What's new
By:

Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

That $600K would have been nice to spend elsewhere...

Saying it was worth it when they knew they'd lose means they think it was a $600K PR cost to the people that already vote for them anyway.
 
Gameface said:
The State's argument against marriage equality was embarrassing. The fact that they would have gone before the Supreme Court with it was mind boggling. So glad the Supreme Court didn't waste their time with it.
Click to expand...

You still have many vocal legislators voicing their opinions on this.

From Shelby's liberal activism to how marriage is about kids.

You now have people attacking polygamy and acting like it's an even worse curse than gay marriage. Apparently, many in this state have forgotten the state's heritage.

Interesting.
 
Well, according to OneBrow, since none of you people are actually gay, your opinions (either pro or con) are invalid.

(PBUH)
 
I think gays are silly and quite often I don't care for how they dress but I'm for anything that rocks the old school establishment because as it turns out, I'm quite the rascal.
 
It's like pot, just legalize it already. Sheesh!
 
LogGrad98 said:
It's like pot, just legalize it already. Sheesh!
Click to expand...

Gay marriage will be fully legalized before pot. One is a psychotropic drug, the other is literally nothing and has been shown to do nothing in countries that have legalized it.

Anyone noticed the downwards spiral of morality that Canada has been in since 2005? No?
 
dalamon said:
Gay marriage will be fully legalized before pot. One is a psychotropic drug, the other is literally nothing and has been shown to do nothing in countries that have legalized it.

Anyone noticed the downwards spiral of morality that Canada has been in since 2005? No?
Click to expand...

But haven't all the gays gobbled up all the marriage licences leaving children to be raised either outside the sanctity of a one man one woman marriage or even worse in a same sex marriage?

Because of course, if you allow gay people to get married, to each other, then they'll decide against entering a heterosexual marriage and raising children within that marriage.

I mean, there's only so many marriages to go around, we need to save them for the hetros.
 
I really like the idea of using the term "pairage" from now on. We could use some new vocabulary for the new definition.
 
Gameface said:
But haven't all the gays gobbled up all the marriage licences leaving children to be raised either outside the sanctity of a one man one woman marriage or even worse in a same sex marriage?

Because of course, if you allow gay people to get married, to each other, then they'll decide against entering a heterosexual marriage and raising children within that marriage.

I mean, there's only so many marriages to go around, we need to save them for the hetros.
Click to expand...

Didhomosexualitykilloffthedinosaurs.jpg
 
dalamon said:
Gay marriage will be fully legalized before pot. One is a psychotropic drug, the other is literally nothing and has been shown to do nothing in countries that have legalized it.

Anyone noticed the downwards spiral of morality that Canada has been in since 2005? No?
Click to expand...

Gay marriage can get you high?
 
moevillini said:
Guano what I think? That's a good one! You didn't just make that up did you?
Click to expand...

Yes. I did. After a hard look into the mirror, a secret conversation with my partner, and a cold pat on the shoulder to my dear wife, I came up with a term that perfectly represented my pent up guilt and shame.
 
Litigiousness

I'm no lawyer, but I think that one of the issues that people ignore in the argument are the doors that this could open for lawsuits if gay marriage is universally legalized.

We all know that activists on both sides of the issue are happy to use lawsuits to make a point or get noticed.

How long until a gay couple sued a Mormon bishop and/or the LDS church because they refused to perform the marriage in their building? Religious freedom may provide some protection for that, but with the way politics are changing views on religious rights, how long until someone wins a case? It only takes one win by an activist judge for a precedent to be set. Will the church then be forced to allow gay marriages in their buildings? The temple even? Will Bishops be forced to perform marriages or have civil suits come against them?

That is the issue I see.
 
So gay people want to force their way into temple marriages now? Just to be spiteful?

I think the 1st Amendment more than adequately protects religious institutions from this sort of thing. I'd call it a complete non-issue.
 
Gameface said:
I think the 1st Amendment more than adequately protects religious institutions from this sort of thing. I'd call it a complete non-issue.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I'm kind of shocked edge would post that. A quick google search will reveal that churches that refuse to perform interracial marriages have never lost their tax exempt status or faced any other legal consequences.
 
Gameface said:
So gay people want to force their way into temple marriages now? Just to be spiteful?

I think the 1st Amendment more than adequately protects religious institutions from this sort of thing. I'd call it a complete non-issue.
Click to expand...

thing lile thjios makes me understand homophobes. and want to be one.

gays do as you pelace with eachother genitals but stay away from holy matrimony
 
Gameface said:
So gay people want to force their way into temple marriages now? Just to be spiteful?

I think the 1st Amendment more than adequately protects religious institutions from this sort of thing. I'd call it a complete non-issue.
Click to expand...

Yes, maybe not to be spiteful exactly, but because they see it as a way in which they are being discriminated against. When gay marriage is legalized, which I don't doubt it will be. (I am not against it either.) But when it is legalized, there will be activists that won't be able to let it go. Protests, lawsuits, it's how they stay relevant. There has to be a big bad holding them down and it will be those churches that refuse to marry them.

I would hope that the first amendment would be adequate protection, but when people start calling a refusal to perform gay marriages discrimination and get public opinion behind them, things happen. There is already a movement against the second amendment.
 
Edgewriter said:
How long until a gay couple sued a Mormon bishop and/or the LDS church because they refused to perform the marriage in their building?
Click to expand...

Such a case would be laughed out of court. To this day, no interracial couple has been able to sue to use a religious building, and it won't happen with gay couples, either.

Now, there may be suits regarding land/buildings owned by religious groups, but available for public use. In the law, these are very different things from religious buildings. Your temples will be safe havens for bigotry.
 
oh for crying out loud...


just heard that the hold is on hold - Justice Kennedy of the US Supreme Court has issued a stay of the recent ruling
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top