# So How Do You Feel About Rainbows?



## Loveabull (Jun 26, 2015)

Wonderful news in the states today. The Supreme Court ruled same sex marriage legal and legit in all US territories. But since we do tend to share a lot here. How do you identify? I would say I go both ways. If I am eventually widowed I think I would tend to seek out a female partner over male. Then again if I were 25 again I might experiment with presenting as a man. I'm pleased with the freedom of today's culture to gender bend wherever you feel comfortable. So where do you stand?


----------



## dale (Jun 26, 2015)

i basically feel homosexuality is a form of insanity and that legalizing gay marriage is simply the government enabling insane people
to indulge in their delusions. it's almost always directly correlated with child molestation. i've never met 1 single gay person that didn't
admit to being sexually molested as a child. not 1. but...our society has a tendency today to wanna portray everyone as a victim and 
allow these so called victims to justify feelings of emotional turmoil and act upon them in the name of "tolerance" under a false flag
of empathy. so there you go.


----------



## ppsage (Jun 26, 2015)

Philosophers have understood for millenniums that to be human is to be victimized. What about ole Eddy Puss? I like the way Kierkegaard said it, to be human is like driving a two horse refuse cart where Pegasus is yoked to a glue nag. We have a consciousness which soars to the eternal but bodies of corruption and death. The first step to recovery is to acknowledge your victimhoodness.


----------



## Loveabull (Jun 26, 2015)

Good Lord, please tell me you're fond of really dark humor...otherwise I've got this great guy for you, he calls himself Texas Grandpa and regularly goes off on tangents about how if'n we just rounded up all the anti-gun forces, homo-sex-uals, and anyone not lily white, oh and some of them loud mouth women too...just nuke them all and the world would be a better place


----------



## dale (Jun 26, 2015)

Loveabull said:


> Good Lord, please tell me you're fond of really dark humor...otherwise I've got this great guy for you, he calls himself Texas Grandpa and regularly goes off on tangents about how if'n we just rounded up all the anti-gun forces, homo-sex-uals, and anyone not lily white, oh and some of them loud mouth women too...just nuke them all and the world would be a better place



lol. i'm not for "rounding up" anyone. it's my opinion. you asked for people's opinions. i gave mine.


----------



## Loveabull (Jun 26, 2015)

I guess what's startling is such a pretty little girl as an avatar, with such an ugly perspective. Hate shouldn't be a family value.


----------



## dale (Jun 26, 2015)

Loveabull said:


> I guess what's startling is such a pretty little girl as an avatar, with such an ugly perspective. Hate shouldn't be a family value.



not about hate whatsoever. but i'm not trying to debate the issue. it's not allowed here.


----------



## InstituteMan (Jun 26, 2015)

dale said:


> i'm not trying to debate the issue. it's not allowed here.



Dale's pretty smart sometimes. 

I'm personally beyond happy with the decision, but this isn't the place to argue for my point of view.


----------



## popsprocket (Jun 26, 2015)

I think it's a great step forward. If society is going to continue telling people to get married because it's the done thing, then opening it up to everyone is important.


----------



## Loveabull (Jun 27, 2015)

Agreed, I was going to ask somebody to just lock down the thread...but yeah enough is enough. Still happy as can be though!


----------



## Pluralized (Jun 27, 2015)

I feel... ambiguous. It's one thing to promote love and unity, which I totally support, but I think that marriage is a fading institution and should be rescinded as a sociological function rather than forcing gay people to think that's the normal thing to adhere to. They want to put everyone in a slot, and we've now got slots to put everyone in, more checkboxes to be added to forms. Sometimes controversy is a healthy dynamic and propels societal evolution. 

I don't believe there's anything wrong with gay people, quite the opposite; I believe love is love and you cannot fully control it. We shouldn't expect others to live their lives to please us or align with our proclivities, especially if they're doing us no harm. Everyone, at the basic root of being, wants the same thing -- to be loved and accepted and fed and clothed and warm.


----------



## joshybo (Jun 27, 2015)

I am honestly thrilled with the ruling earlier today.  Love is love.  It should be respected universally.


----------



## dale (Jun 27, 2015)

joshybo said:


> I am honestly thrilled with the ruling earlier today.  Love is love.  It should be respected universally.



obviously, love is NOT love anymore. the divorce rate is obscene. and will only get worse now.


----------



## Phil Istine (Jun 27, 2015)

I welcome the change; it's not like it's being made compulsory.

I now await the time when people won't be victimised on the size of their bank balance.


----------



## Riis Marshall (Jun 27, 2015)

Hello Dale

So if I understand you correctly, when my uncle raped his eighteen-year-old lesbian daughter, my cousin, to keep her from turning queer and she later committed suicide, that was just fine and a perfectly reasonable way for him to behave: he did the world a favour by eliminating one more insane person. Apparently he thought her being serviced by him - a real man's man - would turn her from the path of evil.

You can sleep safely at night because she can never trouble you.

Let's hear it for tolerance and understanding!

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## Sonata (Jun 27, 2015)

Phil Istine said:


> I welcome the change; it's not like it's being made compulsory.
> 
> I now await the time when people won't be victimised on the size of their bank balance.



Or the shape of their genitals and whether they have indoor or outdoor plumbing.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 27, 2015)

dale said:


> obviously, love is NOT love anymore. the divorce rate is obscene. and will only get worse now.


Possibly, my marriage lasted nine years, my present, unsanctioned, relationship has lasted about thirty three and counting. Regarding homosexual relationships, in my youth homosexuality itself was illegal in this country and I vividly remember an elderly gentleman, a respected Physicist, debating this with us teenagers and saying, "I try to take an outside, unemotional view, and it seems to to me that in an overpopulated world if there is a section of the population who are willing to satisfy their sexual urges without reproducing why on earth should we object?"

I have no interest, either in practising homosexuality or marriage, if others wish to I have no objection either. 

Child molestation does damage people and lead to deviant adult behaviour, I doubt it leads to simple homosexuality, I have known some, I am sure, were simply born that way. I am also doubtful about classifying a difference brought about by a life experience as 'insanity'; 'mad or criminal' is too easy a way to degrade and outlaw every person of whom we do not approve, and authorise far worse to be done to them.


----------



## Caragula (Jun 27, 2015)

All kinds of species of animal have homosexuality and I've got so many hard-working, creative, compassionate, complex friends who happen to sexually prefer their own gender that I struggle to see what definition of insanity would apply.  But that's just an opinion.  None of them were molested either, but it's a small data sample.

I'm delighted that they can choose to get married with the same rights as cisgender couples.  It's just a change in the availability of a choice and no harm is done, perhaps a few wrinkled noses and some cussing, but there's bigger, darker things to worry about in this world than public proclamations of love.


----------



## dale (Jun 27, 2015)

Riis Marshall said:


> Hello Dale
> 
> So if I understand you correctly, when my uncle raped his eighteen-year-old lesbian daughter, my cousin, to keep her from turning queer and she later committed suicide, that was just fine and a perfectly reasonable way for him to behave: he did the world a favour by eliminating one more insane person. Apparently he thought her being serviced by him - a real man's man - would turn her from the path of evil.
> 
> ...



lol. how the hell you pulled that out of your ass from what i said, i'll never know.


----------



## J Anfinson (Jun 27, 2015)

Come on, guys. Let's not get personal. That never turns out well here.


----------



## KLJo (Jun 27, 2015)

I'm bi, it just turned out my life partner was male.


----------



## Pluralized (Jun 27, 2015)

I'm actually tri-sexual. I'll try anything.


----------



## Ariel (Jun 27, 2015)

I don't think a subset of humanity should be penalized because of gender, sexuality, race, or creed.  Tolerance and acceptance is the first step towards peace.  I can't control the actions and thoughts of others but I can control mine.   Love is love and it's a beautiful thing.  Can it be used to justify some terrible things?  Of course it can.  We are a creative species and we're always finding ways to victimize and harm each other.


----------



## InstituteMan (Jun 27, 2015)

I'm definitely in the camp that thinks marriage changed long ago, and the recognition of same-sex marriage is just an inevitable consequence of that change. 

Once upon a time, if you were wealthy enough to have an estate to pass on to an heir and wanted to assure paternity, marriage was a handy thing, a thing that didn't need to involve love for your spouse (who am I kidding?) wife. 

I grew up in a family sufficiently far down the economic ladder that ensuring that the estate went to the offspring of the man of the house wasn't really a motivating factor for marriage, there being no estates to inherit. Most marriages of prior generations of my kin happened at the end of a shotgun in scenarios where paternity was pretty certain, the couple having been caught in the act of trying to create some paternity. The father of the expectant bride was usually more concerned about making sure the fellow responsible for the impending grandchild paid to raise the kid than maintaining fig leaf of religious fidelity. 

One exception to the shotgun wedding tendency of my family tree was my great-grandparents, who eloped over the strenuous objections of the bride's parents. That marriage for love was much happier than the other marriages I saw growing up. I am happy to see that marrying for love is the model we follow now, more or less. 

The transition to a marriage for love model was hard, which gave us the soaring divorce rate in the 70s and 80s and 90s. I know of a few cases in my family where the couple got married for reasons like pregnancy or financial security and later came to think that those weren't very good reasons for marriage. The funny thing is, the divorce rate is now way, way down over the past several years. Maybe we're getting the hang of marrying for love. I think we at least are almost all on the same page now as agreeing that marriage is about love in our society now.

If love is the basis for marriage, though, there's no reason to keep same-sex couples out of the institution. Good luck and congratulations to all the newlyweds, I say.


----------



## Nippon Devil (Jun 27, 2015)

I'm not sure why the topic creator would make a topic asking people to express their opinion, then get annoyed when they happen to be different then their own. Are we only allowed to post in here if we love homosexuality?

I think it's fine for gay people to fall in love, but marriage is less about love and more about tax breaks for people creating new citizens for this glorious country. Love is't a golden ring and a tax break. I honestly think the whole thing is silly. I'm tired of reading about gay people in the news. If gay people and gay supporters really wanted people to be treated equally based on sexual preference, they would stop bringing their sexual preferences into the lime light. 

What do I think about gay marriage? I think I'd like to stop hearing about it.


----------



## escorial (Jun 27, 2015)

life is complex....i guess it helps make life a little less complex for sum..and that's fine by me


----------



## J Anfinson (Jun 27, 2015)

Who didn't see this coming, eh? Alrighty then...

The OP asked for opinions. Some of you are no doubt going to disagree with each other (and possibly detest the other's view). Always keep in mind we don't allow debating here, so if you feel like you absolutely must argue with someone, take it to pm. And watch your ass even there, because the flaming/attacking rule still applies. 

Now, let's continue with opinions and leave the arguments out of it.


----------



## Plasticweld (Jun 27, 2015)

I see no reason to celebrate, this is an attack on states rights and in increase in a larger federal government.  The intent of the Supreme Court is to interpret law not create it.  the new findings are of an activist court creating law.  This is in my opinion and the four other dissenting judges not the role of the Supreme Court. 


For all those states that have voted against it, nullifies their vote.  If this is the will of the people then it should have  been introduced as a bill to Congress, voted on then sent to the Senate for ratification then signed by the president, it could only be law if there was a super majority if the president vetoed the law. The only time the Supreme Court would be involved is there was a constitutional issue with the law. This would be the only way to do it for a federal law.  In the past it has always been up to the states to determine their laws giving each state some control over an issue and a chance for all of the voters to be heard.  This is the part of the democrat process that has been denied and the real reason that this is not good for the country or the voters.


----------



## Schrody (Jun 27, 2015)

dale said:


> i basically feel homosexuality is a form of insanity and that legalizing gay marriage is simply the government enabling insane people
> to indulge in their delusions. it's almost always directly correlated with child molestation. i've never met 1 single gay person that didn't
> admit to being sexually molested as a child. not 1. but...our society has a tendency today to wanna portray everyone as a victim and
> allow these so called victims to justify feelings of emotional turmoil and act upon them in the name of "tolerance" under a false flag
> of empathy. so there you go.



Oh, Dale... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






Anyway, I'm straight (since OP asked for our orientations), and couldn't be more happy it turned out that way.

I meant, I'm happy because of the Supreme Court decision :mrgreen:


----------



## InstituteMan (Jun 27, 2015)

Plasticweld said:


> I see no reason to celebrate, this is an attack on states rights and in increase in a larger federal government.  The intent of the Supreme Court is to interpret law not create it.  the new findings are of an activist court creating law.  This is in my opinion and the four other dissenting judges not the role of the Supreme Court.



One of the big problems with the Defense of Marriage Act that was passed by congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton to ban gay marriage back in the 90s was that it introduced federal statutes into what used to be a state matter. There was a very good argument that the entire law was invalid as a federal overreach, whether you thought the ban on gay marriage in it was a good thing or a bad thing (and, for any other legal nerds out there, I know I am simplify the statute quite a bit here). 

I'm certainly sympathetic to the federalism argument. Even if I don't subscribe to it myself in this instance due to the rights that come tied up with a marriage certificate that are implicated under the 14th Amendment, there are legitimate reasons to prefer leaving the entire area of family law to the states--particularly since that's not a power given congress in the Constitution.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 27, 2015)

I always wiked wainbows. Has anyone seen that wascally wabbit?


----------



## Boofy (Jun 27, 2015)

Kevin said:


> I always wiked wainbows. Has anyone seen that wascally wabbit?


I'd offer to help you hunt for him, but you'd have to promise to be vewy, vewy quiet.

And rainbows? Rainbows are cool.


----------



## Gyarachu (Jun 27, 2015)

The suicide rate among homosexuals is about three times that of heterosexuals. Regardless of how you feel about the moral status of "rainbows," we need to realize these people are feeling so rejected by the world that they are choosing to leave it at alarming rates.



Loveabull said:


> So where do you stand?



In my house. At work. In line at the DMV. Lots of places, really.


----------



## Plasticweld (Jun 27, 2015)

InstituteMan said:


> One of the big problems with the Defense of Marriage Act that was passed by congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton to ban gay marriage back in the 90s was that it introduced federal statutes into what used to be a state matter. There was a very good argument that the entire law was invalid as a federal overreach, whether you thought the ban on gay marriage in it was a good thing or a bad thing (and, for any other legal nerds out there, I know I am simplify the statute quite a bit here).
> 
> I'm certainly sympathetic to the federalism argument. Even if I don't subscribe to it myself in this instance due to the rights that come tied up with a marriage certificate that are implicated under the 14th Amendment, there are legitimate reasons to prefer leaving the entire area of family law to the states--particularly since that's not a power given congress in the Constitution.




I wish the same subservient view of the states were held when it came to the second amendment.  Even though the right to keep and bear arms is in the constitution and supported by the Supreme Court, the states have taken the responsibility of regulating that freedom.  My second amendment rights are subject to state law even though they are guaranteed.   In this case any effort to control is seen as federal overreach and the states and the constituents speak up loud and clear over their authority to regulate.  I would love to see someone argue the difference between the issues as they are very similar.


----------



## dale (Jun 27, 2015)

Nippon Devil said:


> I'm not sure why the topic creator would make a topic asking people to express their opinion, then get annoyed when they happen to be different then their own. Are we only allowed to post in here if we love homosexuality?
> 
> I think it's fine for gay people to fall in love, but marriage is less about love and more about tax breaks for people creating new citizens for this glorious country. Love is't a golden ring and a tax break. I honestly think the whole thing is silly. I'm tired of reading about gay people in the news. If gay people and gay supporters really wanted people to be treated equally based on sexual preference, they would stop bringing their sexual preferences into the lime light.
> 
> What do I think about gay marriage? I think I'd like to stop hearing about it.


that's how the bolsheviks gained power. they manipulated anyone with a differing opinion than theirs into feeling like they were "haters".


----------



## ppsage (Jun 28, 2015)

I personally think the Bolshies got in because 98% of the military was fed up with everyone else. ............. So where do the feds get off prohibiting intoxicants willy-nilly? Not to mention other sorts of pharmaceuticals?


----------



## dale (Jun 28, 2015)

ppsage said:


> I personally think the Bolshies got in because 98% of the military was fed up with everyone else. ............. So where do the feds get off prohibiting intoxicants willy-nilly? Not to mention other sorts of pharmaceuticals?



i like beer.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Jun 28, 2015)

Well, I neither think of Bolsheviks or beer...


----------



## KLJo (Jun 28, 2015)

InstituteMan said:


> One of the big problems with the Defense of Marriage Act that was passed by congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton to ban gay marriage back in the 90s was that it introduced federal statutes into what used to be a state matter. There was a very good argument that the entire law was invalid as a federal overreach, whether you thought the ban on gay marriage in it was a good thing or a bad thing (and, for any other legal nerds out there, I know I am simplify the statute quite a bit here).
> 
> I'm certainly sympathetic to the federalism argument. Even if I don't subscribe to it myself in this instance due to the rights that come tied up with a marriage certificate that are implicated under the 14th Amendment, there are legitimate reasons to prefer leaving the entire area of family law to the states--particularly since that's not a power given congress in the Constitution.



Caveat: Canadian living in the States. Married to an American, mother of Americans; my understanding of your government is in its beginning stages.

_But_, isn't this a perfectly acceptable constitutional argument under the 14th ammendment, not to mention the preamble, and the stated intent of equality in your declaration of independence?

I feel like America sometimes loses sight of the amazing foundation of equality and freedom, choosing instead to be rule-mongers. At that point you lose your claim of, "by the people, for the people," I think?

This is off the top of my head, so Google will be more exact but,
1870's: 13th (?) Ammendment to free slaves
1920: 19th --Vote for women
1967: legalizing interracial marriage
2015: Gay marriage

Do any of these seem like efficient response times to you?

The reality is that your system is broken, and America is almost universally inept at responding to the social needs of its citizens. 

Even if you could prove that the constitutional argument was weak, can you really get behind a system that makes corporations people, but is accused of "over-reaching" when it allows two consenting adults to love and marry and lead their lives in a manner of their own choosing, pursuant to their own life, liberty, and happiness?

I hope I've said that right; I'm trying really hard to learn.


----------



## dale (Jun 28, 2015)

the problem with it is the abstraction of definitions, basically rendering everything "meaningless". a marriage license
has never been a "right" in the 1st place. it's an event with a defined criteria. basically, giving gay people a marriage license
is something akin to giving a blind man a driver's license. it makes no sense because the REAL purpose of a marriage
is to give the woman the man's last name, so all their offspring have the same last name, therefore defining a family bloodline.
but gays can't naturally have biological children. and that's why gay marriage is a farce, no matter if the government
sells them the license or not.


----------



## KLJo (Jun 28, 2015)

So you oppose step-families, divorce, marriages struggling with infertility, married heterosexuals who dont want children etc? It is hard to follow that logic.

I think we'd differ on "real" vs. "Historical use".
For example, the _real_ purpose of African people in America is cheap/free labour, but that _historical use_ is no longer valid.

Is it possible that your opinion is based more on emotion than logic?


----------



## joshybo (Jun 28, 2015)

dale said:


> it makes no sense because the REAL purpose of a marriage
> is to give the woman the man's last name, so all their offspring have the same last name, therefore defining a family bloodline.



Different cultures have had different reasons to perform marriages.  There are still countries out there which practice arranged marriage as a way of solidifying familial alliances, typically in the interest of business relationships or to further social statuses.  Personally, I'm glad that our culture has broken away from such barbaric arrangements.  And let's not forget that even in Biblical times, marriage dowries were common and could have a huge bearing on whether or not the marriage would be approved by the parents.  I guarantee you that if you ask most people on the street their opinion of arranged marriage, they would scoff at the idea and say we should be able to choose for ourselves who we spend the rest of our life with based on love.  The rationale of marriage has been re-purposed again and again as civilization has advanced.  I doubt seriously that most people these days marry to establish a strong lineage.  Overall, marriage has evolved into the expected by-product of a loving relationship between two consenting adults.  I think that is a fair and reasonable assessment.


----------



## dale (Jun 28, 2015)

KLJo said:


> So you oppose step-families, divorce, marriages struggling with infertility, married heterosexuals who dont want children etc? It is hard to follow that logic.
> 
> I think we'd differ on "real" vs. "Historical use".
> For example, the _real_ purpose of African people in America is cheap/free labour, but that _historical use_ is no longer valid.
> ...



oh no. i truly believe that hetero couples that don't plan to have children have zero reason to be married. 
a marriage certificate doesn't prove love. a couple can love eachother without a marriage certificate. marriage
is about raising a family.


----------



## dale (Jun 28, 2015)

joshybo said:


> Different cultures have had different reasons to perform marriages.  There are still countries out there which practice arranged marriage as a way of solidifying familial alliances, typically in the interest of business relationships or to further social statuses.  Personally, I'm glad that our culture has broken away from such barbaric arrangements.  And let's not forget that even in Biblical times, marriage dowries were common and could have a huge bearing on whether or not the marriage would be approved by the parents.  I guarantee you that if you ask most people on the street their opinion of arranged marriage, they would scoff at the idea and say we should be able to choose for ourselves who we spend the rest of our life with based on love.  The rationale of marriage has been re-purposed again and again as civilization has advanced.  I doubt seriously that most people these days marry to establish a strong lineage.  Overall, marriage has evolved into the expected by-product of a loving relationship between two consenting adults.  I think that is a fair and reasonable assessment.



lol. shit. i'd be happy if arranged marriages came back in style. one of my worst fears is that little girl in my avatar growing
up and choosing some idiot to get with. at least i'd choose a man for her that would treat her right.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 28, 2015)

dale said:


> lol. shit. i'd be happy if arranged marriages came back in style. one of my worst fears is that little girl in my avatar growing
> up and choosing some idiot to get with. at least i'd choose a man for her that would treat her right.


I agree with the sentiment, though I would express it differently. The people who raise and love a child, boy or girl, are not going to to stop caring suddenly because they are planning the rest of their life. Different folks, different strokes, but whether it works or not usually depends on the decency of those involved rather than the system.


----------



## InstituteMan (Jun 28, 2015)

KLJo said:


> _But_, isn't this a perfectly acceptable constitutional argument under the 14th ammendment, not to mention the preamble, and the stated intent of equality in your declaration of independence?
> 
> I feel like America sometimes loses sight of the amazing foundation of equality and freedom, choosing instead to be rule-mongers. At that point you lose your claim of, "by the people, for the people," I think?



Well, by definition any constitutional argument that gets 5 Supreme Court Justices to vote for it is perfectly acceptable. 

I happen to agree with the outcome in this instance, but my congenital tendency to see both sides of an issue, exacerbated by time served in law school, force me to admit that the Federalism argument in this case isn't a terrible one at all. Just because I think the Due Process argument is stronger doesn't mean I can't appreciate the other side of the argument. Of course, I think the biggest criticism of the majority opinion is that it should have been an Equal Protection case (and that as a Due Process case the reasoning wasn't as solid as the soaring language would make a lay person believe), but that's getting down into the weeds.

The larger issues of whether the American system is a good one a always leaves me asking 'as compared to what?' I would design a different system were someone foolish enough to charge me with re-writing our constitution from scratch today, but that's not an option. I figure we have to make our messy system work as best as we can in the here and now. 

Anyone who doesn't like the way our government works should get involved--not (just) by blogging or posting on the interwebs, but by working at a local level. Donate time and money to a city council candidate, or run yourself. Influencing the national dialogue as an individual is hard, but you would be shocked at what can be done at a community level. There are county commissions and fire districts and water boards and ad hoc interest groups where real change can happen. Be warned, though, the issues are HARD when you actually have to solve them--but that's precisely why we need good people involved.


----------



## TKent (Jun 28, 2015)

I'm ecstatic


----------



## dale (Jun 28, 2015)

TKent said:


> I'm ecstatic


but why? i'd like an opinion of 'why" from all the gay marriage supporters. love isn't defined by a piece of paper.
but bloodlines are. what possible valid reason do gay people have to be married? what valid reason is there?


----------



## KLJo (Jun 28, 2015)

I'm afraid that this will sound like a dig instead of an honest observation. Please believe that I mean it to answer your question.

You aren't allowing for any values other than your own to have weight or merit. To many, possibly even most, people there are social milestones, recognition, rites of passage, and acceptance to consider. Legally, there are things like power of attorney, next of kin, work benefits.

For families with same-sex parents there are custody and support issues. Things as simple as school pick ups can be needlessly complicated when one parent isn't legally recognized.

You're allowed to hold your value, but it is wayyyyyyy out there. If you stop defining necessity from your vantage point, I think sorting out why it might be important to others becomes very easy.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 28, 2015)

'Tis true, our son was three when I married my first wife, we married for legal reasons, the government was going to chuck her out of the country as an alien if we didn't, nothing to do with bloodlines, and I guess there are a whole lot more.


----------



## TKent (Jun 28, 2015)

Dale,

Well, first, I don't agree that the only reason to get married is to have babies and further a bloodline. Even if that was the only reason, I believe gay couples have the same right as anyone else to have a family, whether by adoption, surrogate, or whatever means. 

But again, I don't think that is the only reason by a long shot. I married my second husband with no intention of having babies. It was about committing to a long term relationship with someone--in sickness and in health. Honestly, the closer I get to retirement the more important that 'sickness' becomes. Between the two of us, we've had 5 surgeries over the last 15 years, one was a heart valve replacement. I kind of like having a guy around who I can send out for the next season of Hero on DVD when I'm laid up on the couch (that was before everything was on Netflix by the way). Shared financial goals are also key for me. Together, we've been able to do much more than either of us could do alone. And that is important to us. Legal rights are also important. Some friends of mine, gay, were together for many years and had one of the most solid, committed relationships I've known. One died. At the funeral, the family, who disapproved, wouldn't let the man sit in the family section because legally he wasn't family even though they'd been together 15 years. Ridiculous.

Anyway, I feel pretty strongly about the topic and as I said, I'm ecstatic.


----------



## dale (Jun 28, 2015)

KLJo said:


> I'm afraid that this will sound like a dig instead of an honest observation. Please believe that I mean it to answer your question.
> 
> You aren't allowing for any values other than your own to have weight or merit. To many, possibly even most, people there are social milestones, recognition, rites of passage, and acceptance to consider. Legally, there are things like power of attorney, next of kin, work benefits.
> 
> ...


i don't even know what that means. sounds like a lot of jargon to me. but i'm gonna go ahead and tell you why i am so offended
by so called "gay marriage"..(even though there is realistically no such thing) this "gay marriage" thing? the only legal validity it
has is money. people say the gays aren't getting the same tax benefits as normal couples. so that's what it boils down to. money.
and i find that typical in today's world. my ex left me over money. and now she has her big house in the wealthiest part of town
and her platinum card and i guess all is just hunky-dory. i mean....that little girl in my avatar may be traumatized for life over it
and i may be drinking myself to death like nicholas cage in "leaving las vegas" over it...but hey...at least she got her platinum card.
marriage is SUPPOSED to be about more than money. it's SUPPOSED to be about kids and raising them and commitment to that 
FAMILY. it's not about tax benefits. i am so fucking tired of you people belittling something i held so sacred that i am actually slowly
 killing myself over. my marriage...my FAMILY meant more than a god damn tax break. get it?


----------



## TKent (Jun 28, 2015)

Dale,

Believe me when I tell you, I hurt for you, dude. I've read your posts here for over a year and I know that your divorce was a big hit for you. But that said, you are you and you don't get to decide what is important to other people. And if you think the only reason that most people, whatever their sexual preference, get married is money, then I'm sorry for you. I hope that someday you can move on from the pain. I mean that. 



> marriage is SUPPOSED to be about more than money. it's SUPPOSED to be about kids and raising them and commitment to that
> FAMILY. it's not about tax benefits. i am so fucking tired of you people belittling something i held so sacred that i am actually slowly
> killing myself over. my marriage...my FAMILY eant more than a god damn tax break. get it?


----------



## KLJo (Jun 28, 2015)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understood your response to my post, Dale? Specifically, there are gay parents, and I thought I outlined some good reasons that were almost entirely NOT tax-related?


----------



## InstituteMan (Jun 28, 2015)

I'm really sorry things didn't work out for you, Dale, but I can't see how letting other kinds of couples into the institution of marriage devalues it. 

I also think that the last entity I want policing the integrity of my marriage is the government. Government is all about allocating rights and money (and doesn't always get those right). Government can't make people treat one another decently; at most it can punish those who seriously mistreat others.


----------



## joshybo (Jun 28, 2015)

dale said:


> but why? i'd like an opinion of 'why" from all the gay marriage supporters. love isn't defined by a piece of paper.
> but bloodlines are. what possible valid reason do gay people have to be married? what valid reason is there?


Because my homosexual friends who were told by the federal government that their union was legally invalid due to the opinions of other people clinging to their preference of what constitutes a "normal" relationship are now afforded the dignity of being recognized on the same level as heterosexual couples.  It would be degrading to want to marry my spouse and be told that I couldn't because our lifestyle didn't sit well some in the religious right, and really, that's all this boils down to.  The religious beliefs of a group of people shouldn't dictate the freedoms of others.


----------



## dale (Jun 28, 2015)

joshybo said:


> Because my homosexual friends who were told by the federal government that their union was legally invalid due to the opinions of other people clinging to their preference of what constitutes a "normal" relationship are now afforded the dignity of being recognized on the same level as heterosexual couples.  It would be degrading to want to marry my spouse and be told that I couldn't because our lifestyle didn't sit well some in the religious right, and really, that's all this boils down to.  The religious beliefs of a group of people shouldn't dictate the freedoms of others.



well...i'm hoping my state just abolishes government marriage licenses altogether. problem solved.


----------



## joshybo (Jun 28, 2015)

dale said:


> well...i'm hoping my state just abolishes government marriage licenses altogether. problem solved.


If that were to happen at this point, it would be a clear reaction to the SCOTUS ruling as a self-deprecating way of keeping marriage out of the hands of those who the religious right feel do not deserve it.  It's akin to your mother forcing you to let the geeky kid down the street play basketball, so you and your friends just stop the game, take your ball, and go home.  No on would be fooled by the implication and nothing would be solved.  A much simpler recourse would be to just let our fellow human beings be treated as our equals without condition or restraint.


----------



## dale (Jun 28, 2015)

joshybo said:


> If that were to happen at this point, it would be a clear reaction to the SCOTUS ruling as a self-deprecating way of keeping marriage out of the hands of those who the religious right feel do not deserve it.  It's akin to your mother forcing you to let the geeky kid down the street play basketball, so you and your friends just stop the game, take your ball, and go home.  No on would be fooled by the implication and nothing would be solved.  A much simpler recourse would be to just let our fellow human beings be treated as our equals without condition or restraint.


lol. yeah. like anyone really wanted the geeky kid down the street on their team.


----------



## InstituteMan (Jun 28, 2015)

My wife used to say she wanted her and I to downgrade to a domestic partnership because the definition of marriage being bandied about didn't sound like anything she wanted to be a part of. That wasn't an option, though.


----------



## dale (Jun 28, 2015)

InstituteMan said:


> My wife used to say she wanted her and I to downgrade to a domestic partnership because the definition of marriage being bandied about didn't sound like anything she wanted to be a part of. That wasn't an option, though.



definitions of words are everything...and they should be especially to us writers.


----------



## dale (Jun 28, 2015)

lol. i'm actually still laughing at how josh compared gays to "the geeky kid down the street that no one wanted", though
ha ha. that was funny. oh my god. i need to go to sleep.


----------



## InstituteMan (Jun 28, 2015)

dale said:


> definitions of words are everything...and they should be especially to us writers.



There are some words we get to define for ourselves. Maybe we have to be in the ballpark, but marriage is something InstituteWoman and I have defined for ourselves.


----------



## joshybo (Jun 28, 2015)

dale said:


> lol. i'm actually still laughing at how josh compared gays to "the geeky kid down the street that no one wanted", though
> ha ha. that was funny. oh my god. i need to go to sleep.


It wasn't intended as a direct comparison to homosexuals.  I was the geeky kid down the street so I drew from my own experience to make a point.


----------



## InstituteMan (Jun 28, 2015)

joshybo said:


> It wasn't intended as a direct comparison to homosexuals.  I was the geeky kid down the street so I drew from my own experience to make a point.



To be fair, though, pretty much anyone who's a member of a writing discussion forum is the geeky kid down the street. Normal people use the internet for porn and cat pictures, I am told.


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis (Jun 28, 2015)

InstituteMan said:


> To be fair, though, pretty much anyone who's a member of a writing discussion forum is the geeky kid down the street. Normal people use the internet for porn and cat pictures, I am told.



Why, what ever do you mean?

By the way, what year is it? 

I haven't left this chair in so long...


----------



## Ariel (Jun 28, 2015)

I support two people wanting to be a family no matter their sexual preference.

"Traditional" families have long since disappeared and, honestly, I think they never really existed.  A family, in the truest sense of the word, means those that chose to love, care for, and support one another.  All too often this does mean money is involved.

I don't have any children of my own.  I likely never will.  But I do have Miss--Kilroy's daughter.  I love her with everything I am and what little I do posess I would like for it to go to her if something should happen to me.  Kilroy and I are not married yet and I will likely never have custodial rights to Miss.

And that's the rub.  If something happens to her where she is hospitalized I won't be able to get in to see her without her mother or Kilroy.  If I needed to take her to the hospital, I couldn't.

Because I'm not quite a step-parent I don't have any rights as a parent.  Why do I bring this up?

Marriage grants rights to a couple that a domestic partnership doesn't.   A spouse can make funeral arrangements, medical decisions, and legal decisions for their spouse if needed.  This is especially important in gay couples as often they come from families that don't approve of their preferences.  I know people who have been denied by their lover's family any right to see them when s/he is in the hospital.

Can you imagine that?  Not being able to hold the hand of your lover as they're hooked up to machines and fighting for their life because their parents refuse to let you?  Imagine it's someone you've lived with for thirty years.

Now imagine that you aren't allowed to see the kid that your lover adopted and you raised together because those same parents decided that you can't.

_That's_ just the tip of the struggle for a gay couple.


----------



## KLJo (Jun 29, 2015)

InstituteMan said:


> To be fair, though, pretty much anyone who's a member of a writing discussion forum is the geeky kid down the street. Normal people use the internet for porn and cat pictures, I am told.



I resent the implication that I can't do all three.


----------



## Phil Istine (Jun 29, 2015)

amsawtell said:


> I support two people wanting to be a family no matter their sexual preference.
> 
> "Traditional" families have long since disappeared and, honestly, I think they never really existed.  A family, in the truest sense of the word, means those that chose to love, care for, and support one another.  All too often this does mean money is involved.
> 
> ...



As a childless, heterosexual male, I have been in the situation myself of helping to raise another's children.  I found it to be a very delicate balancing act which I eventually walked away from to preserve what was left of my sanity (I ended up having to sleep in the garden shed for a while).
My (non-existent) "rights" ended up being completely out of kilter with the level of (almost total) responsibility that I took.
I never had a say in any of the bigger decisions to be made but when it came to the consequences of those decisions, I was expected to take full responsibility.
So, at the level of having no say in a domestic situation I can, sort of, get it.  Mind you, that is only a very tiny part of what a gay couple went through.


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis (Jun 29, 2015)

I do believe anyone should be able to have the same legal benefits. As others stated, it makes things easier. Make it official, absolutely.

Otherwise, I'd like to agree with Nippon.

There are those who are extremely hateful towards such people. I believe that falls quite close to racism. You should never hate someone because of a fact about them. 

However, I do not choose to closely associate myself with anyone, straight or gay, who lives an immoral lifestyle. it aids the spread of disease and leads to broken families and unhappy lives.

So I must say I find most of the parades and public displays to be inappropriate. That would be the case no matter who was doing it. Good cause or no, parading around half naked (Sometimes in leather gear, oh gods why,) is never acceptable.

*Equal *rights. Not special rights. 

So, yes, excellent. Get married. I'm glad. I won't look at you any differently, and we can be best buddies, yeah. Let's hang out. 

But those certain few who choose to shove it in my face with vulgar displays? Those are the people that disgust me, whom I choose to avoid, as well as straight people, or anyone that would live that way.

Edit: Reading back to myself. Didn't mean to sound so salty. As usual, I say nothing with vile intent. :}


----------



## Mesafalcon (Jul 8, 2015)

Loveabull said:


> Wonderful news in the states today. The Supreme Court ruled same sex marriage legal and legit in all US territories. But since we do tend to share a lot here. How do you identify? I would say I go both ways. If I am eventually widowed I think I would tend to seek out a female partner over male. Then again if I were 25 again I might experiment with presenting as a man. I'm pleased with the freedom of today's culture to gender bend wherever you feel comfortable. So where do you stand?



Everyone deserves that right. And I am very happy about the news because it shows progression and is a good sign that marijuana could soon be legal nationwide. (if you can't make the connection, giving rights to gays is simply a sign of human rights laws moving forward)

I am all for every restriction possible on it same as alcohol. But jail time for smoking marijunana is a terrible thing.


----------



## dale (Jul 8, 2015)

Mesafalcon said:


> Everyone deserves that right. And I am very happy about the news because it shows progression and is a good sign that marijuana could soon be legal nationwide. (if you can't make the connection, giving rights to gays is simply a sign of human rights laws moving forward)
> 
> I am all for every restriction possible on it same as alcohol. But jail time for smoking marijunana is a terrible thing.



hold on...i may have to smoke some weed or snort some heroin to understand this. just wait....


----------



## McJibbles (Jul 8, 2015)

I disagree with homosexuality for a number of reasons. Gay marriage would obviously be included. My main reason is that of simple Christian morality. Not to be that guy who says I have many (fill in the blank friends) to prove anything, but I do a have a few gay friends. Do I like it? No. Does it mean I don't respect them as human beings? Also no. I love them. It's still hard though because it is nasty.

Unfortunately, people aren't going to stop being gay. Those who aren't on the bus just have to accept them or ignore them I guess. Focus our energy elsewhere...


----------



## Ariel (Jul 8, 2015)

I like that you at least say that you disagree with it because it grosses you out, McJibbles.  But refusing anyone any rights based upon your belief system is like getting mad that someone else just ate a jelly doughnut while you were on a diet.  

The real problem all of the gay haters have is that they think it's gross.  Well, I'm sure a few people find your whatever fetish gross.  As long as it doesn't harm anyone like pedophilia or abuse would then why worry what someone else is doing in their own home?  I'm personally too busy to care what someone else is doing.


----------



## LeeC (Jul 8, 2015)

We go on and on with our subjective opinions when actually attractions to the same gender are common throughout the natural world's life forms, of which we are a part (a variation on a theme) whether we choose to believe it or not. 

"_It is one of the more striking generalizations of biochemistry - which surprisingly is hardly ever mentioned in the biochemical textbooks - that the twenty amino acids and the four bases, are, with minor reservations, the same throughout Nature._"  ~  Francis Crick

In my rural area there're two neighbors, one a male couple and the other a female couple, that the wife and I are friends with. I respect them for finding their own happiness, and from a naturalist's perspective for not contributing to the world's problems ;-)

What I have a dislike of is overly sexual proclivities in public because individuals are so wrapped up in their small head. Something that occurs on both sides of the fence ;-)

A significant problem (and actually also an aspect of the natural order in all life forms) in human society is the propensity of distinction, whether it be race, sexual orientation, fin vs. fur, or whatever the disdain-du jour is. 

The world is a rainbow of individuals and life forms that we can revel in, or choose to stand in the rain ;-)


----------



## ShadowEyes (Jul 10, 2015)

I'm going to be selfish and say I didn't read all of this and don't intend to debate anything.

However...

I think the issue is clearly still a contentious issue and _de facto_ legalizing it forces the issue to a premature close, which this thread, and the 5-4 ruling, _kinda _proves is not the case. Love is wishing the best of the other. Therefore, to all of us, love each other even if you disagree. Love families in whichever variety they come (this logic is bigot-proof). Society is a love affair:  ups and downs.

I don't want my internet family to fall apart over an argument. T_T


----------



## Schrody (Jul 10, 2015)

ShadowEyes said:


> I don't want my internet family to fall apart over an argument. T_T



It won't, don't worry


----------



## JustRob (Jul 10, 2015)

I took all my personal experience, views and observations on this subject and then applied the writer's approach of removing all the unnecessary words and leaving just enough to convey my message and this is what was left. Uncharacteristically terse I know but what more is necessary?

Lilliput? Mostly harmless. Beam me up Scotty.


----------



## curtis (Jul 20, 2015)

dale said:


> oh no. i truly believe that hetero couples that don't plan to have children have zero reason to be married.
> a marriage certificate doesn't prove love. a couple can love each other without a marriage certificate. marriage
> is about raising a family.



Marriage _is_ primarily about raising a family. Don't children need a father as role model? Don't they need a mother as a role model?


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Jul 21, 2015)

Oh boy, this thread is just begging to post something ban worthy. So I am going to ignore all the posts on top of mine and give my feelings toward this. 

As the resident satanic super queer, I am obviously over joyed with the ruling. I think it is absolutely appropriate for the Supreme Court to come in and make this a nationwide thing. There are no legitimate arguments against gay marriage or homosexuality in general. None. You're religion is against it. So? Separation of church and state. I don't believe in your God why do I have to follow, what I feel to be, archaic and outdated laws. Homosexuality exists in hundreds of species, for the benefit of the population, individual health, and even just preference. Homosexuality is not caused by molestation (not gonna lie, hard to ignore a statement quite that ignorant). I am pansexual (attracted to either gender and anything in between) and I was never molested. I have many gay friends who were never molested either. It is genetic! Science and study and research have all shown this to be true. It is a perfectly natural thing and it is time we come to accept that. Not just that, but the majority of the country is pro gay marriage or just doesn't care because they know it doesn't affect them and it's none of their business. Mine and my partner's gender is nobody's business. It's been almost a month now, we haven't  turned in to Sodom and Gahmorra. No one has come down to smite us. Families houses aren't being invaded and turned into homosexuals. Nothing is happening except gay people now have the rights and protections same as everyone else.


----------



## Boofy (Jul 21, 2015)

Pidgeon84 said:


> Oh boy, this thread is just begging to post something ban worthy. So I am going to ignore all the posts on top of mine and give my feelings toward this.
> 
> As the resident satanic super queer, I am obviously over joyed with the ruling. I think it is absolutely appropriate for the Supreme Court to come in and make this a nationwide thing. There are no legitimate arguments against gay marriage or homosexuality in general. None. You're religion is against. So? Separation of church and state. I don't believe in your God why do I have to follow, what I feel to be, archaic and outdated laws. Homosexuality exists in hundreds of species, for the benefit of the population, individual health, and even just preference. Homosexuality is not caused by molestation (not gonna lie, hard to ignore a statement quite that ignorant). I am pansexual (attracted to either gender and anything in between) and I was never molested. I have many gay friends who never molested either. It is genetic! Science and study and research have all shown this to be true. It is a perfectly natural thing and it is time we come to accept that. Not just that, but the majority of the country is pro gay marriage or just doesn't care because they know it doesn't affect them and it's none of their business. Mine and my partner's gender is nobody's business. It's been almost a month now, we haven't  turned in to Sodom and Gahmorra. No one has come down to smite us. Families houses aren't being invaded and turned into homosexuals. Nothing is happening except gay people now have the rights and protections same as everyone else.



Gah. Well said Pidge. Really well said.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 21, 2015)

> I have many gay friends who were never molested either. It is genetic! Science and study and research have all shown this to be true. It is a perfectly natural thing and it is time we come to accept that.



What you say may be true, but I always have a problem with what scientists call 'anecdotal accounts', they may be true in many cases, but people are all different, and coming from an individual whose friends and acquaintances are a particular group it may not be true in all cases. It always seems wrong to me to assume that homosexuality is of one type or cause. I am sure many are genetically homosexual, or homosexually inclined, but perhaps some are 'environmental' homosexuals. Like I said people are all different, any 'grouping' of them will always be suspect.
I also find it difficult to see what bearing this has on the decisions they make about how to live their lives. 'Petrol heads' impinge on our world more than homosexuals, and we don't censure them for a childhood obsession with cars, taking your son to football every week may turn him into a life long fan, but no-one sees anything wrong with that; we are all the product of our experience. Adults, responsible before the law, should be allowed let them get on with their lives.


----------



## Phil Istine (Jul 21, 2015)

I had wondered about that nature vs. nurture question too.
At one time, I believed homosexuality to be entirely about either a conscious decision or about nurture.  Even that was an improvement though as I was raised to believe that homosexuality was immoral and "unclean" and that gay people were loathsome creatures.  Fortunately, this was one of many ideas where I outgrew my parenting.
The realisation that, for many, homosexuality was determined at or shortly after conception was a revelation to me.  I only encountered this about fifteen or twenty years ago and it just made sense.
Either way, it seems very odd to me that some people have a problem about it.  Even if it is a conscious choice for some people, it is that person's choice to make.


----------



## John Oberon (Jul 21, 2015)

Gay marriage is not about tolerance and acceptance. If it were, they wouldn't seek to destroy business owners for refusing service to homosexuals on religious grounds. If it were about tolerance and acceptance, they'd tolerate and accept the business owner's religious convictions and quietly go to another business with no such convictions, but they don't.

To me, gay marriage is an impossibility according to the Inventor of marriage. But then, when's the last time America asked His opinion about anything? We always prefer unreality to reality.

I personally think this is just the very beginning of the death of America, at least the America of freedom. Historically, nations who officially endorse perversity die. It is a hallmark signal that the nation is close to its end. All nations were sexually corrupt at their demise. Gay marriage is just a little opening salvo. The day after the decision, a polygamist wanted his rights recognized. How long before the bi-sexual want their rights recognized? Or the incestuous? Or the bestial? And on what grounds can we deny them now? It is the way of the world to destroy itself.


----------



## Pluralized (Jul 21, 2015)

> To me, gay marriage is an impossibility according to the Inventor of marriage.



To me, the Inventor of Marriage is impossible according to the laws of common sense and logic. But that's not the point.

This issue is a no-win for any of us, in my opinion, because it drags out the worst in the opposition and creates a toxic environment where discourse dies. Love is love and to cherry-pick the negatives of gay marriage, like the effects on 'business owners' is never going to really move an opposing viewpoint forward.


----------



## joshybo (Jul 21, 2015)

John Oberon said:


> All nations were sexually corrupt at their demise.


  Interesting.  And here I was thinking that the fall of Rome had more to do with the invasions of the outside armies, government corruption, overexpansion of their military, and a rocky economy due to their reliance on an enslaved workforce.  It's a relief to know that's not the case, because a few of those other things sound awful familiar.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Jul 21, 2015)

Hi guys. Please let's not turn this into a debate where feelings get hurt. We will close the thread if necessary, so please play nice.


----------



## Bishop (Jul 21, 2015)

InstituteMan said:


> To be fair, though, pretty much anyone who's a member of a writing discussion forum is the geeky kid down the street. Normal people use the internet for porn and cat pictures, I am told.



I can do all three at once.

...what? Why are you looking at me like that?


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Jul 21, 2015)

John Oberon said:


> Gay marriage is not about tolerance and acceptance. If it were, they wouldn't seek to destroy business owners for refusing service to homosexuals on religious grounds. If it were about tolerance and acceptance, they'd tolerate and accept the business owner's religious convictions and quietly go to another business with no such convictions, but they don't.
> 
> To me, gay marriage is an impossibility according to the Inventor of marriage. But then, when's the last time America asked His opinion about anything? We always prefer unreality to reality.
> 
> I personally think this is just the very beginning of the death of America, at least the America of freedom. Historically, nations who officially endorse perversity die. It is a hallmark signal that the nation is close to its end. All nations were sexually corrupt at their demise. Gay marriage is just a little opening salvo. The day after the decision, a polygamist wanted his rights recognized. How long before the bi-sexual want their rights recognized? Or the incestuous? Or the bestial? And on what grounds can we deny them now? It is the way of the world to destroy itself.




 Incestuous? You mean like how marrying your cousin has been legal many a bible belt state long before gay marriage? I'm also curious about your definition of bisexual that they're looking for different rights than gays. I'm pretty sure all they want is the right to marry whoever it is they love, whichever gender that person may be and to be protected from discrimination.... I'm trying so hard to dance around the ban hammer right now lol.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Jul 21, 2015)

The thread is now closed. Now can we go back to being civil?


----------

