US Supreme Court rules gay marriage is legal nationwide

[xxMATTGxx]

The US Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex marriage is a legal right across the United States.

In a historic 5-4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority ruled that marriage is all constitutional right.

Before the ruling on Thursday, gay couples could marry in 37 states in addition to Washington DC.

It is unclear how soon marriage licences will be issued in states where gay unions were previously prohibited.


Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33290341?post_id=558799933_10153184394909934#_=_

[Kyle]

I guess your bbc notifications are quicker than mine mattg

This is a worrying prospect for the bible belt and strong conservative states, I'm sure they will still find a way to ostracize gay couples.

[dbgtz]

I'd expect backlash from certain states over this and it's also election year for those in the USA so will be interesting to see this develop. I'd still rather see the state divorced from religion though.

[Circadia]

Yay finally! Although I'm betting quite a few southern states are bit pissed off

[FlyingJesus]

IT IS THE END OF DAYS, SINNERS EVERYWHERE

[-:Undertaker:-]

Absurd that federal authorities are getting involved in the issue of marriage. It's a state matter, if that.

[FlyingJesus]

When it's connected legally to so many other things it has to be a federal matter

[-:Undertaker:-]

When it's connected legally to so many other things it has to be a federal matter

You can twist anything that way to apply to anything.

America is supposed to have a weak federal government, with strong states - gay marriage is an issue so small it has no place with the federal government. Indeed, if I were a US state I would be making moves right now to make gay marriage so hard to conduct simply to spite an out of control federal branch.

If California wants gay marriage, fine. If Alabama doesn't want gay marriage, fine.

[e5]

Saw this all over snapchat and twitter! Good news, LOVE WINS

[Kyle]

http://i.imgur.com/0jpgH3d.gif

[-:Undertaker:-]

Kyle; it's worth pointing out then whenever gay marriage has come to a public vote it's lost apart from like once. It only won because of meddling liberal judges.

Not a victory to be all that proud of.

[xxMATTGxx]

http://i.imgur.com/0jpgH3d.gif

Love it

[Chippiewill]

it's worth pointing out then whenever gay marriage has come to a public vote it's lost apart from like once. It only won because of meddling liberal judges.
Or maybe the general public doesn't get to vote on civil liberties.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Or maybe the general public doesn't get to vote on civil liberties.

It evidently does in some states hence why it has lost nearly every public vote it's been put to. I do understand what you mean though, but then again that's just another reason for a unitary state and sovereign parliamentary system like our own rather than a federal system with a constitution like the United States.

[karter]

yay congrats hopefully other countries will follow or at least get rid of the homophobic laws

[FlyingJesus]

gay marriage is an issue so small it has no place with the federal government

Except it's not - because so many other legal and social functions revolve around the idea of legal coupling. I agree that it's SUPPOSED to be, and realistically there should never have been privileges given in a secular country to those who choose a rather specific form of religious living arrangement, but when you have a country where people can literally be kicked out of their homes for no other reason than them having a boyfriend rather than a wife then these things do have to be addressed nationally

[Chippiewill]

America is supposed to have a weak federal government, with strong states - gay marriage is an issue so small it has no place with the federal government.
One of the few issues the federal government is definitely responsible for is upholding the constitution on which the SCOTUS had made its ruling.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Except it's not - because so many other legal and social functions revolve around the idea of legal coupling. I agree that it's SUPPOSED to be, and realistically there should never have been privileges given in a secular country to those who choose a rather specific form of religious living arrangement, but when you have a country where people can literally be kicked out of their homes for no other reason than them having a boyfriend rather than a wife then these things do have to be addressed nationally

In any system of law or differing law across one sovereign state there will always be legal loopholes and people who fall through them. That however isn't justification for the US Supreme Court to enact what is a political and moral issue and dictate that to the states when time and time again the issue has demonstrated it doesn't have public support as it fails at the ballot box.

I can understand the need for states to recognise a gay marriage (which I believe was the case) but that is different to performing them themselves. In other words, Alabama should be compelled to recognise the legality of a Californian couple's union but Alabama certainly shouldn't be forced to conduct similar unions.


One of the few issues the federal government is definitely responsible for is upholding the constitution on which the SCOTUS had made its ruling.

The US Supreme Court, like the US Presidency these days, appears to have a very strange idea of what the constitution applies to. Nowhere did the Founding Fathers sit down and write that gay marriage is equivilent to freedom of speech or the right to bear arms. It's clearly a state-level issue yet activist liberal judges have been pissed for a long time that despite having celebrity and establishment backing, ballots on gay marriage keep returning No's each and every time.

The role of the federal government isn't even supposed to include competences such as education, healthcare - that's state level too, or should be/was.

[Chippiewill]

The US Supreme Court, like the US Presidency these days, appears to have a very strange idea of what the constitution applies to. Nowhere did the Founding Fathers sit down and write that gay marriage is equivilent to freedom of speech or the right to bear arms. It's clearly a state-level issue yet activist liberal judges have been pissed for a long time that despite having celebrity and establishment backing, ballots on gay marriage keep returning No's each and every time.
As I said before, ballots mean jack **** when it comes to civil liberties. A precedent was set a long time ago that Marriage is protected by the constitution when bans on interracial marriage were ruled unconstitutional therefore a person's right to marry any other person is protected.

[-:Undertaker:-]

As I said before, ballots mean jack **** when it comes to civil liberties. A precedent was set a long time ago that Marriage is protected by the constitution when bans on interracial marriage were ruled unconstitutional therefore a person's right to marry any other person is protected.

The comparison between gay marriage though and interracial marriage is absurd, and many blacks (who are among the biggest opponents of gay marriage in America as a demographic group) reject that comparison too. The banning of interracial marriages was an absurd law that discriminated against people for something that they could not help: marriage laws on the other hand never discriminated against gay people just gay people could only get married if to a woman - like everybody else. In other words, it wasn't a discriminatory law standing in the way but the very definition of the concept itself.

A lot of black Americans can't stand having their skin colour compared with a behaviour.

[Chippiewill]

The comparison between gay marriage though and interracial marriage is absurd, and many blacks (who are among the biggest opponents of gay marriage in America as a demographic group) reject that comparison too. The banning of interracial marriages was an absurd law that discriminated against people for something that they could not help: marriage laws on the other hand never discriminated against gay people just gay people could only get married if to a woman - like everybody else. In other words, it wasn't a discriminatory law standing in the way but the very definition of the concept itself.

A lot of black Americans can't stand having their skin colour compared with a behaviour.
Read again Dan, interracial marriage, not black marriage. Blacks could get married to anyone of the same skin colour just as much as anyone else - it wasn't discriminatory by your definition.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Read again Dan, interracial marriage, not black marriage. Blacks could get married to anyone of the same skin colour just as much as anyone else - it wasn't discriminatory by your definition.

That's what I meant.

Black man + white woman = marriage aka union between a man and a woman. A law preventing this purely on skin tone was a civil liberty issue.

Man + man = marriage.... well that's different. By that you're demanding to change the definition of marriage, and that is a public issue not a court issue.

[Chippiewill]

That's what I meant.

Black man + white woman = marriage aka union between a man and a woman. A law preventing this purely on skin tone was a civil liberty issue.

Man + man = marriage.... well that's different. By that you're demanding to change the definition of marriage, and that is a public issue not a court issue.

Yes, but back then the definition of marriage was a union between a man and a woman of the same race - this was ruled unconstitutional and became (In the strictest form) union between a man and a woman. Today this was again ruled unconstitutional and became union between two people.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes, but back then the definition of marriage was a union between a man and a woman of the same race - this was ruled unconstitutional and became (In the strictest form) union between a man and a woman. Today this was again ruled unconstitutional and became union between two people.

It 'changed' aka was corrected as the colour of your skin makes no difference. Homosexual relations on the other hand are a behaviour.

And all this isn't my opinion either I just find it interesting if these same arguments would be coming from liberals had say a federal-level enactment on the definition of marriage had forced liberal states like California and New York to cease permitting gay marriage. I can imagine the outrage.

[Chippiewill]

It 'changed' aka was corrected as the colour of your skin makes no difference. Homosexual relations on the other hand are a behaviour.That's some serious ******* mental gymnastics you're going through there Dan. Homosexual relations make no difference.


I just find it interesting if these same arguments would be coming from liberals had say a federal-level enactment on the definition of marriage had forced liberal states like California and New York to cease permitting gay marriage. I can imagine the outrage.You mean the argument that it's unconstitutional? I'd still be making the same argument.

[The Don]

It 'changed' aka was corrected as the colour of your skin makes no difference. Homosexual relations on the other hand are a behaviour.

And all this isn't my opinion either I just find it interesting if these same arguments would be coming from liberals had say a federal-level enactment on the definition of marriage had forced liberal states like California and New York to cease permitting gay marriage. I can imagine the outrage.

Marrying people of a different gender is as much of a behaviour as is marrying people of a different race.

- - - Updated - - -


That's some serious ******* mental gymnastics you're going through there Dan. Homosexual relations make no difference.

You mean the argument that it's unconstitutional? I'd still be making the same argument.

Hilarious, I typed a comment about Dan's talent for performing mental gymnastics but deleted it, glad someone else mentioned it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

That's some serious ******* mental gymnastics you're going through there Dan. Homosexual relations make no difference.

It's a common argument used, again this isn't necessarily my view (mine is in flux) but I do see the logic behind it.


You mean the argument that it's unconstitutional? I'd still be making the same argument.

I mean had the US Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was unconstitutional and sided with say a Republican Congress which wanted to ban it nationwide, if California and other liberal states were then forced to ban it and define marriage as between one man and one woman then how would all those arguing for federal involvement take it? Well it's the same but vice versa today with states like Alabama.


Marrying people of a different gender is as much of a behaviour as is marrying people of a different race.

Not so, the colour of my skin to yours doesn't change our relations/make us different. Homosexual behaviour to heterosexual behaviour is.

[Chippiewill]

Not so, the colour of my skin to yours doesn't change our relations/make us different. Homosexual behaviour to heterosexual behaviour is.
Way back in the 60s people did think it made relations different.

[FlyingJesus]

The banning of interracial marriages was an absurd law that discriminated against people for something that they could not help: marriage laws on the other hand never discriminated against gay people just gay people could only get married if to a woman - like everybody else.

By that same logic black people in the 50s COULD just marry other people of their own colour - like everybody else. You're not making an argument that works here

[Cabl]

Was about time! Freedom for love any sex you want. But this might bring war as not everyone is okay with this world wide.
Ditch the Label

[Kyle]

Should be interesting to see which demographics choose to marry and what the divorce statistics over the next ten years are. I know they're particularly high for interracial couples, wonder what the case will be for the homos.

[The Don]

Not so, the colour of my skin to yours doesn't change our relations/make us different. Homosexual behaviour to heterosexual behaviour is.

You can choose not to marry people of a different race like you can choose not to marry people of a different gender. You've just drawn an arbitrary line and said that homosexual behaviour is different to heterosexual behaviour much like those arguing against interracial marriage drew an arbitrary line based on race.

[AgnesIO]

Sorry chaps, but interracial people of opposite genders being together is evidently different to two people of the same sex...

Stupid to suggest otherwise.

[FlyingJesus]

I agree with that but the logic being attempted still didn't hold up

[The Don]

Sorry chaps, but interracial people of opposite genders being together is evidently different to two people of the same sex...

Stupid to suggest otherwise.

Yes, but both were similarly prohibited for arbitrary reasons.

[AgnesIO]

Nope, but both were similarly prohibited for arbitrary reasons.

How can you be comparing the two?

Two penises/two vaginas is evidently different to one of each. One black penis and one white vagina clearly still has all of the biological capabilities of two of the same race.

[The Don]

How can you be comparing the two?

Two penises/two vaginas is evidently different to one of each. One black penis and one white vagina clearly still has all of the biological capabilities of two of the same race.

I changed 'Nope' to 'Yes' to make it clear that obviously the two are different. The treatment of both can be compared though since they were both prohibited and both had no real reason to have been.

[AgnesIO]

I changed 'Nope' to 'Yes' to make it clear that obviously the two are different. The treatment of both can be compared though since they were both prohibited and both had no real reason to have been.

Apologies, your original post makes more sense now :P

I disagree on your latter point though. Marriage between man and woman was prohibited (and still is in most of the world) because marriage has - throughout history - been the start of a family, which requires one person from each of the two sexes. You cannot make a natural family with two men or two women.

[lemons]

the times are changing

go americas

[MKR&*42]

Wonderful news. I honestly thought I wouldn't see same sex marriage legalised throughout the whole of the USA for quite a while.

[xxMATTGxx]

614611810415681536

[Kardan]

Go America!

http://i.imgur.com/MAXgI8q.jpg

[Matt]

good news. I personally think it's about time this happened and I hope a majority of other countries follow (cough Australia). I understand people are angry that the federal government got involved, but I'm all for consistency and think it's about time they did. America has the power to sway other countries too and I hope Tony Abbot finally sees sense and does the same (or at least does a referendum or something lol).

[-:Undertaker:-]

good news. I personally think it's about time this happened and I hope a majority of other countries follow (cough Australia). I understand people are angry that the federal government got involved, but I'm all for consistency and think it's about time they did. America has the power to sway other countries too and I hope Tony Abbot finally sees sense and does the same (or at least does a referendum or something lol).

Why would you be pushing for consistency in what is a federal state? That's like wishing the rules of gravity away.

[Matt]

Why would you be pushing for consistency in what is a federal state? That's like wishing the rules of gravity away.

Because I think everyone has the right to marry who they love, regardless. Having some states legalising it and others not, isn't fair. I don't really care about the political view concerning marriage equality at all and think it's wrong for politicians to be deciding who can marry who.

Your post confused me tbh as I didn't understand the federal state part or what the gravity bit had to do with marriage so I just guessed.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Because I think everyone has the right to marry who they love, regardless. Having some states legalising it and others not, isn't fair. I don't really care about the political view concerning marriage equality at all and think it's wrong for politicians to be deciding who can marry who.

Your post confused me tbh as I didn't understand the federal state part or what the gravity bit had to do with marriage so I just guessed.

Yeah but that it my point. It doesn't matter what you think when you live in a federal state. It matters what you think in relation to your own home state, but other states which may have different opinions to your own? It's none of your business. The idea is that they are left to their own affairs in a federal state. If you start to use federal authorities to impose your will, then what is in future to stop those with completely opposite opinions to you doing the same to your home state. Answer: nothing, and that's a great shame because America is now going to see more and more centralisation over issues which aren't federal issues.

If the Republicans legislated at a federal level to ban abortion, make divorse easier and restore the death penalty you'd be pretty pissed, right?

[Matt]

Yeah but that it my point. It doesn't matter what you think when you live in a federal state. It matters what you think in relation to your own home state, but other states which may have different opinions to your own? It's none of your business. The idea is that they are left to their own affairs in a federal state. If you start to use federal authorities to impose your will, then what is in future to stop those with completely opposite opinions to you doing the same to your home state. Answer: nothing, and that's a great shame because America is now going to see more and more centralisation over issues which aren't federal issues.

If the Republicans legislated at a federal level to ban abortion, make divorse easier and restore the death penalty you'd be pretty pissed, right?

I don't understand any of that.

I think you belong to a very small minority who is against this. Look at social media.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't understand any of that.

You know how America has states right? The United States is designed to have a federal government which looks after issues such as military, foreign affairs, central banking and the US states are then incharge of their own education, healthcare, social policy, transport etc. This is unlike the United Kingdom where we have one sovereign parliament which can make decisions on anything for the whole of the country.

And my point is, by you ignoring the political setup of the US to have your gay marriage implemented "because consistency" means this: what is to then stop somebody like me who wants the death penalty restored imposing it on states you'd feel at home at such as California, Washington or New York?

You wouldn't like it in the same way that states like Alabama, Texas and Tennessee don't like your side using federal powers to impose gay marriage on them.


I think you belong to a very small minority who is against this. Look at social media.

I haven't actually expressed an opinion on the matter itself and my thinking on that would probably surprise you.

In any case, it's common for people to confuse Facebook, Twitter, celebrities and their circle of friends as public opinion. The fact is that whenever gay marriage has come up for a public vote in America, it has been voted down. Despite state backing. Despite polling. Despite celebrity backing. Despite millions in funding from activist groups. Those who oppose it, at least in the US, are actually - going by actual votes and not Twitter - the majority (just).

[shiver]

is this undertaker dude for real? such bitterness over a happy occasion! someone take one for the team and massage his prostate and his opinion might change

CONGRATS GAY AMERICANS, LIVE IN HAPPINESS 5EVA!

[Chippiewill]

And my point is, by you ignoring the political setup of the US to have your gay marriage implemented "because consistency" means this: what is to then stop somebody like me who wants the death penalty restored imposing it on states you'd feel at home at such as California, Washington or New York?
If you could argue it's against the constitution not to have the death penalty then go right ahead.

[AgnesIO]

I don't understand any of that.

I think you belong to a very small minority who is against this. Look at social media.

Completely untrue. 38m people in Uganda - vast majority would be against this, along with vast numbers of other African populations. 1.57bn muslims - vast majority would be against this. I could go on - the world is no where near being 'in favour' of gay people. Social media paints a very false picture of the world. Very false indeed.

[xxMATTGxx]

is this undertaker dude for real? such bitterness over a happy occasion! someone take one for the team and massage his prostate and his opinion might change

CONGRATS GAY AMERICANS, LIVE IN HAPPINESS 5EVA!

Yeah he's for real, he'll be like this until his death bed.

[Joe]

At the end of the day who gives a ****, anyone can love whoever they want and should have the legal right to show it. Go America!

[shiver]

Yeah he's for real, he'll be like this until his death bed.
must be sad 2 live such a pathetic existence.

[-:Undertaker:-]

must be sad 2 live such a pathetic existence.

You and others would be surprised to know I am actually kind of in favour of gay marriage nowadays, the reasoning being that as gay people have children it's best for children to have parents who are in a stable marriage. One can hold such a view, but be against unconstitutional means to pass legislation.

And i'm also doing my job as Debates Leader in provoking discussion so instead of a boring thead of "woo how great xx" x10 we've had an interesting discussion on both gay marriage itself as well as the American constitutional system and states rights. So chill out and remember it's a forum: to discuss stuff.

[dbgtz]

It's funny that people are personally attacking undertaker for simply having a different view. Only like their own beliefs enforced eh :P

[Supreme]

Well, this is going to cause riots?

[FlyingJesus]

It's funny that people are personally attacking undertaker for simply having a different view. Only like their own beliefs enforced eh :P

"It's my opinion!!!!!!!!!" is not and will never be a good excuse for bigotry. It's not a case of being different, it's a case of spouting nonsense and openly being a troll - he literally just admitted to being offensive and hateful just to provoke a response, and tried to justify it using his role which we all know he's almost uniquely unqualified for


but be against unconstitutional means to pass legislation.

If you read what's actually happened you'd see that what is really found to be unconstitutional is marriage inequality, not national protection of their people

[dbgtz]

"It's my opinion!!!!!!!!!" is not and will never be a good excuse for bigotry. It's not a case of being different, it's a case of spouting nonsense and openly being a troll - he literally just admitted to being offensive and hateful just to provoke a response, and tried to justify it using his role which we all know he's almost uniquely unqualified for

Going by the oxford dictionary definition "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself", I fail to see how he has done that in this thread (but feel free to point it out to me). It's not bigotry to merely disagree. Anyway, his main point from which I saw is that he thinks it should be a states decision to allow gay marriage or not.

[-:Undertaker:-]

FlyingJesus; says I am being hateful and offensive.

So arguing that gay marriage is a matter for US states is hateful and offensive? What an idiot.

[FlyingJesus]

Bigotry is a refusal to accept fact in preference to dogma or blind ignorance (to use the British terminology as opposed to the Americanism which just means a prejudice)

And no, arguing that something that affects a huge amount of civil liberties is a small matter that shouldn't be protected by a national government, and that banning gay marriage isn't discrimination because you can just "choose" to act straight (while pretending that this would in some way preserve the sanctity of marriage...) is what's hateful and offensive. It's your poor reasoning in this and pretty much all matters that makes you look stupid, not necessarily the conclusions you draw from them

[Kyle]

Let's all post the same thing and offend nobody and everything will be perfect.

don't be such a gaylord.

[dbgtz]

Bigotry is a refusal to accept fact in preference to dogma or blind ignorance (to use the British terminology as opposed to the Americanism which just means a prejudice)

And no, arguing that something that affects a huge amount of civil liberties is a small matter that shouldn't be protected by a national government, and that banning gay marriage isn't discrimination because you can just "choose" to act straight (while pretending that this would in some way preserve the sanctity of marriage...) is what's hateful and offensive. It's your poor reasoning in this and pretty much all matters that makes you look stupid, not necessarily the conclusions you draw from them

Oxford dictionary... "Americanism". Please stop trying to redefine the word or at least give me a source which defines the word in such a way.

In the first sentence of the 2nd uh "paragraph", I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Are you saying federal government should get involved in this? If so, that's merely your preference for a powerful federal government, whereas he sees the power should be in individual states hands. That in itself has nothing to do with his stance on gay marriage, merely letting it be decided on a more local level. It may be offensive to some (though perhaps not to others, I'm not really in a position to judge) but you don't care if he gets offended so why should he care vice versa? That still doesn't make him a bigot. It's debatable if it's hateful, but I won't get into that since I didn't make the statement nor do I care enough about gay marriage as a whole. To no surprise either, you resort to insults to help make your own argument appear more valid.

[The Don]

Oxford dictionary... "Americanism". Please stop trying to redefine the word or at least give me a source which defines the word in such a way.

"The concept of Bigotry can have slightly different meanings in American and British English.

In British English it refers to a state of mind where a person is obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerant of the people who hold them.[1][2]

In American English, the term can be used similarly; however, it can also be used to refer to intolerance towards a group of people in general based on their group characteristics such as race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.[3][4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

[dbgtz]

"The concept of Bigotry can have slightly different meanings in American and British English.

In British English it refers to a state of mind where a person is obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerant of the people who hold them.[1][2]

In American English, the term can be used similarly; however, it can also be used to refer to intolerance towards a group of people in general based on their group characteristics such as race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.[3][4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

[1] links to the Oxford dictionary where I got my source and mentions nothing of what was said prior to it. [2] is a slightly definition, yes, but still not like what FJ said (and is actually still different to what it was meant to be a source to).

[The Don]

[1] links to the Oxford dictionary where I got my source and mentions nothing of what was said prior to it. [2] is a slightly definition, yes, but still not like what FJ said (and is actually still different to what it was meant to be a source to).

The second link is to the Cambridge definition which is pretty much what fj said http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/bigot
don't really want to get into a big debate over semantics anyway, just pointing out that he isn't trying to redefine the word.

[dbgtz]

The second link is to the Cambridge definition which is pretty much what fj said http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/bigot
don't really want to get into a big debate over semantics anyway, just pointing out that he isn't trying to redefine the word.

It lacks the keyword "fact".

Lmao I like how off topic this got but OK

[FlyingJesus]

In the first sentence of the 2nd uh "paragraph", I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

Then try reading it. The words are right there, it's a response to Dan's post where he as usual made up an argument to attribute to me that I hadn't made at all, and there's really no way to explain it further other than repeating myself

[October]

Absurd that federal authorities are getting involved in the issue of marriage. It's a state matter, if that.Almost every other country that has legalized gay marriage has done so on a federal level.


It evidently does in some states hence why it has lost nearly every public vote it's been put to. I do understand what you mean though, but then again that's just another reason for a unitary state and sovereign parliamentary system like our own rather than a federal system with a constitution like the United States.In the US, we often have voted to legalize it at a state level, but then judges ban it again.

- - - Updated - - -


You and others would be surprised to know I am actually kind of in favour of gay marriage nowadays, the reasoning being that as gay people have children it's best for children to have parents who are in a stable marriage. One can hold such a view, but be against unconstitutional means to pass legislation.

And i'm also doing my job as Debates Leader in provoking discussion so instead of a boring thead of "woo how great xx" x10 we've had an interesting discussion on both gay marriage itself as well as the American constitutional system and states rights. So chill out and remember it's a forum: to discuss stuff.
This isn't in debates, though, so it was kind of unnecessary imo. And if that is the only reason you're in favor of gay marriage then I'd hate to say it but you really aren't.

[dbgtz]

Then try reading it. The words are right there, it's a response to Dan's post where he as usual made up an argument to attribute to me that I hadn't made at all, and there's really no way to explain it further other than repeating myself

Reread, understood, my initial response is still mostly valid.

[AgnesIO]

Almost every other country that has legalized gay marriage has done so on a federal level.

In the US, we often have voted to legalize it at a state level, but then judges ban it again.

- - - Updated - - -


This isn't in debates, though, so it was kind of unnecessary imo. And if that is the only reason you're in favor of gay marriage then I'd hate to say it but you really aren't.

Forum: a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

You are using a forum. The whole point in a forum is for ideas and views to be aired and discussed.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's always amazing how those who preach tolerance are most intolerant of views that differ to their own, as page 7 of this thread has shown.


And if that is the only reason you're in favor of gay marriage then I'd hate to say it but you really aren't.

Uhm, that is what I view the purpose of marriage as. That's what every major religion views marriage as.

Let me guess why you back it... because of lurveeeeeee awh. But that isn't a valid reason to back a social reform in society.

[God]

It evidently does in some states hence why it has lost nearly every public vote it's been put to. I do understand what you mean though, but then again that's just another reason for a unitary state and sovereign parliamentary system like our own rather than a federal system with a constitution like the United States.

The judges ruled that this was indeed part of the constitution.... They didn't make a new law, they clarified it.

[Zak]

It's always amazing how those who preach tolerance are most intolerant of views that differ to their own.

Amen to that

[FlyingJesus]

Run out of arguments? Try throwing out a tired ad hom and make assumptions about people that you have no basis for *+*+*+*+

And yeah I am intolerant of people who are provably incorrect about things and still try to teach their bigotry as though it were fact

[OldLoveSong]

wonder how this is going to go over with the religious freedom act inregards to pastors and so forth that will refuse to marry same sex couples

[GommeInc]

Great news. As per usual, the courts are the only ones that defend the innocent and are the protectors of issues of the heart. Well done US Supreme Court, even though it was only just a majority.

It's amazing how the politicians find it so difficult to read an out of date and dodgy constitution, yet judges (whose job it is to protect it) have no difficulty in saying marriage between two consenting human beings is perfectly within it. There's a reason Benjamin Franklin (I think?) said the constitution should be re-written every decade or so, to stop past Governments dictating what future Governments can and cannot do.

Love is love, marriage is but a contract and common sense should always rule. Not bible worshipping, frigid, hateful human beings.

[Sian]

It's a human rights issue now, so I think federal courts, governments etc are quite right to clarify and rule if need be.

So yay.

[GommeInc]

It's a human rights issue now, so I think federal courts, governments etc are quite right to clarify and rule if need be.

So yay.
It's one of those human rights meets constitutional law issues, and seeing as the constitution says nothing about hating the gays, the blacks, the women etc, then the courts can interpret it as they see fit. Sod the politicians. If they lack a moral and compassionate compass, then that's their problem, not the people's :P

[AgnesIO]

Sorry chaps, but interracial people of opposite genders being together is evidently different to two people of the same sex...

Stupid to suggest otherwise.

Whoever -repped me for this post claiming it was 'homophobic', please look up the definition for 'homophobia'.

Pointing out that two people of the same gender are different from two people of opposite genders is not homophobic, it's a matter of scientific fact.