QMany Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 My question for the religious zealots is, which is worse, allowing homosexuals get married, or allowing the homosexuals get a divorce? Neither would be considered real. Also the gay community really finds use of the word 'homosexual' to be derogatory, JFYI Really? I have never heard that. I'm not saying you are wrong; I'm just surprised. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Did racism end with Brown v Board of Education? obviously Link to comment
Enhance Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 You can't really say there are much bigger fish to fry if you're a gay couple who didn't have the opportunity to make your partner legally so and be afforded the same opportunities that a straight married couple have been afforded. It seems like a huge basic civil rights issue that should have been different ages ago. When gay couples come out and say there are much bigger issues in the world than same-sex marriage, that's saying something. I'm not, nor are they, trying to downplay the importance of this ruling. I personally believe same-sex marriage is a significant civil rights issue, but, I also believe we do have bigger issues in the country like an outlandish crime rate/gun culture, as well as some serious racial issues that have been masked by 50 years of so called "desegregation." Link to comment
AR Husker Fan Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I would like to think that anyone who reads Justice Kennedy's fact recitation of the actual plaintiffs in the cases (the decision addressed four separate cases that were consolidated) would find it impossible to deny any longer the right of same-sex marriage. Recounting the circumstances of three of these cases illustrates the urgency of the petitioners’ cause from their perspective. Petitioner James Obergefell, a plaintiff in the Ohio case, met John Arthur over two decades ago. They fell in love and started a life together, establishing a lasting, committed relation. In 2011, however, Arthur was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. This debilitating disease is progressive, with no known cure. Two years ago, Obergefell and Arthur decided to commit to one another, resolving to marry before Arthur died. To fulfill their mutual promise, they traveled from Ohio to Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal. It was difficult for Arthur to move, and so the couple were wed inside a medical transport plane as it remained on the tarmac in Baltimore. Three months later, Arthur died. Ohio law does not permit Obergefell to be listed as the surviving spouse on Arthur’s death certificate. By statute, they must remain strangers even in death, a state-imposed separation Obergefell deems “hurtful for the rest of time.” App. in No. 14–556 etc., p. 38. He brought suit to be shown as the surviving spouse on Arthur’s death certificate. April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse are co-plaintiffs in the case from Michigan. They celebrated a commitment ceremony to honor their permanent relation in 2007. They both work as nurses, DeBoer in a neonatal unit and Rowse in an emergency unit. In 2009, DeBoer and Rowse fostered and then adopted a baby boy. Later that same year, they welcomed another son into their family. The new baby, born prematurely and abandoned by his biological mother, required around-the-clock care. The next year, a baby girl with special needs joined their family. Michigan, however, permits only opposite-sex married couples or single individuals to adopt, so each child can have only onewoman as his or her legal parent. If an emergency were to arise, schools and hospitals may treat the three children as if they had only one parent. And, were tragedy to befall either DeBoer or Rowse, the other would have no legal rights over the children she had not been permitted to adopt. This couple seeks relief from the continuing uncertainty their unmarried status creates in their lives. Army Reserve Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe and his partner Thomas Kostura, co-plaintiffs in the Tennessee case, fell in love. In 2011, DeKoe received orders to deploy to Afghanistan. Before leaving, he and Kostura married in New York. A week later, DeKoe began his deployment, which lasted for almost a year. When he returned, the two settled in Tennessee, where DeKoe works full-time for the Army Reserve. Their lawful marriage is stripped from them whenever they reside in Tennessee, returning and disappearing as they travel across state lines. DeKoe, who served this Nation to preserve the freedom the Constitution protects, must endure a substantial burden. The cases now before the Court involve other petitioners as well, each with their own experiences. Their stories reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather to live their lives, or honor their spouses’ memory, joined by its bond. 3 Link to comment
Landlord Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 My question for the religious zealots is, which is worse, allowing homosexuals get married, or allowing the homosexuals get a divorce? Neither would be considered real. Also the gay community really finds use of the word 'homosexual' to be derogatory, JFYI Really? I have never heard that. I'm not saying you are wrong; I'm just surprised. I wasn't really aware of it either until recently. http://www.glaad.org/reference/lgb http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/fashion/gays-lesbians-the-term-homosexual.html?referrer=&_r=1 Link to comment
Stumpy1 Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 The reason I'm elated today is because this debate can now officially be behind us. In my opinion, there are much bigger fish to fry in the world.Amen. I'm ready for it to finally be over. Even if I don't agree with it. It's not really an issue of whether you agree with it or not as it doesn't affect your day to day life does it? But it did affect the right to happiness of gay couples all across the country every single day and is one of the biggest and most positive rulings in ages. All I said is I didn't agree with it. Nothing else. Did I need to be questioned? I didn't even say as to why, just leave it alone, dude. Like I was doing. It's over, done with, time to move on. Now that its a normal thing, we can stop talking about it. Out of curiosity, do you not agree with it because of religious beliefs? I'm not going to flame you or anything but was just curious. I ask because my nephew is gay and my sister's MIL and FIL are huge religious people. They struggled with it really bad when he first came out but they overcame the notion that it is a bad thing once they realized he is the same person he has always been and he is truly happy with himself. Link to comment
Notre Dame Joe Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 The reason I'm elated today is because this debate can now officially be behind us. In my opinion, there are much bigger fish to fry in the world.Amen. I'm ready for it to finally be over. Even if I don't agree with it. It's not really an issue of whether you agree with it or not as it doesn't affect your day to day life does it? But it did affect the right to happiness of gay couples all across the country every single day and is one of the biggest and most positive rulings in ages. I agree, Army. Allowing two women or two men to marry each other has no bearing on my life, so I really don't have an opinion on it. If they want to express their love for each other, get married, and get the legal benefits from doing so, good for them. Haven't been to divorce court? Link to comment
Scratchtown Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 The reason I'm elated today is because this debate can now officially be behind us. In my opinion, there are much bigger fish to fry in the world.Amen. I'm ready for it to finally be over. Even if I don't agree with it. It's not really an issue of whether you agree with it or not as it doesn't affect your day to day life does it? But it did affect the right to happiness of gay couples all across the country every single day and is one of the biggest and most positive rulings in ages. All I said is I didn't agree with it. Nothing else. Did I need to be questioned? I didn't even say as to why, just leave it alone, dude. Like I was doing. It's over, done with, time to move on. Now that its a normal thing, we can stop talking about it. Out of curiosity, do you not agree with it because of religious beliefs? I'm not going to flame you or anything but was just curious. I ask because my nephew is gay and my sister's MIL and FIL are huge religious people. They struggled with it really bad when he first came out but they overcame the notion that it is a bad thing once they realized he is the same person he has always been and he is truly happy with himself. Yes. Link to comment
ColoradoHusk Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 My question for the religious zealots is, which is worse, allowing homosexuals get married, or allowing the homosexuals get a divorce? Neither would be considered real. Also the gay community really finds use of the word 'homosexual' to be derogatory, JFYI Really? I have never heard that. I'm not saying you are wrong; I'm just surprised. I wasn't really aware of it either until recently. http://www.glaad.org/reference/lgb http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/fashion/gays-lesbians-the-term-homosexual.html?referrer=&_r=1 I never knew that gays & lesbians don't like the term homosexual. Thanks for the insight. Link to comment
QMany Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Heterosexual An adjective used to describe people whose enduring physical, romantic and/or emotional attraction is to people of the opposite sex. Also straight. Homosexual (see Offensive Terms to Avoid) Outdated clinical term considered derogatory and offensive by many gay and lesbian people. The Associated Press, New York Times and Washington Post restrict usage of the term. Gay and/orlesbian accurately describe those who are attracted to people of the same sex. Link to comment
Redux Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 The reason I'm elated today is because this debate can now officially be behind us. In my opinion, there are much bigger fish to fry in the world.Amen. I'm ready for it to finally be over. Even if I don't agree with it. It's not really an issue of whether you agree with it or not as it doesn't affect your day to day life does it? But it did affect the right to happiness of gay couples all across the country every single day and is one of the biggest and most positive rulings in ages. All I said is I didn't agree with it. Nothing else. Did I need to be questioned? I didn't even say as to why, just leave it alone, dude. Like I was doing. It's over, done with, time to move on. Now that its a normal thing, we can stop talking about it. Out of curiosity, do you not agree with it because of religious beliefs? I'm not going to flame you or anything but was just curious. I ask because my nephew is gay and my sister's MIL and FIL are huge religious people. They struggled with it really bad when he first came out but they overcame the notion that it is a bad thing once they realized he is the same person he has always been and he is truly happy with himself. Yes. Well, take solace in the notion that there will be a lot more room in heaven for you now. Link to comment
The Dude Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I can help but wonder if homosexuality is the sin many Christians hate so much because it's the one they're not actually committing. 3 Link to comment
cornographic Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 SCROTUS?! Wuh?! Well, if God didn't want the gays to be married, then why did he make them such good wedding planners? Anybody? Link to comment
cornographic Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I can help but wonder if homosexuality is the sin many Christians hate so much because it's the one they're not actually committing. Not so fast, my friend: Catholic Priests: It's 'Empirical Fact' That Many Clergy Are Gay http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/29/catholic-priests-its-empirical-fact-that-many-clergy-are-gay Link to comment
Recommended Posts