|
News: Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage
Member Since: 3/11/2011
Posts: 2,095
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Adonis
I dont have to accept you or your opinions. Im well within my rights to disagree with your opinions and challenge them. I didnt insult you. I simply said it wasnt your place. Thats my opinion. You go live somewhere where you can learn that people can disagree with your opinions when you volunteer them...and that your opinions can and will be challenged and that you will deal with the fallout that results from them.
|
Again, you are twisting my words. I never said that you need to accept my opinion. I said that you need to accept that people will have different opinions. I didn't ask you to respect the opinion itself or me. Of course you are allowed to challenge my opinion, but you didn't do that. All you did was come at me.
Quote:
Originally posted by Save My Life
boi dont lemme get these hands on you ima smack your wannabe masc ass down dont do it
|
Thanks!
Quote:
Originally posted by Dilettante
Well, he has a right to agree or not agree with it as well. It's as much his place as anyone else's.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dilettante
Everyone has a right to comment. It isn't his place to rule on the matter, but he wasn't trying to.
|
Thank you
Quote:
Originally posted by Save My Life
Listen here Camel head, NO ONE will respect someone's opinion if it contributes to the oppression of minorities. So what? You want to strip me of my rights but that is okay! I should respect your opinion!!! <3 wow we are all so indie and ourselves here zomg!! <33
|
Learn how to speak to people before you fight for your "rights". You might want to fight for "rights" against oppressing someone else opinion!
Quote:
Originally posted by tittieslap
But you do realize it's your kind of opinion that held Gay Americans back from marrying in the first place,right?. There's literally no other reason for someone to have your stance because all of the reasons backing you up have been disproved. The only reason why you'd have this opinion is because you either haven't read up on the debate or you just want to cling onto an outdated viewpoint.
|
and that was what I was saying. I am not from America and each country to their own. I am gay as well but I just don't agree with gay marriage and never have. I am all for equality and I believe that we can be equal in a different. Call it civil right or any name under the sun but when it comes to marriage I am still very traditional about it. Thanks for putting your point without any name calling btw.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 5,994
|
Quote:
Originally posted by qa3bool
Again, you are twisting my words. I never said that you need to accept my opinion. I said that you need to accept that people will have different opinions. I didn't ask you to respect the opinion itself or me. Of course you are allowed to challenge my opinion, but you didn't do that. All you did was come at me.
Thanks!
Thank you
Learn how to speak to people before you fight for your "rights". You might want to fight for "rights" against oppressing someone else opinion!
and that was what I was saying. I am not from America and each country to their own. I am gay as well but I just don't agree with gay marriage and never have. I am all for equality and I believe that we can be equal in a different. Call it civil right or any name under the sun but when it comes to marriage I am still very traditional about it. Thanks for putting your point without any name calling btw.
|
Your opinion contributes to the oppression of minorities though ![rip](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/korn0818/ATRLSmilies/rip_zpsec10ede9.gif) How can I respect that? Get a grip. You're on a music forum full of people who identify themselves as LGBTQ so of course there is going to be outrage
Some people are something else
EDIT: You're homosexual yourself? ![skull](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/korn0818/ATRL_Smilies_All/faces/skull_zpsksni5fmm.gif) The fight for marriage isn't about symbolism, its about having the rights as every body else. This traditional ******** is going out the window and you know it.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 1,911
|
Stop giving this brainwashed, self hating man the time of day. It only takes away from the joy of this occasion. Let him stay mad while y'all get hitched💍
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/20/2012
Posts: 24,225
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Nemo
|
This has me dying. ![skull](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/korn0818/ATRL_Smilies_All/faces/skull_zpsksni5fmm.gif)
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 5,994
|
Quote:
Originally posted by nd01
Stop giving this brainwashed, self hating man the time of day. It only takes away from the joy of this occasion. Let him stay mad while y'all get hitched💍
|
True 💅🏾 Traditional is so 2000 and late 💅🏾😘
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/16/2005
Posts: 16,872
|
Yassssss!
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/12/2011
Posts: 5,343
|
Quote:
Originally posted by qa3bool
and that was what I was saying. I am not from America and each country to their own. I am gay as well but I just don't agree with gay marriage and never have. I am all for equality and I believe that we can be equal in a different. Call it civil right or any name under the sun but when it comes to marriage I am still very traditional about it. Thanks for putting your point without any name calling btw.
|
Luckily, then, you are entitled to opt out of a same-sex marriage just as every other citizen is, be it for their religious convictions or for their sexuality. This wasn't a question of whether you think marriage is for gay people or not, it was a question of whether it was unconstitutional for an entire subgroup of people to be denied psychological and financial benefits that are given to everybody else. The 14th amendment says that everybody is entitled to equal protection of the law, and the law is hardly divvied equally when a heterosexual individual can marry their soulmate and I cannot. Marriage isn't just a social contract, it's a legal contract that makes the financial and personal lives of those who enter that contract easier and more just. To otherwise deny somebodies right to marriage (something that has been consistently upheld as a fundamental right) is the very definition of "depriving" somebody of "liberty" without "due process of the law"
People in America are not being forced into doing anything they don't want to do, it merely validates our right to be treated fairly and equally under the law and our Constitution
-micdrop-
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/11/2011
Posts: 2,095
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Save My Life
Your opinion contributes to the oppression of minorities though How can I respect that? Get a grip. You're on a music forum full of people who identify themselves as LGBTQ so of course there is going to be outrage
Some people are something else
EDIT: You're homosexual yourself? ![skull](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/korn0818/ATRL_Smilies_All/faces/skull_zpsksni5fmm.gif) The fight for marriage isn't about symbolism, its about having the rights as every body else. This traditional ******** is going out the window and you know it.
|
You keep making things up that I never said. I never said you have to respect my opinion. Anyway, have a good day!
Quote:
Originally posted by mariska
Luckily, then, you are entitled to opt out of a same-sex marriage just as every other citizen is, be it for their religious convictions or for their sexuality. This wasn't a question of whether you think marriage is for gay people or not, it was a question of whether it was unconstitutional for an entire subgroup of people to be denied psychological and financial benefits that are given to everybody else. The 14th amendment says that everybody is entitled to equal protection of the law, and the law is hardly divvied equally when a heterosexual individual can marry their soulmate and I cannot. Marriage isn't just a social contract, it's a legal contract that makes the financial and personal lives of those who enter that contract easier and more just. To otherwise deny somebodies right to marriage (something that has been consistently upheld as a fundamental right) is the very definition of "depriving" somebody of "liberty" without "due process of the law"
People in America are not being forced into doing anything they don't want to do, it merely validates our right to be treated fairly and equally under the law and our Constitution
-micdrop-
|
I get where you are coming from and I get that to have full equality, marriage is the only option that can achieve it especially for financial benefits, but one of the main reasons why I don't agree with it is because I don't feel it is right for churches to be forced into doing something which goes against all their beliefs. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that churches will have to accept performing same sex marriages otherwise they will lose their tax-exempt status which I don't think it's fair.
but like you and I said before, It doesn't affect me, and people can do what they want. I am a homosexual and I am not in favour but people can do whatever pleases them.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
Quote:
Originally posted by qa3bool
You keep making things up that I never said. I never said you have to respect my opinion. Anyway, have a good day!
I get where you are coming from and I get that to have full equality, marriage is the only option that can achieve it especially for financial benefits, but one of the main reasons why I don't agree with it is because I don't feel it is right for churches to be forced into doing something which goes against all their beliefs. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that churches will have to accept performing same sex marriages otherwise they will lose their tax-exempt status which I don't think it's fair.
but like you and I said before, It doesn't affect me, and people can do what they want. I am a homosexual and I am not in favour but people can do whatever pleases them.
|
If you are talking about the US, no they won't. Churches are exempt even from Supreme Court rulings such as this one.
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/12/2011
Posts: 5,343
|
Quote:
Originally posted by qa3bool
I get where you are coming from and I get that to have full equality, marriage is the only option that can achieve it especially for financial benefits, but one of the main reasons why I don't agree with it is because I don't feel it is right for churches to be forced into doing something which goes against all their beliefs. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that churches will have to accept performing same sex marriages otherwise they will lose their tax-exempt status which I don't think it's fair.
but like you and I said before, It doesn't affect me, and people can do what they want. I am a homosexual and I am not in favour but people can do whatever pleases them.
|
The issue of churches being forced into officiating marriages was never specifically addressed in the majority opinion, so it's something that's likely to be brought up in some higher court at a later date. Having said that, there is no reason to believe that such a scenario would ever happen. Our first amendment would prevent that, especially given that we already have similar situations. As one of our Supreme Court Justices pointed out, there are some Orthodox Rabbis who refuse to perform marriage ceremonies to non-Jews, and that is upheld by our first amendment - they entirely have that right - so there's no rationale for certain church leaders being forced into recognizing same-sex marriage. Not to mention, 37 of our 50 states already legalized same-sex marriage, and that has yet to be an issue realistically or in the courts of those states. Mostly because, from a pragmatic lens, why would a gay person ever want a pastor or some other church leader to perform their marriage ceremony if they so vehemently disagree with the idea of gay marriage? That's silly. They would go to a willing participant.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
Mariska is right. Churches pick and choose who they will marry, even among heterosexual couples. Some Catholics ones would even refuse to remarry someone because of the official frown on divorce.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/11/2011
Posts: 2,095
|
Quote:
Originally posted by LuLuDrops
If you are talking about the US, no they won't. Churches are exempt even from Supreme Court rulings such as this one.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by mariska
The issue of churches being forced into officiating marriages was never specifically addressed in the majority opinion, so it's something that's likely to be brought up in some higher court at a later date. Having said that, there is no reason to believe that such a scenario would ever happen. Our first amendment would prevent that, especially given that we already have similar situations. As one of our Supreme Court Justices pointed out, there are some Orthodox Rabbis who refuse to perform marriage ceremonies to non-Jews, and that is upheld by our first amendment - they entirely have that right - so there's no rationale for certain church leaders being forced into recognizing same-sex marriage. Not to mention, 37 of our 50 states already legalized same-sex marriage, and that has yet to be an issue realistically or in the courts of those states. Mostly because, from a pragmatic lens, why would a gay person ever want a pastor or some other church leader to perform their marriage ceremony if they so vehemently disagree with the idea of gay marriage? That's silly. They would go to a willing participant.
|
The issue of tax exemption I read about it in a few articles. In one of them it said that it will eventually come into place in the near future, but both of you are right that at the moment they are allowed to decline. This is one of the articles where it talked about it.
Link
Quote:
Originally posted by LuLuDrops
Mariska is right. Churches pick and choose who they will marry, even among heterosexual couples. Some Catholics ones would even refuse to remarry someone because of the official frown on divorce.
|
Which is fine for now that they always had the right to refuse a service, and this is where I feel that it would be a let down if gay marriage will eventually force churches to hold a ceremony against their will when they, like you said, had the right to refuse a service. Mariska made a good point that there will be churches that will welcome it anyway and that couple might want to hold their ceremony there rather than a place they are not welcomed in.
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/12/2011
Posts: 5,343
|
Quote:
Originally posted by qa3bool
The issue of tax exemption I read about it in a few articles. In one of them it said that it will eventually come into place in the near future, but both of you are right that at the moment they are allowed to decline. This is one of the articles where it talked about it.
Link
Which is fine for now that they always had the right to refuse a service, and this is where I feel that it would be a let down if gay marriage will eventually force churches to hold a ceremony against their will when they, like you said, had the right to refuse a service. Mariska made a good point that there will be churches that will welcome it anyway and that couple might want to hold their ceremony there rather than a place they are not welcomed in.
|
But that will never happen because the 1st amendment wouldn't allow it. The slippery slope argument here is fallacious, as that bridge has still yet to be crossed 10+ years later. Massachusetts has allowed gay marriage for over a decade now, and that has yet to happen. Why all of the sudden would this change now, shouldn't this have happened earlier?
And as mentioned, churches are already given the choice who to wed. There are numerous instances and examples of this. If an Orthodox Rabbi can refuse to wed a non-Jew, a Christian or somebody of similar faith can refuse to wed a gay couple because the law applies evenly. The article of religious freedom is beyond unsupportable and weak, for there is quite literally ZERO evidence to suggest such a thing would ever happen. It is merely the deluded ramblings of those who have irrational fears and oppression complexes.
Until somebody posits or advances some type of evidence that gay marriage imminently threatens the sanctity of freedom to worship, it is a fruitless and wholly illogical argument predicated on nothing but baseless fear. It could happen. Well, a lot of things could happen. That is no reason to deny a fundamental freedom to so many in the present.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
I don't know of a single country worldwide that forced a church to marry gay couples. The biggest nations to pass a gay marriage law were always clear on stating it didn't affect religious houses.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 1,656
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/2/2011
Posts: 4,285
|
I personally could care less what the church decides to do as long as gay couples are able to get the papers signed in the secular context of government, giving them the same thousands of economic and legal benefits as straight couples given that civil unions were separate and unequal.
All of the religiously affiliated gay couples I know that have wanted a church ceremony know their religious branches well in advance (UCC, UU yes, Baptist, etc. no) to avoid the problem of being rejected entirely, and wouldn't want to ruin their big day with some legal battle regardless. My assumption is that goes for many other couples as well.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/2/2014
Posts: 7,679
|
Quote:
Originally posted by nd01
Stop giving this brainwashed, self hating man the time of day. It only takes away from the joy of this occasion. Let him stay mad while y'all get hitched💍
|
Yass 👬👬👬👭👭👭
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/2/2014
Posts: 7,679
|
Quote:
Originally posted by LuLuDrops
I don't know of a single country worldwide that forced a church to marry gay couples. The biggest nations to pass a gay marriage law were always clear on stating it didn't affect religious houses.
|
Spain did I I think
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Shigo
Spain did I I think
|
Don't they do an opt-in where a person COULD marry someone, but they don't have to?
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/9/2012
Posts: 966
|
Quote:
Originally posted by qa3bool
I get where you are coming from and I get that to have full equality, marriage is the only option that can achieve it especially for financial benefits, but one of the main reasons why I don't agree with it is because I don't feel it is right for churches to be forced into doing something which goes against all their beliefs. I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that churches will have to accept performing same sex marriages otherwise they will lose their tax-exempt status which I don't think it's fair.
but like you and I said before, It doesn't affect me, and people can do what they want. I am a homosexual and I am not in favour but people can do whatever pleases them.
|
did you really think churches marry gay people for real
I assume you are not from a christian country so another reason to not talk about what affects to other people in a very positive way.
|
|
|
|
|