Supreme Court declares bans on gay marriage unconstitutional.

[Trogdor]

I challenge any one person to come up with a legitimate argument against this that doesn't involve religion. Unless of course you can definitively prove that your religion is the one true, correct, religion. Remember, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," has also been determined by the supreme court to mean that government can't create laws endorsing any one particular religion's views.

[jeremy1375]

The gay marriage ruling and the Obamacare ruling are ruining my straight marriage!

[Kracka]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

I challenge any one person to come up with a legitimate argument against this that doesn't involve religion.

Religion can be a legitimate argument; that is their opinion, which is their right. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it wrong. Do I agree with gay marriage? No. Is it wrong? Not for me to decide. If a guy wants to stick his cock in another dude's ass do I really care? Not really...have at it home boy, less competition for the rest of us

[Trogdor]

When it comes to US law, religion should not be a valid argument. One of the things that the United States was founded was religious freedom. That includes not allowing religious ideals to influence decisions when making laws that affect people who may not be members of that specific religion.

Further not all Christians even agree on this issue.

And, if you want to use religion as a justification to ban thing, then I want to ban divorce. The Bible says that's forbidden, unless it's in the case of infidelity.

[Kracka]

Religious ideals, along with lack of religious ideals, influence voting, and voting influences law/government.

Remember, there is a difference between being non-religious and anti-religion; two completely different things.

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by Kracka

Remember, there is a difference between being non-religious and anti-religion; two completely different things.

Again, the Supreme Court has interpreted that laws should not endorse any one particular religion's views. So, yes anti-religious laws are not permitted, which is the more overt statement in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise." But it is also supposed to prohibit law being created based on religious views.

[jeremy1375]

This is a complicated discussion. Anyone who believes gay marriage is wrong has every right to believe that for any reason.

The problem comes in when those who don't believe in it think their beliefs supersede everyone else so that those who do believe in it shouldn't have it. That's just straight up being a self-centered dick.

[tpunx99GSX]

cant find a single reason why not. #LoveWins

Allowing gay people to marry the one they love does not affect my life, my marriage, or my love in any way, shape or form, but does affect my friends who have chosen to marry someone of the same sex, which gives them the same happiness I have.
Conservatives who want small government should be for this, get the government out of the bedroom and stop telling people who they can and cannot love and marry.

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX

cant find a single reason why not. #LoveWins

Allowing gay people to marry the one they love does not affect my life, my marriage, or my love in any way, shape or form, but does affect my friends who have chosen to marry someone of the same sex, which gives them the same happiness I have.
Conservatives who want small government should be for this, get the government out of the bedroom and stop telling people who they can and cannot love and marry.

I don't think they needed to destroy the definition of marriage to do it, because it is the bonding of a man and a woman, has always been the bonding of a man and a woman, but there's a bigger issue here. And it's already starting to show itself because here comes the pedophiles,..... Because they deserve "the same happiness you have".

[Trogdor]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

I don't think they needed to destroy the definition of marriage to do it, because it is the bonding of a man and a woman, has always been the bonding of a man and a woman, but there's a bigger issue here. And it's already starting to show itself because here comes the pedophiles,..... Because they deserve "the same happiness you have".

That's a slippery slope argument.

Furthermore, its very easy to argue that people of X age and younger lack the capacity to make Y decision. There will always be exceptions to this, and some of our age limits here in America are set arbitrarily. But to a large degree, science (not subjective religious opinions) and set this straight.

Additionally, we can definitively show young kids who experience molestation, or other sexual experiences at a young age are much more likely to develop mental health problems. There is a clear negative effect there, unlike in the case of same-sex marriage (other wise now know as just marriage).

[SlowWhite]

Originally Posted by Trogdor

That's a slippery slope argument.

Furthermore, its very easy to argue that people of X age and younger lack the capacity to make Y decision. There will always be exceptions to this, and some of our age limits here in America are set arbitrarily. But to a large degree, science (not subjective religious opinions) and set this straight.

Additionally, we can definitively show young kids who experience molestation, or other sexual experiences at a young age are much more likely to develop mental health problems. There is a clear negative effect there, unlike in the case of same-sex marriage (other wise now know as just marriage).

I might be mistaken but wasnt it not to long ago getting married under the age of 16 was legal? I know my wifes grand parents were married at 14 and are still happily married been over 55yrs married.

And I fully agree unwanted molestation has a life ling effect on a child.

[Kracka]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

I don't think they needed to destroy the definition of marriage to do it, because it is the bonding of a man and a woman, has always been the bonding of a man and a woman, but there's a bigger issue here. And it's already starting to show itself because here comes the pedophiles,..... Because they deserve "the same happiness you have".

Didn't take long at all:

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/that-w...-equal-rights/

It is a very slippery slope...once you start making changes it's tough to stop that rolling ball of progress.

[Goat Blower]

Originally Posted by Kracka

Didn't take long at all:

http://allenbwest.com/2015/06/that-w...-equal-rights/

It is a very slippery slope...once you start making changes it's tough to stop that rolling ball of progress.

#pedolovewins

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by Goat Blower

#pedolovewins

You seem very excited about that.

[1ViciousGSX]

Yep.

But the slipperiest slope of all,..... the fact that 9 unelected lawyers can write/rewrite legislation from the bench unchecked, unhindered by the Constitution they swore to uphold. And that's the worst part of it all.

There is nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that gives the SCOTUS the power to do what they did.

[jeremy1375]

^

SCOTUS didn't do anything that Congress couldn't undo if the people demanded it. Congress has the power to write legislation as well as amend the Constitution, if they have the backing of the people. The system of check and balances is still in effect. The country just has enough people in favor of same sex marriage that it is unlikely.

And it was the due process clause that gave SCOTUS the power to do what they did...

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by jeremy1375

^

SCOTUS didn't do anything that Congress couldn't undo if the people demanded it. Congress has the power to write legislation as well as amend the Constitution, if they have the backing of the people. The system of check and balances is still in effect. The country just has enough people in favor of same sex marriage that it is unlikely.

And it was the due process clause that gave SCOTUS the power to do what they did...

You need to brush up on your Separation of Powers. The SCOTUS doesn't have the power to do what it did.

http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

A judicial activist is a judge who interprets the Constitution to mean what it would have said if he, instead of the Founding Fathers, had written it."
Sam Ervin
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
Samuel Adams
"Day by day, case by case, the court is busy redesigning a Constitution for a nation I do not recognize."
Justice Antonin Scalia

[tpunx99GSX]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
Samuel Adams

Could be said of every religion interpreting their holy book.

[1ViciousGSX]

Originally Posted by tpunx99GSX

Could be said of every religion interpreting their holy book.

It could be said about 6 of 9 justices who couldn't understand the plain language and meaning of four (4) words when it came to Obamacare, "through a state exchange" or the definition of marriage as being "between a man and a woman".

You've got to get past the "good intent/feelings" of what is going on and look at the bigger picture outside of your LGBT world. Everything starts with some kind of "precedent" which then opens the door for more b.s. down the road.

Whether or not you believe in gay marriage is a small part of what happened. But what you should really be upset about is the fact the SCOTUS (and the President for that matter) are over stepping their bounds as laid out by the Constitution. And that's what really matters.

[jeremy1375]

Originally Posted by 1ViciousGSX

You need to brush up on your Separation of Powers. The SCOTUS doesn't have the power to do what it did.

http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

A judicial activist is a judge who interprets the Constitution to mean what it would have said if he, instead of the Founding Fathers, had written it."
Sam Ervin
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
Samuel Adams
"Day by day, case by case, the court is busy redesigning a Constitution for a nation I do not recognize."
Justice Antonin Scalia

What is your logical argument for what they have done wrong?

I see you posted a website, but it wasn't written by a lawyer, it was written by a guy who describes himself as "Joe Citizen".

"If this web site seems less than scholarly, it's because I am not a Constitutional Scholar. I hold no law degrees nor can I offer any qualifications whatever which would serve to prove me competent to hold forth on issues of constitutional law. I'm just Joe Citizen with a copy of the Constitution and the ability to read and comprehend plain English."