Thomje112 said:
PoH said:
I think this is a stupid decision, personally. This is a state wide issue that the states should've decided themselves. You want get married to someone of the same sex in your state, but they do not allow it (ie. Texas)? Move somewhere else. It's like living in California and wanting gun rights, people who want it move somewhere else. The people of the states should decide this for themselves. The Federal Government doesn't need to get involved with these types of issues.
I'm also now worried about the discrimination issues. As Twisted said, there was a bakery in Colorado that was sued (and the owners had to go to rehab) all because they didn't personally agree with homosexual marriage, and did not agree to cook a cake for a homosexual wedding. That while you might call it "marriage equality" will likely now allow the government to step in more and more and tell you how to run your business, which is this country's next step toward communism.
My next argument with this is how small of a population actually do support homosexual marriage, the Liberal media has hyped the American population up to believe that everyone accepts this lifestyle, but the majority of America will tell you that they don't support homosexual marriage.
To make this clear, I no way "hate" homosexuals. I do not support their lifestyle, and I wish the Federal Government would stay out of the issues in the lives of the private citizens.
The United States has just about a 60% acceptance rate for such "lifestyle." I'm not exactly sure where you got your numbers, unless you of course talked with most of America, then albeit.
I apologize, I was incorrect.
And it had to do with the Constitutional right to marry, which goes to the Supreme Court. The states had their shot at denying it. They lost. You cannot pass a law based on any kind of religious view, which is why most of the "southern" states banned it in the first place. There is this thing called "separation of church and state" and luckily the Supreme Court was not as biased as most courts were.
I did in absolutely no way, shape, or form bring religion into this. You have absolutely no Constitutional right to marriage until today. No where in the Constitution did you have the "right" to marriage. It was completely a civil law that states in forced.
http://jurist.org/forum/2014/10/richard ... rriage.php
And yeah, I can see the government passing a few more laws about discrimination and more issues arising like the bakery one. Everyone has the right to practice their religion, and I have no issue with being denied at a bakery due to me being gay. They'll be out of business before you know it, and they can join the business that did the same thing and now are closed and boarded up. It fixes itself, however I have no issue with it. What I do have an issue with is being denied a job or hotel room, or rather an apartment due to my sexuality. THAT needs to be illegal. Discrimination is still here in the United States and it needs to come to an end, and I trust that the government will continue working on that.
Again, I think you're getting a little too far. As an example, say this homosexual man named Joe wanted to be a Christian pastor. Now, the Christian religion doesn't support homosexualsim (though, this is not part of my debate. It's only an example). Now, if Joe applies to be a Christian pastor, most churches won't allow him to, because it directly conflicts with their beliefs. Now, Joe can probably get a legitimate case against the church not allowing him to be a pastor. See what I mean? The church can now be sued for "discrimination." (Or at least have a legal case).
