remind me of Salafists.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 27, 2013)

narutoXhinata=love said:


> Well if God destroyed Sodom for homosexuality something must of been wrong with it...



1. Lot offered up his daughters to be gangraped, yet he's supposed to be the righteous one in the story.

2. The city was burned down because it was inhospitable and cruel, God had already decided to destroy the city before the aforementioned incident. 

3. The Bible is fiction. 



> Thanks Zaru



You didn't even read the passage, did you? That pretty much affirms that his 2nd coming was supposed to occur when his disciples were still alive. 



> Yup and nobody knows when He is coming so we better be ready!



He said he was coming before the first generation of Christians passed away. Obviously he's very late.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jun 27, 2013)

narutoXhinata=love said:


> Well if God destroyed Sodom for homosexuality something must of been wrong with it...


The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality: it had to do with the the inability of people to do sacred hospitality there. Here's the thing too: the mob that wanted to rape the angels? It has nothing to do with sexuality, it has to do with power, the mob wanted to show they had power over the Angels at Lot's house.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 27, 2013)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality: it had to do with the the inability of people to do sacred hospitality there. Here's the thing too: the mob that wanted to rape the angels? It has nothing to do with sexuality, it has to do with power, the mob wanted to show they had power over the Angels at Lot's house.



So the real question is does god value angels over us? Plenty of people rape and kill for power.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jun 27, 2013)

Hand Banana said:


> So the real question is does god value angels over us? Plenty of people rape and kill for power.


It was a test basically to see if there was any good left in the city. The angels are sent in guise as humans to see if they'll be treated right by the inhabitants. In most normal cities, they'd be protected as travelers, be able to sleep safely in an inn or a family who took them in for the night. Not so in Sodom-where a fricking MOB of people gathered to see them and then rape them to show their power over the travelers that enter the city.


----------



## morgaine4 (Jun 27, 2013)

All this "God" talk is frakking ridiculous (and irrelevant).  Not every American is religious, not every American who is religious believes in God or the concept of God, not every American who is religious who belives in God believe in an Abrahamic God, not every American who is religious who believes in an Abrahamic God is Christian.  If one is bigoted and chooses to blame one's religion, that's fine, go along on you merry way, preach whatever you feel is appropriate, up to a point that is one's right and nobody should take that away from a person; one has the right to believe what superstition zhe wills, but one does not have the right to impose those superstitions upon any other individual (MAYBE with the exception of one's child, though personally I feel that that after a certain extant that is inappropriate).

For anyone interested, MSNBC hosted a live hangout to discuss the DOMA and Prop H8 decisions.  It's long-ish, but there were some really interesting points.  Here's a link the recording from it:


----------



## IchLiebe (Jun 28, 2013)

Bioness said:


> Who would have thought the bible of all places could change a person's mind to be against religion. Now if only more people actually read it instead of misquoting it just to see how much shit is really inside.



It did mine.

I use to go to church all the time and grew up in the bible belt, 

I know believe we are the hybrid creation of an alien life form or advanced life form and neanderthals.


Religion isn't anything other than moral guidance.


----------



## Fiona (Jun 28, 2013)

This entire situation is completely alien to me. 

I grew up with a gay uncle who has had his life partner since i was 3 and my parents raised me in an Atheist home. I was taught to not judge people and never be homophobic. 

I guess i lack the understanding of why it is _such_ a massive ordeal if two people who love each other decide to make a commitment to each other and how this somehow makes some people from across the country toss and turn in their beds at night. 

They deserve every right to be happy just like everyone else. The beliefs of the many should not limit the Happiness of the few. 

Its just common decency.


----------



## Corruption (Jun 28, 2013)

EvilMoogle said:


> What I don't get is why doesn't the slippery slope ever go the other direction?
> 
> "If Texas can ban gay marriage in the state what's to stop them from banning all marriage?  We need to make our stand now and stop this before everyone's divorced by overreaching government!"



It can go the other way, but rational people almost never use a slippery slope argument because 95% of the time it's complete bullshit.


----------



## Narcissus (Jun 28, 2013)

IchLiebe said:


> Religion isn't anything other than moral guidance.



Rubbish. It isn't moral guidance either, considering religions are full of immoral messages and evil deities. You do not need religion for morality.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jun 28, 2013)

Narcissus said:


> Rubbish. It isn't moral guidance either, considering religions are full of immoral messages and evil deities. You do not need religion for morality.


So when one of the crucial messages is 'Be a good person', 'don't judge lest ye be judged', and 'love they neighbor' means they all have to be disregarded for the stuff that doesn't fit in the modern day? Can you stop overgeneralizing and ignoring the good stuff that resonates in the modern day?


----------



## morgaine4 (Jun 28, 2013)

It doesn't matter that there are some good moral messages found throughout all religious schools of thought, evidence suggest that quite a bit of human moral fiber precedes the creation of religion, precedes the existence of Homo sapiens sapiens; much of our innate moral fiber is related to the fact that we are social primates.  Religions can teach moral lessons, but religions are not at all necessary to be moral (and can often be the cause of amoral actions).


----------



## Narcissus (Jun 28, 2013)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> So when one of the crucial messages is 'Be a good person', 'don't judge lest ye be judged', and 'love they neighbor' means they all have to be disregarded for the stuff that doesn't fit in the modern day?


Stop, straw manning what I said does not equate to giving a valid response.

The messages you are quoting are clear examples of cherry picking, because you blantly ignore the the bad messages from the same source material. Furthermore, you don't need said source material to know and act upon these moral messages. 

Religions having some good messages is irrelevant when they hypocritically teach immoral ones as well.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jun 28, 2013)

Narcissus said:


> Stop, straw manning what I said does not equate to giving a valid response.
> 
> The messages you are quoting are clear examples of cherry picking, because you blantly ignore the the bad messages from the same source material. Furthermore, you don't need said source material to know and act upon these moral messages.
> 
> Religions having some good messages is irrelevant when they hypocritically teach immoral ones as well.


So I guess according to you ,a progressive, liberal church is still wrong since its a religion right, Narcissus? And you're making overreaching generalizations about religion to justify your own hatred of it.


----------



## Narcissus (Jun 28, 2013)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> So I guess according to you ,a progressive, liberal church is still wrong since its a religion right, Narcissus? And you're making overreaching generalizations about religion to justify your own hatred of it.



Nonsense. You are cherry picking and blatantly ignoring the negative, immoral messages found in the very source material that religions are based off of. There isn't any generalization on my part. There is a lot of straw manning from you however. 

If you have to ignore the negatives and focus only on the positives, you informally concede that there is hypocrisy in the foundation of the religion. You also ignore that religion isn't necessary for those few good qualities.


----------



## SubtleObscurantist (Jun 28, 2013)

Logically, in a godless universe, religions don't matter and are simply institutions that are selected in and out of existence over time to carry moral and cultural traditions that a sufficient number of people want to mediate their interests in society.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jun 28, 2013)

Narcissus said:


> Nonsense. You are cherry picking and blatantly ignoring the negative, immoral messages found in the very source material that religions are based off of. There isn't any generalization on my part. There is a lot of straw manning from you however.
> 
> If you have to ignore the negatives and focus only on the positives, you informally concede that there is hypocrisy in the foundation of the religion. You also ignore that religion isn't necessary for those few good qualities.


I ignore which doesn't fit in today's life. You focus on the outdated, instead of the stuff which resonates. You have to realize that when the Bible was written, it was 2000 years ago and there's gonna be a LOT of dissonance. But there is also stuff that fits today's life which is positive and shouldn't be ignored or brushed off.

Is that really a hard concept for you? Its either all or none in your mind?


----------



## Narcissus (Jun 29, 2013)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> I ignore


 Then you concede that you pick and choose what you want to. Good job.





> You focus on the outdated


No, I am focusing on the teachings of the source material, many of which are immoral and some are still considered to apply today. I have said there are some moral messages in the religion, but that you don't need those religions for the messages. On the other hand,  you are admitting to openly ignoring anything that's negative.





> Its either all or none in your mind?


What it is for me, is not distorting religion to fit my own views and then calling it something it isn't... because that's exactly what you're doing. 

Even if I allowed you to get away with ignoring the immoral messages,  you still have to explain the evil actions of the Gods, considering those are taught to be historical facts.

If you're going to cut and paste different aspects of religion,  you have conceded that there was something wrong with it to begin with.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jun 29, 2013)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> I ignore which doesn't fit in today's life. You focus on the outdated, instead of the stuff which resonates. You have to realize that when the Bible was written, it was 2000 years ago and there's gonna be a LOT of dissonance. But there is also stuff that fits today's life which is positive and shouldn't be ignored or brushed off.
> 
> Is that really a hard concept for you? Its either all or none in your mind?



Then you must admit that there's nothing inherently valuable about religion. If you're capable of deciding which parts are good and which are bad, then what do you need religion for at all?


----------



## Zaru (Jun 29, 2013)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> I ignore which doesn't fit in today's life.



How can you even type that without bleeding out of your eyes from cognitive dissonance? When you say and act like you strongly believe in something, but then disregard the aspects of that belief that are uncomfortable for you for social or selfish reasons, then you're not actually part of that religion. You have no authority to decide which parts are outdated and which parts aren't. You cherry-pick to fill a void in your mind in a way that's convenient for you.

If such people stopped calling themselves christian/muslim/whatever they pretend to be part of and just admitted to having a personal brand of spirituality, I wouldn't have a problem with it.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jun 29, 2013)

This needs to be watched by everyone


----------



## Mael (Jun 29, 2013)

Zaru said:


> How can you even type that without bleeding out of your eyes from cognitive dissonance? When you say and act like you strongly believe in something, but then disregard the aspects of that belief that are uncomfortable for you for social or selfish reasons, then you're not actually part of that religion. You have no authority to decide which parts are outdated and which parts aren't. You cherry-pick to fill a void in your mind in a way that's convenient for you.
> 
> If such people stopped calling themselves christian/muslim/whatever they pretend to be part of and just admitted to having a personal brand of spirituality, I wouldn't have a problem with it.



I'm just a relativist...and never felt more comfortable.


----------



## Pilaf (Jun 29, 2013)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> So when one of the crucial messages is 'Be a good person', 'don't judge lest ye be judged', and 'love they neighbor' means they all have to be disregarded for the stuff that doesn't fit in the modern day? Can you stop overgeneralizing and ignoring the good stuff that resonates in the modern day?



You have to dig through a lot of truly horrible rubbish and outright fantasy to get to the few good moral messages in the Bible. It's like painstakingly picking edible corn out of shit.


----------



## lacey (Jun 29, 2013)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> I ignore which doesn't fit in today's life. You focus on the outdated, instead of the stuff which resonates. You have to realize that when the Bible was written, it was 2000 years ago and there's gonna be a LOT of dissonance. But there is also stuff that fits today's life which is positive and shouldn't be ignored or brushed off.



How are you to know what's relevant and what isn't? Everyone interprets the bible in different ways, and so what's relevant to you may not be relevant to someone else.  

Also:


Pilaf said:


> You have to dig through a lot of truly horrible rubbish and outright fantasy to get to the few good moral messages in the Bible. It's like painstakingly picking edible corn out of shit.


----------



## Mael (Jun 29, 2013)

Just read it like Mr. Sulu.


----------

