- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS says "No Thanks" to Kim Davis and "Yes" to same sex marriage.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:28 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:28 pm to FooManChoo
Yes, I've read the Bible too. And I see you've avoided my question. Homosexuality isn't mentioned very much in the Bible. What is talked about a lot is adultery and (heterosexual) sex outside of marriage. Why? Because that sex creates human beings. God knew a committed man and woman raising children together is the best way to do it. Look at the destruction in the black community because of unfettered heterosexual sex. And the normalization of single motherhood.
Homosexuality takes a HUGE backseat to those issues. But "Christians" really want to hate on some homos.
Homosexuality takes a HUGE backseat to those issues. But "Christians" really want to hate on some homos.
1
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:28 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
Yes and no. Shared assets and marriage licenses certainly bring it into the purview of the law.
They do, but they shouldn't. That is the point.
Leave the definition and declaration of marriage to the churches.
If a church recognizes gay marriage, and you opposed it, then don't attend that church. Pretty simple.
The state should not be involved. The state should only be involved in civil contracts between 2 or more consenting adults of any gender.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Obergefell relied on Loving which relied on Griswold.
You don't have to argue with me that Anthony Kennedy is a buffoon.
It's indefensible nonsense.
And yes I was completely aware of this garbage before you mentioned it for the 1000th time.
This post was edited on 11/10/25 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:31 pm to JimEverett
quote:
is the idea that the government should not recognize marriages?
Yes. Marriage is a religious concept.
The state should only be involved in enforcing civil contracts between 2 or more consenting adults of any gender.
If anyone gets married in a church, but fails to engage in a civil contract, don't ask the courts to get involved in your breakup. Let the church handle that.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:32 pm to geauxtigers
quote:
licking that pussy
What’s wrong with that?
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:32 pm to TulsaSooner78
quote:
They do, but they shouldn't. That is the point. Leave the definition and declaration of marriage to the churches. If a church recognizes gay marriage, and you opposed it, then don't attend that church. Pretty simple. The state should not be involved. The state should only be involved in civil contracts between
Marriage under the law IS just a civil contract and regime between too people.
Religious people’s opposition to it is literally rooted in the fact that it uses the word “marriage” which is absolutely hilarious to me.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:33 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
You don't have to argue with me that Anthony Kennedy is a buffoon.
It's indefensible nonsense.
Earl Warren wrote the decision in Loving. Kennedy was in private practice in 1967 when it was issued.
They're all based in Substantive Due Process. So overruling Obergfell means Loving should also be overruled.
*ETA:
quote:
And yes I was completely aware of this garbage before you mentioned it for the 1000th time.
Then this was a curious comment
quote:
Retarded comparison.
If you already knew calling the comparison retarded was, well, retarded.
This post was edited on 11/10/25 at 2:34 pm
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:33 pm to WeeWee
quote:
Ideally they would change the legal name of marriage to a "civil union" for everyone and then leave "marriage" to religion.
Don’t ever complain about the left and its wordsmithing nonsense if this is your argument
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:35 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Marriage under the law IS just a civil contract and regime between too people. Religious people’s opposition to it is literally rooted in the fact that it uses the word “marriage” which is absolutely hilarious to me.
The motivation to people organizing their local governments law one way or their other is irrelevant , there is no constitutional reason to dictate this at a local level.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:36 pm to Green Chili Tiger
To legally regard two co-habiting homos as the cultural and moral equal of a genuine husband-and-wife is the same demented mindset that conveys there's no difference between men and women, and thus, perverted dudes must have access to womens bathrooms and locker-rooms.
This country has been an off-kilter, sick joke of a nation ever since.
This country has been an off-kilter, sick joke of a nation ever since.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:37 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
there is no constitutional reason to dictate this at a local level.
Other than the Contract Clause
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They're all based in Substantive Due Process. So overruling Obergfell means Loving should also be overruled.
You make this argument all the time and it's ridiculous. I can argue a legal framework was disgustingly misapplied to a case without rejecting the legal framework.
This was a 5-4 decision, did Roberts in his dissent call for the overturning of Loving?
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:41 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
The motivation to people organizing their local governments law one way or their other is irrelevant , there is no constitutional reason to dictate this at a local level.
Why can’t two adults contract with each other?
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:42 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
You make this argument all the time and it's ridiculous.
It's not if you understand why the rulings were made.
And I quoted Loving to you citing the SDP argument as its basis.
If SDP is removed, then what is left to support the ruling in Loving?
Feelings? Yes. Legal basis? Not so much.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's not if you understand why the rulings were made. And I quoted Loving to you citing the SDP argument as its basis. If SDP is removed, then what is left to support the ruling in Loving? Feelings? Yes. Legal basis? Not so much.
Are you stupid?
Re-read my post.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:46 pm to TulsaSooner78
quote:
Yes. Marriage is a religious concept.
Marriage actually started as more of a business contract than a religious one.
quote:
Marriage began around 4,350 years ago in Mesopotamia and was originally a social and economic institution used to form alliances between families, secure inheritance, and legitimize children. While prehistoric pair bonds likely existed for procreation and survival, formal marriage became an institution as humans transitioned to settled agricultural communities, requiring more structured family units and the concept of property. The modern concept of marrying for love is a much more recent development that emerged in the Middle Ages and became more common over time.
This post was edited on 11/10/25 at 2:48 pm
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:47 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Are you stupid?
The opposite
quote:
Re-read my post.
I don't need to. You're calling me citing SDP as the backbone of Loving "ridiculous" and "misapplied", and then when pressed to defend your stance, you resort to ad homs instead of substance.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:49 pm to CatsGoneWild
47 downvotes
You are on the wrong side of history…
You are on the wrong side of history…
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:52 pm to GoblinGuide
quote:
Still trying to work out how marrying gay people didn't align with her beliefs, but getting 3 divorces did.
Protestants usually don't object to divorce. It's heterodox but sincere.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:55 pm to Dizz
Look I’m glad you people got a win
Page 4 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News