Bikeguide.org - Bike maintenance for BMX'ers
The Street => The Lounge => Topic started by: dude... on June 26, 2015, 09:58:53 PM
-
Just wanted to say good work to our zany american cousins for being all progressive and getting it done. I hope that australia gets its shit together and follows suit sharpish
-
I don't get why people care so much on the opposing side. I'm glad everyone can get married as they please now.
-
FUCK QUEERS!
I kid, obviously. Have you guys heard about people getting a divorce because of the ruling? They're like... "Well if marriage doesn't mean anything anymore, why even bother?!" How fucking mental must you be to have that thought process?
-
Because people are assholes. I want front row seats to the pastor that said he would burn himself alive in protest.
-
I think people are angry cause it'll be harder to get a venue for their straight wedding and everyone would rather go to a gay one cause they're so much fun.
We recently legalized it in Ireland too and the only thing more fun than an Irish wedding is a gay Irish wedding.
Fuck yeah the craic will be mighty
-
The old guard is almost dead. Either we make it out of Sinai or we don't know anything else and it might as well be an exit.
-
I'm glad for our gay brothers and sisters.
-
I'm glad it happened, but the route that was taken is a slippery slope. Using the 14th Amendment to go around the 10th Amendment will make for some interesting case law in the future as it is applied to other unintended situations.
-
What does that mean for people who don't know what the amendments are?
-
What does that mean for people who don't know what the amendments are?
I'm sure that you know that the US Constitution is the highest law, so everything we do must be in line with the intent of the text (not the interpretation of the text, as some politicians like to think).
The 10th Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
This means that if the Constitution doesn't specifically give power to the Federal government on an issue, the States are responsible for that issue. All 50 states have the authority to handle these issues as they see fit, and can handle them in 50 different ways if each state so chooses.
The 14th Amendment is a long one, but the passage of Section 1 applied in this case states: "... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The Supreme Court ruled that this passage of the 14th trumped the 10th in this case. This logic, now written as Case Law, can be legally applied in future cases where any person feels that a State's law denies them equal protection and can override State law.
It will be interesting to see how this case law is applied in the future.
-
I just liked reading the comments about bigoted Americans being pissed off and wanting to run to Canada.
-
As if other countries will welcome amrican bigotry.
-
I just liked reading the comments about bigoted Americans being pissed off and wanting to run to Canada.
You've had legal same sex marriage for about a decade now, correct?
-
Stoked on America doing the right thing for the gay/bi/lesbians.
-
I just liked reading the comments about bigoted Americans being pissed off and wanting to run to Canada.
You've had legal same sex marriage for about a decade now, correct?
Correct.
What's better is that it's also pride week in TO at the same time this is all going on in the states. Downtown will basically be rainbows and nipples for the next week and a bit. Crazy influx of money comes into the city too. Good times had by all.
-
I gotta make it out to pride week some time. I hear it's an absolute riot, a friend of mine goes every year and she can't say enough good things about it.
-
on a tangent, folsom street fair is pretty bitchin.
-
Was in Barcelona for all the gay pride stuff. City is very homosexual friendly, so naturally there was all sorts of leather attire down Las Ramblas
-
Is there anyone on Bg who is actually bummed about this?
-
Is there anyone on Bg who is actually bummed about this?
I assume that at least one will be bummed after a male gay wedding. Bum bum - tisssss.
-
The most fucked up thing I have been hearing about this gay marriage ruling is that it "opens the door" for pedophiles (and others like this) to get the same "rights" as gays. Really makes me mad. Homosexualism and heterosexualism are between two consenting adults. Pedophilia, one of the parties 1) is not consenting or 2) cannot legally give consent. Big difference there.
It is super fucked up.
The other fucked up shit is that with the ACA and gay rights being in SCOTUS (and SCOTUS doing a damn good job on both) and with the confederate flag bullshit, everyone has forgotten all about the underhanded shit going on in the government right now/recently (an even shittier version of the Patriot Act going through, TPP being fast-tracked, etc.).
What does that mean for people who don't know what the amendments are?
I'm sure that you know that the US Constitution is the highest law, so everything we do must be in line with the intent of the text (not the interpretation of the text, as some politicians like to think).
The 10th Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
This means that if the Constitution doesn't specifically give power to the Federal government on an issue, the States are responsible for that issue. All 50 states have the authority to handle these issues as they see fit, and can handle them in 50 different ways if each state so chooses.
The 14th Amendment is a long one, but the passage of Section 1 applied in this case states: "... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The Supreme Court ruled that this passage of the 14th trumped the 10th in this case. This logic, now written as Case Law, can be legally applied in future cases where any person feels that a State's law denies them equal protection and can override State law.
It will be interesting to see how this case law is applied in the future.
I don't think it will be that big of a deal. This same argument comes up every time something "new" gets added to the constitution. You know there were people bitching about slavery not being in the first 10 Amendments, so maybe that should have stayed a state issue. Or if inter-racial marriage was still against the law. These are clear denials of human rights.
-
Being soft and 30 I use facebook. There was this image analogous to troops in Iwo Jima but gay dudes raising a rainbow flag. All the right wing people are so upset about a comparison to veterans. There has been a lot of homosexual discrimination that resulted in many deaths of gay dudes. I wish they made a civil war version too.
-
^^^^^ I thought that picture was funny. I got a laugh out of it.
-
Let me start off by saying I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I think the issue for most religious people is that they think it is not the governments job to redefine what they see as a status that originated with religion and Adam and Eve. Separation of church and state thing. I think it's less about rights and more about redefining what they see as a religious term. I mean shit, you need an minister who is ordained through a religious institution to marry a couple. I think what it really comes down to is the benefits that the government gives to married couples. If you gave gay people the same benefits of married couples but called it something different than marriage I don't think religious people would give a shit nearly as much. For most religious people its not about pushing their religious beliefs on others or equality as it is about preserving a biblical definition. I feel like most people who are for gay marriage don't see this side of the debate and the amount of religious bashing and in tolerance of peoples beliefs i've been seeing is ridiculous. Its all about tolerance.
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11183467_490082064474030_6929107586622279266_n.jpg?oh=328da27d9bfb9f8e3877a82caf934971&oe=5630A91B)
-
Let me start off by saying I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I think the issue for most religious people is that they think it is not the governments job to redefine what they see as a status that originated with religion and Adam and Eve. Separation of church and state thing. I think it's less about rights and more about redefining what they see as a religious term. I mean shit, you need an minister who is ordained through a religious institution to marry a couple. I think what it really comes down to is the benefits that the government gives to married couples. If you gave gay people the same benefits of married couples but called it something different than marriage I don't think religious people would give a shit nearly as much. For most religious people its not about pushing their religious beliefs on others or equality as it is about preserving a biblical definition. I feel like most people who are for gay marriage don't see this side of the debate and the amount of religious bashing and in tolerance of peoples beliefs i've been seeing is ridiculous. Its all about tolerance.
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11183467_490082064474030_6929107586622279266_n.jpg?oh=328da27d9bfb9f8e3877a82caf934971&oe=5630A91B)
What makes marriage's definition bound to a biblical thing though? You can't own a word. It may have started with a different meaning but you can't enforce a meaning when the world around you is changing it.
Take idiot. It was once a scientific term for people with exceptional mental handicaps. People throw that word around like it's nothing anymore, cause quite frankly it is nothing.
The N-word is another one. The black community has changed the perception of the meaning of the word drastically. It's still a hot word to say but it's not a strict racial epithet it used to be.
To people who see marriage as a man and woman. It'll always be that way. To people who see it differently. They'll always see it their way. The government's job is to side with the majority of people and in this case no one is truly discriminated. It's not like straight marriage is now outlawed. Hell, there is a Japanese dude who married an online character from a video game, to him marriage is that too. No one may recognize it as real but that ain't gonna change his views.
-
I mean shit, you need an minister who is ordained through a religious institution to marry a couple.
No you don't.
-
If you gave gay people the same benefits of married couples but called it something different than marriage I don't think religious people would give a shit nearly as much. . . . . I feel like most people who are for gay marriage don't see this side of the debate and the amount of religious bashing and in tolerance of peoples beliefs i've been seeing is ridiculous. Its all about tolerance.
Social union ideas have been tossed about but the fact was that people were still not giving it as much credence as marriage. Marriage is in the law, social unions are not. Plus, nobody thinks a social union is anywhere near as meaningful as a marriage.
That is a problem.
And where is exactly are you seeing the gays lash out at religious people? And are you really implying that gay people are less tolerant than religious people? Really? Gay people just want to get married.
The bible literally has about a thousand more things to say about how terrible divorce is. How many devout religious people have gone through that, and still think gays are going to destroy that holy sanctity of marriage? The bible also says consuming shellfish is a sin, so you can bet I get a laugh down here in Louisiana when the Catholics are sucking down tons of crawfish at boils during lent. Funny how no one is up in arms about these. . . .
For most religious people its not about pushing their religious beliefs on others or equality as it is about preserving a biblical definition.
This should not matter in the least. If you want to be religious and believe in the idea of marriage between a man and a woman, go ahead. You want to believe homosexuals are doomed to hellfire? No problem. No one cares. No one is going to force you to marry the same sex. No one will force you to change your views, because no one really cares what you think. It just doesn't matter. You could think the moon is made of fucking cheese or that the first woman was made from the rib of a man, it won't change a single thing anywhere in the universe.
Start pushing your ideas on other people, that is wrong, and that is where people have issue. You can believe whatever you want, but when you start pushing beliefs, you are wrong. That is why people have problems with religion.
-
Let me start off by saying I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I think the issue for most religious people is that they think it is not the governments job to redefine what they see as a status that originated with religion and Adam and Eve. Separation of church and state thing. I think it's less about rights and more about redefining what they see as a religious term. I mean shit, you need an minister who is ordained through a religious institution to marry a couple. I think what it really comes down to is the benefits that the government gives to married couples. If you gave gay people the same benefits of married couples but called it something different than marriage I don't think religious people would give a shit nearly as much. For most religious people its not about pushing their religious beliefs on others or equality as it is about preserving a biblical definition. I feel like most people who are for gay marriage don't see this side of the debate and the amount of religious bashing and in tolerance of peoples beliefs i've been seeing is ridiculous. Its all about tolerance.
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11183467_490082064474030_6929107586622279266_n.jpg?oh=328da27d9bfb9f8e3877a82caf934971&oe=5630A91B)
What makes marriage's definition bound to a biblical thing though? You can't own a word. It may have started with a different meaning but you can't enforce a meaning when the world around you is changing it.
Take idiot. It was once a scientific term for people with exceptional mental handicaps. People throw that word around like it's nothing anymore, cause quite frankly it is nothing.
The N-word is another one. The black community has changed the perception of the meaning of the word drastically. It's still a hot word to say but it's not a strict racial epithet it used to be.
To people who see marriage as a man and woman. It'll always be that way. To people who see it differently. They'll always see it their way. The government's job is to side with the majority of people and in this case no one is truly discriminated. It's not like straight marriage is now outlawed. Hell, there is a Japanese dude who married an online character from a video game, to him marriage is that too. No one may recognize it as real but that ain't gonna change his views.
This is why I said I don't have a problem with it. I already understand that. Just pointing out the religious side that people don't seem to get.
-
Start pushing your ideas on other people, that is wrong, and that is where people have issue. You can believe whatever you want, but when you start pushing beliefs, you are wrong. That is why people have problems with religion.
That's pretty much the issue of this. This issue is being pushed one way or the other.
I don't know why it can't exist in an intelligently communicated idea, pertaining to what Ginger quoted. Get married anywhere else but a church that doesn't support it. I somehow doubt that a couple wants to get married in a church that has a longstanding view of homosexual marriage.
I might be the token hook line and sinker Christian on the board. Despite that, I was married in a court building in my city without much mention of god at all. Writing that I feel very unfortunate. Back to the point, you can be married before the state in a non religious institution. Communicate this and I think things could be made easier.
-
Let me start off by saying I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I think the issue for most religious people is that they think it is not the governments job to redefine what they see as a status that originated with religion and Adam and Eve. Separation of church and state thing. I think it's less about rights and more about redefining what they see as a religious term. I mean shit, you need an minister who is ordained through a religious institution to marry a couple. I think what it really comes down to is the benefits that the government gives to married couples. If you gave gay people the same benefits of married couples but called it something different than marriage I don't think religious people would give a shit nearly as much. For most religious people its not about pushing their religious beliefs on others or equality as it is about preserving a biblical definition. I feel like most people who are for gay marriage don't see this side of the debate and the amount of religious bashing and in tolerance of peoples beliefs i've been seeing is ridiculous. Its all about tolerance.
What makes marriage's definition bound to a biblical thing though? You can't own a word. It may have started with a different meaning but you can't enforce a meaning when the world around you is changing it.
Take idiot. It was once a scientific term for people with exceptional mental handicaps. People throw that word around like it's nothing anymore, cause quite frankly it is nothing.
The N-word is another one. The black community has changed the perception of the meaning of the word drastically. It's still a hot word to say but it's not a strict racial epithet it used to be.
To people who see marriage as a man and woman. It'll always be that way. To people who see it differently. They'll always see it their way. The government's job is to side with the majority of people and in this case no one is truly discriminated. It's not like straight marriage is now outlawed. Hell, there is a Japanese dude who married an online character from a video game, to him marriage is that too. No one may recognize it as real but that ain't gonna change his views.
This is why I said I don't have a problem with it. I already understand that. Just pointing out the religious side that people don't seem to get.
I agree with this, but have been called homophobic so many times that I have stopped saying it. I just have a problem in having the government involved in church is a slippery slope to start on. Saying this I don't disagree with gay marriage per se, just that the government shouldn't interfere with the church/what ever religious institution. But I know how you guys feel about religion sooo...
-
I agree with this, but have been called homophobic so many times that I have stopped saying it. I just have a problem in having the government involved in church is a slippery slope to start on. Saying this I don't disagree with gay marriage per se, just that the government shouldn't interfere with the church/what ever religious institution. But I know how you guys feel about religion sooo...
The government absolutely should not be involved in religion. That is why this ruling was so good.
If two people want to get married, they should be able to. It is a union with many different aspects that change your rights, tax brackets, etc. Who is anyone to say that two people can't enter into this agreement because of their plumbing? Not allowing two people to get married because of what the bible says is allowing religion into law. By saying anyone can get married, that is taking religion out of it.
Gay people are not going to walk into a super-religious church and demand the church marry them. The church would be well within their rights to refuse. The pastor that married my wife and I said that she would refuse to marry couples she thought "wouldn't work." So anti-gay churches need not be involved. Gays can go to the city clerk, or they get a more open minister, or they get someone licensed to perform marriages to marry them. You can get a license to marry people through an online course. . . .
The fact is, this is not the government stepping into a church. This is the government saying that marriage is a union between two people. They are not re-writing the bible.
This ruling does not affect churches in any way, except for perhaps pissing them off that their definition of marriage can no longer be forced on other people.
-
I agree with this, but have been called homophobic so many times that I have stopped saying it. I just have a problem in having the government involved in church is a slippery slope to start on. Saying this I don't disagree with gay marriage per se, just that the government shouldn't interfere with the church/what ever religious institution. But I know how you guys feel about religion sooo...
The government absolutely should not be involved in religion. That is why this ruling was so good.
If two people want to get married, they should be able to. It is a union with many different aspects that change your rights, tax brackets, etc. Who is anyone to say that two people can't enter into this agreement because of their plumbing? Not allowing two people to get married because of what the bible says is allowing religion into law. By saying anyone can get married, that is taking religion out of it.
Gay people are not going to walk into a super-religious church and demand the church marry them. The church would be well within their rights to refuse. The pastor that married my wife and I said that she would refuse to marry couples she thought "wouldn't work." So anti-gay churches need not be involved. Gays can go to the city clerk, or they get a more open minister, or they get someone licensed to perform marriages to marry them. You can get a license to marry people through an online course. . . .
The fact is, this is not the government stepping into a church. This is the government saying that marriage is a union between two people. They are not re-writing the bible.
This ruling does not affect churches in any way, except for perhaps pissing them off that their definition of marriage can no longer be forced on other people.
It comes down to semantics, some people see 'marriage' as having innately religious connotations. Perhaps one of the easier ways of doing it would to simply make civil-partnerships and marriages have the same legal equal footing. Some people say marriage is religious, some say it is legal. Let religion decide what they want to do.
-
The way I see it the government never should have gotten involved with marriage from the beginning. Government involvement is what fucjed up marriage. This whole debate wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the government giving married couples benefits.
-
The way I see it the government never should have gotten involved with marriage from the beginning. Government involvement is what fucjed up marriage. This whole debate wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the government giving married couples benefits.
this deserves a rainbow box!!!
-
back in the early days of the modern state when they were making rules and laws and such, when religion was almost ubiquitous, it heavily influenced values and the creation of rules and regulations under which the state operated. since then, thankfully the church and government are more separate (maybe not in parts of the US which can be really backwards about this stuff in some states, which is why this bill passing is so important).
i think its short sighted to say the government fucked up marriage, just because marriage as a concept has morphed considerably over the last few hundred years.
if your religion doesnt want to acknowledge same sex marriage, then thats an issue for that institution to decide on (i think religion sucks anyway), but its not fair that under the modern state which governs people of all faiths and beliefs, that some people have lesser rights than other citizens when it comes to forming romantic unions/partnerships.
its super annoying how some of the people opposing gay marriage are now acting like they are being marginalised and being hard done to, while LGTBQ+ people have had to put up with that shit their whole lives.
there are already plenty of loving gay couples out there getting on with their lives with their families exactly as heterosexual people do, meanwhile having no effect on those who speak out against them. yet because of their sexuality, for years their union has been perceived as less legitimate by the state simply due to their gender.
the whole issue is about equality for everyone, no matter who they love. in the future we will look back shamefully at the bigotry which permeated our society for so long, in the same way we look back at racial segregation 50-60 years prior
also, for the australian mandem, tony abbot is a total fuckwit and i cant wait til hes out of office
-
It comes down to semantics, some people see 'marriage' as having innately religious connotations. Perhaps one of the easier ways of doing it would to simply make civil-partnerships and marriages have the same legal equal footing. Some people say marriage is religious, some say it is legal. Let religion decide what they want to do.
I bolded your text that says "some people." The views of "some people" based on what is in a religious book absolutely should not influence what other people can do if it does not harm anyone. And spare me the drivel about gays undermining the sanctity of marriage in the US. I think the 40%+ divorce/remarry rate, which is a much greater fucking sin and and is mentioned about a million more fucking times in the bible than gay marriage, is a little bit more of an issue to Americas moral code.
I also bolded "let religion decide what they want to do." This is because religion can still decide what they want to do. A devout catholic male does not have to marry another dude. An ultra-conservative christian church does not have to marry two girls.
But why should they have any say whatsoever if people of a different religion (or lack there of) decide marriage is a union between two people that wish to express their love and devotion towards one another INDEPENDENT of gender? They shouldn't, no more than a Muslim should be forced to abide by Christian religious values.
-
Wasn't LukeTom the one moaning about his family having to pay a couple grand on their million dollar home, willing to disregard the situation of his fellow citizens as long as he was doing ok? No surprises here I guess.
-
Tory fucker, that's him.
To cut a long story short, some people have fucking retarded views on the world and nothing will change that. Just do what is right by human standards and let the mouth breathers continue talking to their imaginary friends. They'll all be dead soon.
-
All I have been saying is an easier way of doing this would be awarding exactly the same rights etc to homosexual couples if they were in a civil partnership. I don't see why labelling it with 'marriage' is such a big deal for people when it just creates tension with all the religious folk. I am only playing devils advocate here, i don't see why marriage should still be sacred.
-
Because of equality, fuck face. It's like saying "hey guys, you can come to our schools, and businesses and even use our public transit! Buuuuuuuut, you'll need to use different bathrooms and water fountains and also be sat in a different area from the straight people".
It's a big deal because gay people are normal. Why should they settle for a "civil union" when they have the same rights and freedoms as straight people in the same country as them?
If you're genuinely trying to play the devils advocate, you super suck at it. Go cry in your mansion.
-
Because of equality, fuck face. It's like saying "hey guys, you can come to our schools, and businesses and even use our public transit! Buuuuuuuut, you'll need to use different bathrooms and water fountains and also be sat in a different area from the straight people".
No, its nothing like that. Its like saying; we recognise the history of marriage that it has always been between two people of opposite sexes. Sooooo instead of antagonise a large amount of the population we will give you exactly the same thing, but call it a union instead of a marriage because of the history etc. of that word. If its just the name then why does it matter so much to people?
-
Because of equality, fuck face. It's like saying "hey guys, you can come to our schools, and businesses and even use our public transit! Buuuuuuuut, you'll need to use different bathrooms and water fountains and also be sat in a different area from the straight people".
No, its nothing like that. Its like saying; we recognise the history of marriage that it has always been between two people of opposite sexes. Sooooo instead of antagonise a large amount of the population we will give you exactly the same thing, but call it a union instead of a marriage because of the history etc. of that word. If its just the name then why does it matter so much to people?
If it is only a word, why don't the religious folk just go back to calling it בָּעַל (baal), the Hebrew word for marriage? What's the big deal? Why does it matter, if it's only a word? Or are there perhaps connotations to the word marriage, and no matter how equal a civil union is, people still wouldn't hold it in as high regard as marriage?
Also, the history of marriage has not always been between a man and a woman. Often, it was (and still is some places) between a man and a few women.
Calling a gay marriage a civil union to avoid pissing off religious people means the views and beliefs of those religious people outweigh the views and beliefs of other people. That isn't right.
-
Perhaps they should go back to using the Hebrew word, and it would not surprise me if they did. I don't know if people would not hold it in such high regard as marriage, it comes down to societies view on the whole thing. People who support it would hold it in high regard, and those who don't would not. I think in time when it had been integrated it would be held in high regard.
In the same vein you could say that you could say that the views of the religious people are being outweighed by the homosexuals and that "isn't right"? I just think it would silence allot of people if they had a referendum such as in Ireland, it would truly silence the critics, and would be a better way than simply the government intervening in religion which was my problem with it in the first place. I don't care if two people of the same sex can get married or not, I just think the process which was taken seemed suspect.
-
What isn't right is when a group decides they can deny people one of the most meaningful events of their lives because they happen to be the same gender.
The views of people should not matter at all when they infringe on the lives of people that have nothing to do with their views.
Let us say, as an example, that you and your friends think it is morally wrong to eat shellfish because shellfish are stated as unclean in your your particular religious text. You see a man eating shellfish. You demand he stop eating shellfish because it is not in line with your religious belief on morally acceptable food items.
Is this acceptable behavior on your part? Should the man stop eating shellfish?
-
Just as a devils advocate, not furthering the population could've been a biblical reason. Definitely wasn't a disease issue.
-
If you're genuinely trying to play the devils advocate, you super suck at it. Go cry in your mansion.
I hate the fact that I've been agreeing with you more often than not lately. No, this does not mean we can cross swords now.
-
Gay Marriage is pretty gay though.
-
Are you activly trying to force a dick in my butt? No? Then do what the fuck you want. Two consenting adults in a consenting relationship regardless of religion, gender, race, etc. should be able to be treated the same, it affects nobody negatively if we all have the same rights