Oklahoma ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

[MrShooter]

Lol. Wow. Evolution in our society isn't 100%

 

[vvvvvvv]

Lol. Wow. Evolution in our society isn't 100%

If nature had any sense at all, human reproduction would be an acquired skill rather than instinct.

That, my friend, is the strongest possible argument against human evolution.

 

[patrickcudd]

I like where this is leading! Soon, I will be able to have more than one wife, legally!

If two girls can marry, why can't I marry two girls? This is great!!!!

 

[0311]

Oh, I get it. And I don't have a problem with it. My wife is Indian, there are "Native American" words her family uses in place of the N word. I don't really care what they call me...
I find myself among Mexicans pretty regularly, and know exactly how they feel about "mixing it up". Often my wife is mistaken for a Mexican, and it's pretty clear they don't appreciate one of their senoritas being taken by a white boy. I don't blame them one bit.

Yes. You are there, my friend.

 

[0311]

I can't keep up with OSA troll accounts, but if this is not a troll post, you're a real winner, aren't ya?

At the very least your love for your daughter should outweigh your ****** "beliefs".

Funny thing is, I know three white girls that exclusively date black men. Two of them have/had the most racist dads I've ever met. You reap what you sow, pops. I always found it hilarious. Here's to hoping she gets pregnant. It's a Boy Swishers packed tight on me if she does. Cheers.

If she does get preggo, my line is pretty much assured of dominating yours, and that's alright with me - pops.

 

[TedKennedy]

Lol. Wow. Evolution in our society isn't 100%

Thank goodness.
What does evolution look like?

 

[RidgeHunter]

I'm sure my ex gf whos dating a lesbian is happy about this.

Exclusive club we're in with George Costanza. The Last Man to Enter Club. I've never, ever been anywhere close to being a first...but I've been a last.

 

[RidgeHunter]

If she does get preggo, my line is pretty much assured of dominating yours, and that's alright with me - pops.

Your what is what now?

 

[Riley]

First off, you're confusing "matrimony", your Church's recognition of two individuals joining as one, with "marriage", the Government's recognition of two individuals joining as one. This ruling doesn't force all churches to offer same-sex ceremonies, it simply states that we cannot deny those who want to perform or pursue such ceremonies.

Second, marriage has been recorded as far back as 2350 BC, which is long before your church ever existed. Back then, marriage was to guarantee to a man that his wife's children were biologically his. It wasn't until the rise of the Roman Empire that religion had part in marriage. So, if anything, the Catholic Church has redefined marriage.

How is this forcing you to violate your beliefs? We often shout, "If you don't like guns, don't buy one!" Well, if you don't like marrying dudes, don't marry one! This ruling in no way shape or form suppresses your religious freedoms. It does, however, suppress your intolerance justified through religion. Christians, even if the majority, do not deserve special rights in the US. You are not entitled to forcing everyone to follow your church's teachings. How you aren't aware of the irony smacking into the wall behind you after flying over your head is beyond me. Denying equal rights to individuals in the name of your church is disgusting, and this religious ignorance is what's destroying the world.

I'm hesitant to respond to this, because it is clear that the concept of the sanctity of marriage in the eyes of some men has been lost, totally corrupted by the "everyone has rights" wail of liberalism.

As I've stated multiple times in this thread, I have no problem with equal protection under the law, I do oppose the re-definition of marriage. I am not intolerant of people making choices despite what I think of those choices. No one is suggesting anything other than an admitted, historical, definition of marriage be retained. If this, accepting both biblical and historical precedent, is forcing ones beliefs on another, than I guess you can hold all of history guilty of the same.

I think some of you defending the "gay marriage" movement, are missing, perhaps intentionally, the rate and direction of this movement. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's not about equality, it never has been.

Some ask, has an particular event taken place? When the question should be, is it likely the event will take place in the future? If you can honestly say you don't think a social institution will ever be sued, forced to perform or recognize homosexual services you have not been watching the news. It can and will happen. Boys using girls bathrooms, yep. Gender by decree, yep. Courts "getting it wrong" at the cost of private livelihood, yep.

If people continue to allow, or embrace, this court ordered "acceptance", is society a more or less stable place for our children? Is it likely the courts are going to treat gun rights, clearly embraced in our defining documents in the same fashion? I think we can all agree on the answer to that question.

Are the people being supported by this decision likely to stand up for your rights in the future? I doubt it, though blindly being the "better man" has significant merits.

I don't think through-out mans existence the concepts of morality, fairness, love for your neighbor etc embraced by most religions have led to the decay of society. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd suggest it's something else while much less powerful, apparently much more appealing.

Perhaps the efforts of a tyrannical minority forcing their views on the majority, christian or not could have a bit of responsibility? Maybe?

 

[inactive]

I'm hesitant to respond to this, because it is clear that the concept of the sanctity of marriage in the eyes of some men has been lost, totally corrupted by the "everyone has rights" wail of liberalism.

As I've stated multiple times in this thread, I have no problem with equal protection under the law, I do oppose the re-definition of marriage.

I think we have reached an impasse, as you're working off the assumptions that

1) marriage has sanctity to only Judeo-Christians and no other religions, or that it has sanctity as all, or that it at least had no sanctity prior to Christianity, and

2) that the definition of marriage was empty or meaningless before Christianity then defined it.

You can't make any progress in your argument until you realize that many of us here, myself included, don't have those same definitions.