Gay marriage (1 Viewer)

[Gordang]

It's interesting the 83% of American Jews support gay marriage when it's their religion that expressly forbids homosexuality.

The survey, which polled 4,500 Americans, was conducted by the non-partisan Public Religion Research Institute. It found that 53% of Americans support gay marriage, reports AFP. That figure indicates a significant rise from ten years prior; in 2003, American public support for same-sex marriage was at 32%.

A somewhat surprising trend exposed in the research was the widespread support among Americans who attend churches and synagogues.

As noted above, 83% of practicing Jewish Americans came out in favor, 62% of "white mainline Protestants" similarly expressed support, along with 58% of white Catholics and 56% of Hispanic Catholics.

The religious groups with the least support were the black Protestants, at 35%, and white evangelical Protestants, at 27%.

Another trend that became clear was the rising support for 'gay marriage' among young Americans, as 69% of Americans in their 20s and early 30s expressed support.

And Jesus himself was supportive of people with alternative lifestyles going to heaven:

Matthew 19:12

For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

The reason Jesus came was to save. He is supportive of all believers.

Then why aren't his believers?

Believers have the same human short-comings as non-believers. Many believers are supportive. I support all people being saved, but that does not mean I have to endorse all their behaviors.

No one is asking you to endorse all their behaviors you are being asked to get out of their way if they want to get married.

actually no one is in their way. They are the ones getting in the way of the definition of marriage and trying to force their will on it like some kind of obama tyrant

 

[joffer]

Peens again?

 

[Chaka]

It's interesting the 83% of American Jews support gay marriage when it's their religion that expressly forbids homosexuality.

The survey, which polled 4,500 Americans, was conducted by the non-partisan Public Religion Research Institute. It found that 53% of Americans support gay marriage, reports AFP. That figure indicates a significant rise from ten years prior; in 2003, American public support for same-sex marriage was at 32%.

A somewhat surprising trend exposed in the research was the widespread support among Americans who attend churches and synagogues.

As noted above, 83% of practicing Jewish Americans came out in favor, 62% of "white mainline Protestants" similarly expressed support, along with 58% of white Catholics and 56% of Hispanic Catholics.

The religious groups with the least support were the black Protestants, at 35%, and white evangelical Protestants, at 27%.

Another trend that became clear was the rising support for 'gay marriage' among young Americans, as 69% of Americans in their 20s and early 30s expressed support.

And Jesus himself was supportive of people with alternative lifestyles going to heaven:

Matthew 19:12

For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

The reason Jesus came was to save. He is supportive of all believers.

Then why aren't his believers?

Believers have the same human short-comings as non-believers. Many believers are supportive. I support all people being saved, but that does not mean I have to endorse all their behaviors.

No one is asking you to endorse all their behaviors you are being asked to get out of their way if they want to get married.

actually no one is in their way. They are the ones getting in the way of the definition of marriage and trying to force their will on it like some kind of obama tyrant

And pathetic.

 

[bigbottom]

It's interesting the 83% of American Jews support gay marriage when it's their religion that expressly forbids homosexuality.

The survey, which polled 4,500 Americans, was conducted by the non-partisan Public Religion Research Institute. It found that 53% of Americans support gay marriage, reports AFP. That figure indicates a significant rise from ten years prior; in 2003, American public support for same-sex marriage was at 32%.

A somewhat surprising trend exposed in the research was the widespread support among Americans who attend churches and synagogues.

As noted above, 83% of practicing Jewish Americans came out in favor, 62% of "white mainline Protestants" similarly expressed support, along with 58% of white Catholics and 56% of Hispanic Catholics.

The religious groups with the least support were the black Protestants, at 35%, and white evangelical Protestants, at 27%.

Another trend that became clear was the rising support for 'gay marriage' among young Americans, as 69% of Americans in their 20s and early 30s expressed support.

And Jesus himself was supportive of people with alternative lifestyles going to heaven:

Matthew 19:12

For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

The reason Jesus came was to save. He is supportive of all believers.

Then why aren't his believers?

Believers have the same human short-comings as non-believers. Many believers are supportive. I support all people being saved, but that does not mean I have to endorse all their behaviors.

No one is asking you to endorse all their behaviors you are being asked to get out of their way if they want to get married.

actually no one is in their way. They are the ones getting in the way of the definition of marriage and trying to force their will on it like some kind of obama tyrant

I thought the "Obama tyrant" stuff was based primarily on his actions that (purportedly) violate the constitution? Holding government responsible by striking down (purportedly) unconstitutional laws is pretty much the opposite of that.

 

[roadkill1292]

Peens again?

Peenie has never put forth the effort to twist himself around this kind of logic.

 

[timschochet]

Everyone's a biblical literalist on homosexuality, nobody's a biblical literalist when it comes to Jesus' teaching on nonviolence or the poor.

That's cuz those things aren't gross.

 

[Christo]

It's interesting the 83% of American Jews support gay marriage when it's their religion that expressly forbids homosexuality.

The survey, which polled 4,500 Americans, was conducted by the non-partisan Public Religion Research Institute. It found that 53% of Americans support gay marriage, reports AFP. That figure indicates a significant rise from ten years prior; in 2003, American public support for same-sex marriage was at 32%.

A somewhat surprising trend exposed in the research was the widespread support among Americans who attend churches and synagogues.

As noted above, 83% of practicing Jewish Americans came out in favor, 62% of "white mainline Protestants" similarly expressed support, along with 58% of white Catholics and 56% of Hispanic Catholics.

The religious groups with the least support were the black Protestants, at 35%, and white evangelical Protestants, at 27%.

Another trend that became clear was the rising support for 'gay marriage' among young Americans, as 69% of Americans in their 20s and early 30s expressed support.

And Jesus himself was supportive of people with alternative lifestyles going to heaven:

Matthew 19:12

For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

The reason Jesus came was to save. He is supportive of all believers.

Then why aren't his believers?

Believers have the same human short-comings as non-believers. Many believers are supportive. I support all people being saved, but that does not mean I have to endorse all their behaviors.

No one is asking you to endorse all their behaviors you are being asked to get out of their way if they want to get married.

actually no one is in their way. They are the ones getting in the way of the definition of marriage and trying to force their will on it like some kind of obama tyrant

 

[joffer]

Kentucky

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

In America, even sincere and long-held religious beliefs do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted

District Judge John G. Heyburn



These arguments [against gay marriage]are not those of serious people....no rational relation between the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and the commonwealth's asserted interest in promoting naturally procreative marriages.


District Judge John G. Heyburn

 

[fatness]

In striking down Kentucky's ban on gay marriage, a federal judge Tuesday rejected Gov. Steve Beshear's argument that the ban is needed because only opposite sex couples can procreate and maintain the state's birth rate and economy.

"These arguments are not those of serious people," wrote Senior U.S. District Court Judge John G. Heyburn II.

"Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation," Heyburn wrote in a 19-page opinion, its lawyers never explained how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has "any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses.''

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2014/07/01/gays-right-marry-kentucky-judge-rules/11900313/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

 

[joffer]

Virginia

 

[Psychopav]

It's interesting the 83% of American Jews support gay marriage when it's their religion that expressly forbids homosexuality.

The survey, which polled 4,500 Americans, was conducted by the non-partisan Public Religion Research Institute. It found that 53% of Americans support gay marriage, reports AFP. That figure indicates a significant rise from ten years prior; in 2003, American public support for same-sex marriage was at 32%.

A somewhat surprising trend exposed in the research was the widespread support among Americans who attend churches and synagogues.

As noted above, 83% of practicing Jewish Americans came out in favor, 62% of "white mainline Protestants" similarly expressed support, along with 58% of white Catholics and 56% of Hispanic Catholics.

The religious groups with the least support were the black Protestants, at 35%, and white evangelical Protestants, at 27%.

Another trend that became clear was the rising support for 'gay marriage' among young Americans, as 69% of Americans in their 20s and early 30s expressed support.

And Jesus himself was supportive of people with alternative lifestyles going to heaven:

Matthew 19:12

For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

The reason Jesus came was to save. He is supportive of all believers.

Then why aren't his believers?

Believe it or not, his believers fall short of his ideal in lots of ways, and they freely admit it.

 

[joffer]

Florida

 

[joffer]

Louis....hang on

Hey look, the kooks still have themselves a judge on their side

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-louisiana-marriage-ban-20140903-story.html

 

[Henry Ford]

Louis....hang on

Hey look, the kooks still have themselves a judge on their side

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-louisiana-marriage-ban-20140903-story.html

Holy Jesus. Wisdom must be spinning in his grave.

 

[njherdfan]

Louis....hang on

Hey look, the kooks still have themselves a judge on their side

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-louisiana-marriage-ban-20140903-story.html

Welp, this is exactly the argument that we'll see next term from the 4 dissenters in Windsor.

 

[njherdfan]

I especially like the opinion's Footnote 9, where the judge states that he realizes that his opinion flies in the face of almost every lower court to consider the issue, and then the citation to all of those cases takes up almost an entire page.

 

[Henry Ford]

Well, without this ruling, the SCOTUS may not have taken the issue on appeal. Ninth Circuit will almost certainly reverse in Sandoval. Now we might have a circuit split - maybe we can get this thing knocked out on a nationwide basis as a result.

 

[joffer]

"For example, must the states permit or recognize a marriage between an aunt and niece? Aunt and nephew? Brother/brother? Father and child? May minors marry? Must marriage be limited to only two people? What about a transgender spouse? Is such a union same-gender or male-female? All such unions would undeniably be equally committed to love and caring for one another, just like the plaintiffs," he wrote.

What a jackwagon

 

[fatness]

"For example, must the states permit or recognize a marriage between an aunt and niece? Aunt and nephew? Brother/brother? Father and child? May minors marry? Must marriage be limited to only two people? What about a transgender spouse? Is such a union same-gender or male-female? All such unions would undeniably be equally committed to love and caring for one another, just like the plaintiffs," he wrote.

What a jackwagon

Talking points, he hit most of them.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

9 whole days?

"The governments of Indiana and Wisconsin have given us no reason to think they have a 'reasonable basis' for forbidding same-sex marriage," the court said. Later in the 40-page decision, it called the states' asserted grounds "not only conjectural (but) totally implausible."

:

:

"The only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction — that same-sex couples and their children don't need marriage because same-sex couples can't produce children, intended or unintended — is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously," he concluded in his opinion.

 

[Henry Ford]

"... unless you're a judge in the East District of Louisiana," he added.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Have the other recent decisions concluded the same?

We’ll see that the governments of Indiana and Wisconsin have given us no reason to think they have a “reasonable basis” for forbidding same-sex marriage. And more than a reasonable basis is required because this is a case in which the challenged discrimination is, in the formula from the Beach case, “along suspect lines.”

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

And there is little doubt that sexual orientation, the ground of the discrimination, is an immutable (and probably an innate, in the sense of in-born) characteristic rather than a choice. Wisely, neither Indiana nor Wisconsin argues otherwise.

This is one entertaining read. This Reagan appointee is scoffing at all the nonsensical homophobic arguments. 31 pages to go.

First up to bat is Indiana...

The state treats married homosexuals as would-be “free riders” on heterosexual marriage, unreasonably reaping benefits intended by the state for fertile couples. But infertile couples are free riders too. Why are they allowed to reap the benefits accorded marriages of fer-tile couples, and homosexuals are not?

23 pages to go.

But then how to explain Indiana’s decision to carve an exception to its prohibition against marriage of close relatives for first cousins 65 or older—a population guaranteed to be infertile because women can’t conceive at that age? Ind. Code § 31-11-1-2. If the state’s only interest in allowing marriage is to protect children, why has it gone out of its way to permit marriage of first cousins only after they are provably infertile? The state must think marriage valuable for something other than just procreation—that even non-procreative couples benefit from marriage. ...

...Indiana has thus invented an insidious form of discrimination: favoring first cousins, provided they are not of the same sex, over homosexuals. Elderly first cousins are permitted to marry because they can’t produce children; homosexuals are forbidden to marry because they can’t produce children. The state’s argument that a marriage of first cousins who are past child-bearing age provides a “model [of] family life for younger, potentially procreative men and women” is impossible to take seriously.



Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go figure.



One wouldn’t know, reading Wisconsin’s brief, that there is or ever has been discrimination against homosexuals anywhere in the United States.



Does Wisconsin want to push homosexuals to marry persons of the opposite sex because opposite-sex marriage is “optimal”? Does it think that allowing same-sex marriage will cause heterosexuals to convert to homosexuality? Efforts to convert homosexuals to heterosexuality have been a bust; is the opposite conversion more feasible?

 

[Koya]

And there is little doubt that sexual orientation, the ground of the discrimination, is an immutable (and probably an innate, in the sense of in-born) characteristic rather than a choice. Wisely, neither Indiana nor Wisconsin argues otherwise.

This is one entertaining read. This Reagan appointee is scoffing at all the nonsensical homophobic arguments. 31 pages to go.

It's a tough time bein' a bigot.

 

[General Tso]

Live and let live.

 

[HellToupee]

And there is little doubt that sexual orientation, the ground of the discrimination, is an immutable (and probably an innate, in the sense of in-born) characteristic rather than a choice. Wisely, neither Indiana nor Wisconsin argues otherwise.

This is one entertaining read. This Reagan appointee is scoffing at all the nonsensical homophobic arguments. 31 pages to go.

It's a tough time bein' a bigot.

Unfortunately its probably not in his world

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

"For example, must the states permit or recognize a marriage between an aunt and niece? Aunt and nephew? Brother/brother? Father and child? May minors marry? Must marriage be limited to only two people? What about a transgender spouse? Is such a union same-gender or male-female? All such unions would undeniably be equally committed to love and caring for one another, just like the plaintiffs," he wrote.

What a jackwagon

Seriously, none of those issues were before him.

Maybe he can think of no principled reason to allow two unrelated males to marry without also allowing close family members to marry, but if a father-son case ever comes up, the state solicitor general will be given the opportunity to come up with a reason.

And if there isn't a principled reason to prohibit fathers from marrying their sons, the answer is to let fathers marry their sons, not to forbid non-fathers from marrying their non-sons.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

And there is little doubt that sexual orientation, the ground of the discrimination, is an immutable (and probably an innate, in the sense of in-born) characteristic rather than a choice. Wisely, neither Indiana nor Wisconsin argues otherwise.

This is one entertaining read. This Reagan appointee is scoffing at all the nonsensical homophobic arguments. 31 pages to go.

It's a tough time bein' a bigot.

Unfortunately its probably not in his world

That is on page 36-

So look what the state has done: it has thrown a crumb to same-sex couples, denying them not only many of the rights and many of the benefits of marriage but also of course the name. Imagine if in the 1960s the states that forbade interracial marriage had said to interracial couples: “you can have domestic partnerships that create the identical rights and obligations of marriage, but you can call them only ‘civil unions’ or ‘domestic partnerships.’ The term ‘marriage’ is reserved for same-race unions.” This would give interracial couples much more than Wisconsin’s domestic partnership statute gives same-sex couples. Yet withholding the term “marriage” would be considered deeply offensive, and, having no justification other than bigotry, would be invalidated as a denial of equal protection.

 

[joffer]

Indiana

Wisconsin

 

[joffer]

Louis....hang on

Hey look, the kooks still have themselves a judge on their sidehttp://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-louisiana-marriage-ban-20140903-story.html

Didn't lastLouisiana

 

[Koya]

Louis....hang on

Hey look, the kooks still have themselves a judge on their sidehttp://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-louisiana-marriage-ban-20140903-story.html

Didn't lastLouisiana

Heard today that in the first poll in years, support for gay marriage / marriage equality dropped ... by a significant 5%. Curious about this, as it certainly seems to run counter to the general trend(s) that we say.

Perhaps its some backlash against the newly gained ground legally?

 

[Eminence]

Louis....hang on

Hey look, the kooks still have themselves a judge on their sidehttp://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-louisiana-marriage-ban-20140903-story.html

Didn't lastLouisiana

Heard today that in the first poll in years, support for gay marriage / marriage equality dropped ... by a significant 5%. Curious about this, as it certainly seems to run counter to the general trend(s) that we say.

Perhaps its some backlash against the newly gained ground legally?

I think people are starting to wise up that this stuff is getting out of hand. There's a tipping point for both sides. I think now that people are seeing the 'reality' of same sex marriages and the effect it's having on society and the media, that they just want it to "go away".

There's a difference between accepting and indoctrination. That's just my 2 cents. There's no doubt that some people are gay (3% of the population) and we're all over that. The other 97% of the population is sick of hearing about this all the time. Rational people see that floodgates for terrible things are opening.

 

[joffer]

Louis....hang on

Hey look, the kooks still have themselves a judge on their sidehttp://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-louisiana-marriage-ban-20140903-story.html

Didn't lastLouisiana

Heard today that in the first poll in years, support for gay marriage / marriage equality dropped ... by a significant 5%. Curious about this, as it certainly seems to run counter to the general trend(s) that we say.

Perhaps its some backlash against the newly gained ground legally?

I think people are starting to wise up that this stuff is getting out of hand. There's a tipping point for both sides. I think now that people are seeing the 'reality' of same sex marriages and the effect it's having on society and the media, that they just want it to "go away".

There's a difference between accepting and indoctrination. That's just my 2 cents. There's no doubt that some people are gay (3% of the population) and we're all over that. The other 97% of the population is sick of hearing about this all the time. Rational people see that floodgates for terrible things are opening.

So annoying when minorities want equal rights. Why can't they just conform with the rest of us?

 

[Koya]

Louis....hang on

Hey look, the kooks still have themselves a judge on their sidehttp://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-louisiana-marriage-ban-20140903-story.html

Didn't lastLouisiana

Heard today that in the first poll in years, support for gay marriage / marriage equality dropped ... by a significant 5%. Curious about this, as it certainly seems to run counter to the general trend(s) that we say.

Perhaps its some backlash against the newly gained ground legally?

I think people are starting to wise up that this stuff is getting out of hand. There's a tipping point for both sides. I think now that people are seeing the 'reality' of same sex marriages and the effect it's having on society and the media, that they just want it to "go away".

There's a difference between accepting and indoctrination. That's just my 2 cents. There's no doubt that some people are gay (3% of the population) and we're all over that. The other 97% of the population is sick of hearing about this all the time. Rational people see that floodgates for terrible things are opening.

(1) What is getting out of hand? Too much freedom and equality?

(2) What is the "reality" of the effect its having on society. Oh, other than freedom and equality for all? Has it actually "hurt" those poor straight people who's lives are being so destroyed by allowing gay people to marry?

(3) I can understand the media side and it "going away" - but exactly what do you mean? How is this issue so in your face? Seems we are more focused on Ray Rice beating his wife

 

[Joe Summer]

I think people are starting to wise up that this stuff is getting out of hand.

And what will your excuse be a year from now when that 5% change is reversed?

 

[pollardsvision]

People are starting to wise up to this stuff

 

[squistion]

Louis....hang on

Hey look, the kooks still have themselves a judge on their sidehttp://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-louisiana-marriage-ban-20140903-story.html

Didn't lastLouisiana

Heard today that in the first poll in years, support for gay marriage / marriage equality dropped ... by a significant 5%. Curious about this, as it certainly seems to run counter to the general trend(s) that we say.

Perhaps its some backlash against the newly gained ground legally?

I think people are starting to wise up that this stuff is getting out of hand. There's a tipping point for both sides. I think now that people are seeing the 'reality' of same sex marriages and the effect it's having on society and the media, that they just want it to "go away".

There's a difference between accepting and indoctrination. That's just my 2 cents. There's no doubt that some people are gay (3% of the population) and we're all over that. The other 97% of the population is sick of hearing about this all the time. Rational people see that floodgates for terrible things are opening.

What difference does the percentage of the population matter as far as civil rights are concerned? Native Americans represent 2.4% of the population, would that mean that discrimination against would be justified? Also the 3% figure that is being mentioned is disputed, as it is based on self-reporting (with people having a motive not to go on record as being gay).

 

[timschochet]

Can you imagine what this country would be like if Eminence was truly representative of public opinion?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Can you imagine what this country would be like if Eminence was truly representative of public opinion?

The movie Idiocracy?

 

[Eminence]

Can you imagine what this country would be like if Eminence was truly representative of public opinion?

A nation of Christians would be nice.

 

[joffer]

Can you imagine what this country would be like if Eminence was truly representative of public opinion?

Mississippi?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Can you imagine what this country would be like if Eminence was truly representative of public opinion?

A nation of Christians would be nice.

Have you thought about moving to Mexico? Or any other country south of our border? Your criteria would be met.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Can you imagine what this country would be like if Eminence was truly representative of public opinion?

A nation of Christians would be nice.

The rarest of all things internet: a post for which comparisons to Hitler are actually kind of appropriate.

 

[Koya]

Can you imagine what this country would be like if Eminence was truly representative of public opinion?

A nation of Christians would be nice.

Yeah. Screw everyone else!

Plus, look how well theocracy is working in the Islamic world.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Why do you guys even respond to him? I still think his anti-gay thing is just long-con shtick, only it's not remotely funny.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Why do you guys even respond to him? I still think his anti-gay thing is just long-con shtick, only it's not remotely funny.

I doubt its shtick. IMO he comes out of the closet in 5 years or so.

 

[badmojo1006]

Can you imagine what this country would be like if Eminence was truly representative of public opinion?

A nation of Christians would be nice.

Are suggesting a new country, or getting rid of anybody that is not Christian?

 

[MikeMan]

I chose 'For' but if you put me in a debate and forced me to take the other side, I would not go the religious route.

To the OP, I would say 'sometimes you just don't qualify'. I, myself, being white, cannot get a NAACP scholarship. I cannot get a tax break for being a veteran or being blind. I probably could've never joined the Girl Scouts. There are countless opportunities every one of us forfeits based solely on how we are born. If I was forced to take the 'Against' side of this debate, I would say that I love gays being able to be out and open and living their life in happiness without regret or hostility, but this is one tax break you simply aren't qualified for. My real self would then shoot down this argument, although I think it could hold a bit of merit if you believed, even for non-religious reasons, that legal marriage is reserved for a man and woman, if only based on 'that's the way it's always been' which is a stupid reason but is used all over the place.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Supreme Court denied cert this morning on all seven same sex marriage cases. So all the states that were on hold waiting to see if their bans would get reinstated will now go forward with gay marriage. Virginia, Utah, Indiana, Oklahoma, Wisconsin.

ETA: "All the states on hold" only refers to states where an appeals court had already struck down the ban. There are a bunch of other states that haven't reached that point yet so they're still waiting to see what happens.