Feds to recognize same sex marriages in all states

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by br0kenrabbit (13486 posts) -

Story

I'm so looking forward to seeing some RWNJ heads pop. :-p

Yeah OT, how's this going to go down in your neck of the woods? Here in the Bible Belt I'm expecting sermons and lawsuits.

Progress is inevitable, but so are the complaints.

#2 Posted by vl4d_l3nin (985 posts) -

Fabulous!

#3 Edited by HoolaHoopMan (7888 posts) -

The sky hasn't fallen, weird.

#4 Posted by Master_Live (15832 posts) -

Good.

#5 Posted by chessmaster1989 (29746 posts) -

Good news

#6 Posted by dave123321 (34368 posts) -

Cool

#7 Posted by Serraph105 (28559 posts) -

So this week's news ought to be fun then.

#8 Posted by Aljosa23 (25980 posts) -

Yeah but what about states' rights? States should be able to discriminate all they want because states' rights and something something freedom.

#9 Edited by vl4d_l3nin (985 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

Yeah but what about states' rights? States should be able to discriminate all they want because states' rights and something something freedom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLLDn7MjbF0

and justice for all!

#10 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10839 posts) -

I'm an agnostic atheist, so I don't believe in objective morality. Hence, I won't say that homosexuality is objectively wrong. Furthermore, I I believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they want so as long they aren't harming anyone or forcing others to do so. Hence, I think homosexuals should be able to live freely and have the right to marry. However, as a believer in science and subsequently evolution, I think homosexuality is abnormal and is counterproductive to the purpose of every species, which is to propagate itself (i.e. reproduce).

In regard to the right to adopt children, I don't think homosexuals should have that right. Children can be produced by only heterosexual relationships, so why should homosexuals have the right to adopt them when their type of relationship makes it impossible to produce them? Before any of you analogize homosexuals adopting children to infertile heterosexuals adopting children, keep in mind that aside from infertility, an infertile heterosexual couple is otherwise the type of couple that could produce a child.

I know that some, or perhaps most, of you will disagree with what I've said here, but this is my honest opinion.

#11 Edited by Aljosa23 (25980 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

In regard to the right to adopt children, I don't think homosexuals should have that right. Children can be produced by only heterosexual relationships, so why should homosexuals have the right to adopt them when their type of relationship makes it impossible to produce them? Before any of you analogize homosexuals adopting children to infertile heterosexuals adopting children, keep in mind that aside from infertility, an infertile heterosexual couple is otherwise the type of couple that could produce a child.

I know that some, or perhaps most, of you will disagree with what I've said here, but this is my honest opinion.

Why the heck does it matter if they are incapable of producing children? Are surrogate pregnancies not legit to you? As long as the child has a loving home, I really do not see why science should supersede the needs of the child. Just seems like another way to stick it to gay people while hurting children at the same time.

#12 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13486 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

However, as a believer in science and subsequently evolution, I think homosexuality is abnormal and is counterproductive to the purpose of every species, which is to propagate itself (i.e. reproduce).

Homosexual animal pairs have been known to adopt orphaned offspring. As a believer in science and evolution, you must also believe that all observed natural behavior is as so because millions of years of evolution has said "this works well enough to keep around."

#13 Posted by dave123321 (34368 posts) -

Is the link back to the forum board not working for anyone else

#14 Posted by deeliman (3474 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

I'm an agnostic atheist, so I don't believe in objective morality. Hence, I won't say that homosexuality is objectively wrong. Furthermore, I I believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they want so as long they aren't harming anyone or forcing others to do so. Hence, I think homosexuals should be able to live freely and have the right to marry. However, as a believer in science and subsequently evolution, I think homosexuality is abnormal and is counterproductive to the purpose of every species, which is to propagate itself (i.e. reproduce).

In regard to the right to adopt children, I don't think homosexuals should have that right. Children can be produced by only heterosexual relationships, so why should homosexuals have the right to adopt them when their type of relationship makes it impossible to produce them? Before any of you analogize homosexuals adopting children to infertile heterosexuals adopting children, keep in mind that aside from infertility, an infertile heterosexual couple is otherwise the type of couple that could produce a child.

I know that some, or perhaps most, of you will disagree with what I've said here, but this is my honest opinion.

That's the same like saying that aside from being the same gender, a gay couple is otherwise the type of couple that could produce a child.

#15 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10839 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit

I knew that someone would analogize homosexuals adopting children or homosexuality in general to the practice of animals. The presence of such behavior in animals makes it no less abnormal. Lions commit infanticide; would you argue that it's okay for Humans to do the same? Dogs eat their own feces; would you argue that it's not disgusting for Humans to do the same?

#16 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10839 posts) -

I wonder why OT is so liberal.

#17 Posted by deeliman (3474 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

@br0kenrabbit

I knew that someone would analogize homosexuals adopting children or homosexuality in general to the practice of animals. The presence of such behavior in animals makes it no less abnormal. Lions commit infanticide; would you argue that it's okay for Humans to do the same? Dogs eat their own feces; would you argue that it's not disgusting for Humans to do the same?

You completely missed the point though.

#18 Posted by dave123321 (34368 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef: but you made an appeal to nature just a little bit ago

#19 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13486 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

@br0kenrabbit

I knew that someone would analogize homosexuals adopting children or homosexuality in general to the practice of animals. The presence of such behavior in animals makes it no less abnormal. Lions commit infanticide; would you argue that it's okay for Humans to do the same? Dogs eat their own feces; would you argue that it's not disgusting for Humans to do the same?

We don't have those instincts. Sure, some people kill babies, but it's not their instinct that leads them to do so. Some people do, however, have the instinct to be attracted to the same sex.

A trait that appears across a wide array of species is no accident.

#20 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13486 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

I wonder why OT is so liberal.

Most of us have caught on to the doublespeak. You know, 'states rights' and all that.

#21 Posted by Makhaidos (2162 posts) -

With that part of DOMA gone, the feds really have no choice in the matter. Still, this is good news, and it won't be long before we have gay marriage in all fifty states as well.

#22 Edited by Barbariser (6761 posts) -

Did BluRay really just argue that same-sex marriage can't be compared to marriage between infertile people when it comes to babymaking because infertile couples wouldn't be infertile if you ignored the fact that they are infertile? O.o

#23 Edited by V3rciS (2206 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

I'm an agnostic atheist, so I don't believe in objective morality. Hence, I won't say that homosexuality is objectively wrong. Furthermore, I I believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they want so as long they aren't harming anyone or forcing others to do so. Hence, I think homosexuals should be able to live freely and have the right to marry. However, as a believer in science and subsequently evolution, I think homosexuality is abnormal and is counterproductive to the purpose of every species, which is to propagate itself (i.e. reproduce).

In regard to the right to adopt children, I don't think homosexuals should have that right. Children can be produced by only heterosexual relationships, so why should homosexuals have the right to adopt them when their type of relationship makes it impossible to produce them? Before any of you analogize homosexuals adopting children to infertile heterosexuals adopting children, keep in mind that aside from infertility, an infertile heterosexual couple is otherwise the type of couple that could produce a child.

I know that some, or perhaps most, of you will disagree with what I've said here, but this is my honest opinion.

As an Atheist myself I'm actually happy for this news because it's a big blow to backwards church and various religious organizations. However I do not agree on the part where you say it's abnormal and counter-productive, sure it is abnormal in a way but I don't think it's counter-productive simply because homosexual people are a small fraction of our population, them not producing offspring is simply an insignificant blow to our number. Actually for now under current circumstances we should slow down with reproduction until we find more resources which are renewable and can last longer without harming our environment. Also on the longer scale we should try colonizing other planets, this is not important or a must thing today but eventually overpopulation can affect us and at some point in the future it should be done.

Regarding the children adoption I agree but only on the principal that it can affect the child negatively by having two parents of the same sex. Children at the very young age are very sensitive psychologically. Anything not common can have a bad influence on them.

#24 Posted by toast_burner (22614 posts) -

@V3rciS said:

@BluRayHiDef said:

I'm an agnostic atheist, so I don't believe in objective morality. Hence, I won't say that homosexuality is objectively wrong. Furthermore, I I believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they want so as long they aren't harming anyone or forcing others to do so. Hence, I think homosexuals should be able to live freely and have the right to marry. However, as a believer in science and subsequently evolution, I think homosexuality is abnormal and is counterproductive to the purpose of every species, which is to propagate itself (i.e. reproduce).

In regard to the right to adopt children, I don't think homosexuals should have that right. Children can be produced by only heterosexual relationships, so why should homosexuals have the right to adopt them when their type of relationship makes it impossible to produce them? Before any of you analogize homosexuals adopting children to infertile heterosexuals adopting children, keep in mind that aside from infertility, an infertile heterosexual couple is otherwise the type of couple that could produce a child.

I know that some, or perhaps most, of you will disagree with what I've said here, but this is my honest opinion.

Regarding the children adoption I agree but only on the principal that it can affect the child negatively by having two parents of the same sex. Children at the very young age are very sensitive psychologically. Anything not common can have a bad influence on them.

Numerous studies have been done on this and there is no evidence to suggest that is true.

#25 Edited by mattbbpl (10970 posts) -

@Barbariser said:

Did BluRay really just argue that same-sex marriage can't be compared to marriage between infertile people when it comes to babymaking because infertile couples wouldn't be infertile if you ignored the fact that they are infertile? O.o

*weeps*

#26 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (4586 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

I wonder why OT is so liberal.

I'm not sure if it is, every time a poll on something dividing along conservative/liberal lines is put up, the numbers are always close.

To be blunt, I think social cons are just sorta a bunch of pussies, and don't voice their opinions.

#27 Edited by Makhaidos (2162 posts) -

@toast_burner said:

@V3rciS said:

@BluRayHiDef said:

I'm an agnostic atheist, so I don't believe in objective morality. Hence, I won't say that homosexuality is objectively wrong. Furthermore, I I believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they want so as long they aren't harming anyone or forcing others to do so. Hence, I think homosexuals should be able to live freely and have the right to marry. However, as a believer in science and subsequently evolution, I think homosexuality is abnormal and is counterproductive to the purpose of every species, which is to propagate itself (i.e. reproduce).

In regard to the right to adopt children, I don't think homosexuals should have that right. Children can be produced by only heterosexual relationships, so why should homosexuals have the right to adopt them when their type of relationship makes it impossible to produce them? Before any of you analogize homosexuals adopting children to infertile heterosexuals adopting children, keep in mind that aside from infertility, an infertile heterosexual couple is otherwise the type of couple that could produce a child.

I know that some, or perhaps most, of you will disagree with what I've said here, but this is my honest opinion.

Regarding the children adoption I agree but only on the principal that it can affect the child negatively by having two parents of the same sex. Children at the very young age are very sensitive psychologically. Anything not common can have a bad influence on them.

Numerous studies have been done on this and there is no evidence to suggest that is true.

You get your science and your facts out of here, you.

#28 Posted by Serraph105 (28559 posts) -
@Makhaidos said:

@toast_burner said:

@V3rciS said:

@BluRayHiDef said:

I'm an agnostic atheist, so I don't believe in objective morality. Hence, I won't say that homosexuality is objectively wrong. Furthermore, I I believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they want so as long they aren't harming anyone or forcing others to do so. Hence, I think homosexuals should be able to live freely and have the right to marry. However, as a believer in science and subsequently evolution, I think homosexuality is abnormal and is counterproductive to the purpose of every species, which is to propagate itself (i.e. reproduce).

In regard to the right to adopt children, I don't think homosexuals should have that right. Children can be produced by only heterosexual relationships, so why should homosexuals have the right to adopt them when their type of relationship makes it impossible to produce them? Before any of you analogize homosexuals adopting children to infertile heterosexuals adopting children, keep in mind that aside from infertility, an infertile heterosexual couple is otherwise the type of couple that could produce a child.

I know that some, or perhaps most, of you will disagree with what I've said here, but this is my honest opinion.

Regarding the children adoption I agree but only on the principal that it can affect the child negatively by having two parents of the same sex. Children at the very young age are very sensitive psychologically. Anything not common can have a bad influence on them.

Numerous studies have been done on this and there is no evidence to suggest that is true.

You get your science and your facts out of here, you.

I'd like to point out that even if what V3rciS said is true (which in the case of adoption it's really not) you would have to way the potential psychological damage of having two parents of the same sex against the psychological damage of having no parents, no real life guidance (aside from public school), no emotional support from adults, etc. I guarantee you that having family bringing up a child is going to give the child a better situation in life 99.9% of the time.

#29 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7888 posts) -

@Barbariser said:

Did BluRay really just argue that same-sex marriage can't be compared to marriage between infertile people when it comes to babymaking because infertile couples wouldn't be infertile if you ignored the fact that they are infertile? O.o

Its awesome logic. Short people would be exactly like tall people if we ignored the fact that they're short! Brilliant!

#30 Edited by girlshavefuntoo (125 posts) -

We should be allowed to wed and adopt. Good to see that the US is starting to understand that.

#31 Posted by Crunchy_Nuts (2749 posts) -

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'm scared this might turn me gay any minute now.

#32 Edited by comp_atkins (32026 posts) -

@Crunchy_Nuts said:

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'm scared this might turn me gay any minute now.

i heard you can catch gay just seeing a homosexual couple kiss

#33 Edited by lostrib (42744 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

I'm an agnostic atheist, so I don't believe in objective morality. Hence, I won't say that homosexuality is objectively wrong. Furthermore, I I believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they want so as long they aren't harming anyone or forcing others to do so. Hence, I think homosexuals should be able to live freely and have the right to marry. However, as a believer in science and subsequently evolution, I think homosexuality is abnormal and is counterproductive to the purpose of every species, which is to propagate itself (i.e. reproduce).

In regard to the right to adopt children, I don't think homosexuals should have that right. Children can be produced by only heterosexual relationships, so why should homosexuals have the right to adopt them when their type of relationship makes it impossible to produce them? Before any of you analogize homosexuals adopting children to infertile heterosexuals adopting children, keep in mind that aside from infertility, an infertile heterosexual couple is otherwise the type of couple that could produce a child.

I know that some, or perhaps most, of you will disagree with what I've said here, but this is my honest opinion.

@BluRayHiDef said:

I wonder why OT is so liberal.

And we wonder how you are so stupid

#34 Edited by wis3boi (32003 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

I'm an agnostic atheist, so I don't believe in objective morality. Hence, I won't say that homosexuality is objectively wrong. Furthermore, I I believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they want so as long they aren't harming anyone or forcing others to do so. Hence, I think homosexuals should be able to live freely and have the right to marry. However, as a believer in science and subsequently evolution, I think homosexuality is abnormal and is counterproductive to the purpose of every species, which is to propagate itself (i.e. reproduce).

In regard to the right to adopt children, I don't think homosexuals should have that right. Children can be produced by only heterosexual relationships, so why should homosexuals have the right to adopt them when their type of relationship makes it impossible to produce them? Before any of you analogize homosexuals adopting children to infertile heterosexuals adopting children, keep in mind that aside from infertility, an infertile heterosexual couple is otherwise the type of couple that could produce a child.

I know that some, or perhaps most, of you will disagree with what I've said here, but this is my honest opinion.

you're so full of shit your ass is jealous

#35 Posted by lostrib (42744 posts) -

@wis3boi said:

@BluRayHiDef said:

I'm an agnostic atheist, so I don't believe in objective morality. Hence, I won't say that homosexuality is objectively wrong. Furthermore, I I believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they want so as long they aren't harming anyone or forcing others to do so. Hence, I think homosexuals should be able to live freely and have the right to marry. However, as a believer in science and subsequently evolution, I think homosexuality is abnormal and is counterproductive to the purpose of every species, which is to propagate itself (i.e. reproduce).

In regard to the right to adopt children, I don't think homosexuals should have that right. Children can be produced by only heterosexual relationships, so why should homosexuals have the right to adopt them when their type of relationship makes it impossible to produce them? Before any of you analogize homosexuals adopting children to infertile heterosexuals adopting children, keep in mind that aside from infertility, an infertile heterosexual couple is otherwise the type of couple that could produce a child.

I know that some, or perhaps most, of you will disagree with what I've said here, but this is my honest opinion.

you're so full of shit your ass is jealous

Burn!

#36 Edited by lamprey263 (25582 posts) -

Now the American family is destroyed!!

Anyhow, now with the gay agenda off the table the GOP has more time to spend earning the female demographics by restricting birth control and reproductive rights.

#37 Edited by Santesyu (4441 posts) -

Glad there are progression for LGBT well I should say just the gays, they deserve equality. I hope the same one day will be for Transgender people aswell.

#38 Posted by Korvus (7928 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

However, as a believer in science and subsequently evolution, I think homosexuality is abnormal and is counterproductive to the purpose of every species, which is to propagate itself (i.e. reproduce).

Seems like nature's way to combat overpopulation to me.

In all seriousness now, everybody should have the freedom to be gay, to not be gay, to be loving, to have a child (either by conceiving, adopting, whatever) and live their life without being worried about what people think of what you do in your bedroom or who you're kissing in the street. It's none of their damn business...