- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: Supreme Court being formally asked to overturn Obergefell; gay marriage will fall
Posted on 8/14/25 at 2:22 pm to td01241
Posted on 8/14/25 at 2:22 pm to td01241
Here’s a good headline:
Woman who’s been divorced three times with children born out of adultery claims to be protecting the “sanctity of marriage”.
Woman who’s been divorced three times with children born out of adultery claims to be protecting the “sanctity of marriage”.
2
Posted on 8/14/25 at 3:32 pm to dgnx6
quote:
have Christian countries on the list, Muslim countries on the list, secular countries on the list and Hindu/Buddhist countries on the list.
And they are backwards.
Posted on 8/14/25 at 3:50 pm to Volatile
Posted on 8/15/25 at 12:22 am to FooManChoo
quote:
I urge you to reconsider what you prioritize in this life.
All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and must turn from their sins by faith that Jesus will forgive them. If you do not trust in Jesus to pay the debt of sin that you owe, you will be paying it off yourself for eternity.
Run after forgiveness and salvation in Jesus Christ while it can be found.
Posted on 8/15/25 at 3:08 am to td01241
quote:
Also as things currently stand if it’s returned to the states like Roe 35 states currently have marriage equality ban laws meaning gays could only be married in 15 states.
While if nothing changed they could only get married in 15 states every state has to recognize the marriage under The Respect for Marriage Act which was passed in 2022.
That said I put the likelihood of cert at less than 1%.
Posted on 8/15/25 at 3:55 am to Obtuse1
Yes, you’re correct. I didn’t know about or wasn’t aware of the whole respect for marriage act when I posted that in page 1.
While cert here may be low as I have said before, this is literally the same thing that happened with Roe. People kept pushing the envelope until eventually one broke though, it’s probably likely a similar case will need to play out here where a state brings the case. Like it not, I’m not really commenting on the morality of the above
While cert here may be low as I have said before, this is literally the same thing that happened with Roe. People kept pushing the envelope until eventually one broke though, it’s probably likely a similar case will need to play out here where a state brings the case. Like it not, I’m not really commenting on the morality of the above
Posted on 8/15/25 at 3:57 am to Volatile
quote:
Here’s a good headline:
Woman who’s been divorced three times with children born out of adultery claims to be protecting the “sanctity of marriage
Oh now that is hilarious. When the faux conservative holy rollers wake up, prepare for the downvotes to roll in. That's assuming their knees and hips aren't acting up and they don't choke on their Raisin Bran.
Posted on 8/15/25 at 4:06 am to Dex Morgan
I find it hilarious youre calling other faux conservatives because they mayor may not agree with you on very specific issue. One that btw has various legitimate reasons for being against that are not religion based, and I personally laughed at that guys joke and im the OP of the thray. I even made a post with an emjoi pointing out how funny it was.
Now if it is politically expedient to do this? Thats a far more interesting question imo
Many many of you guys are purity spiraling. Literally no different than how the woke left constantly does. You cross a line from debating an issue to saying muh anyone who doesnt like my opinion or disagrees is a bad person and isnt muh right wing.
Now if it is politically expedient to do this? Thats a far more interesting question imo
Many many of you guys are purity spiraling. Literally no different than how the woke left constantly does. You cross a line from debating an issue to saying muh anyone who doesnt like my opinion or disagrees is a bad person and isnt muh right wing.
This post was edited on 8/15/25 at 4:16 am
Posted on 8/15/25 at 4:31 am to td01241
No sir. You all are the ones willing to throw the midterms to the vile liberals over gay marriage. You want to neuter the remainder of Trump's presidency over something that has already been settled a decade ago.
Posted on 8/15/25 at 4:35 am to Dex Morgan
Did you even read all of my post before responding?
The middle portion clearly says if this being politically expedient or not is the more interesting question to me. Clearly you dont believe it is, and im very sympathetic to that position
The middle portion clearly says if this being politically expedient or not is the more interesting question to me. Clearly you dont believe it is, and im very sympathetic to that position
This post was edited on 8/15/25 at 4:36 am
Posted on 8/15/25 at 6:28 am to td01241
All started by a woman with four failed straight marriages
Posted on 8/15/25 at 6:31 am to Stonehenge
Not the first to make that joke, but it is still hilarious
Posted on 8/16/25 at 11:40 am to Dex Morgan
quote:
You all are the ones willing to throw the midterms to the vile liberals over gay marriage.
I guess there is a woke right
Posted on 8/16/25 at 11:43 am to SlowFlowPro
I agree that ultimately there is no right to marriage in the Constitution.
But this such a political loser of an issue and it’s logically inconsistent for anyone who cares about limited and/or consistent government.
But this such a political loser of an issue and it’s logically inconsistent for anyone who cares about limited and/or consistent government.
Page 17 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News