Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Supreme Court Rules Gay Marriage Legal in All 50 States

profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,142
This is a huge day for the United States.

President Obama ‏@POTUS3m3 minutes ago
Today is a big step in our march toward equality. Gay and lesbian couples now have the right to marry, just like anyone else. #LoveWins
Jun 26 2015 10:22AM
1214 730
profile picture
.frenchy
Posts: 18221 - Karma: 12,321
S.J.WThat's also the amount of years SFB will take to get a girlfriend.


still better than ever having a boyfriend
Jul 3 2015 10:04PM
1 6
profile picture
S.J.W
Posts: 7609 - Karma: 31,185
.frenchystill better than ever having a boyfriend


As if, men get men. That's why you never see a miserable gay couple. That's why only 14% of gay marriages end in divorce. Because men get other men. If I could be gay I would be, because that lifestyle looks so much more enjoyable than being with a woman who get's all emotional every time she gets her period.
Jul 3 2015 10:07PM
0 4
profile picture
Mingg
Posts: 13975 - Karma: 49,272
.frenchystill better than ever having a boyfriend


I beg to differ.
Jul 3 2015 10:18PM
2 2
profile picture
las.
Posts: 1959 - Karma: 1,455
.frenchylove your icon bud


Frenchy confirmed homosexual
Jul 3 2015 10:31PM
4 0
profile picture
las.
Posts: 1959 - Karma: 1,455
SFBdo you ever have an actual retort to what people or saying or do you always resort to personal insults because you cant handle not everyone is a hyper liberal feminist


Says the guy who just constantly trolls and posts cringeworthy frog memes. You're not exactly a bastion of quality posts yourself, are you
Jul 3 2015 10:35PM
4 0
profile picture
SFB
Posts: 8895 - Karma: 26,352
msewardFunny how you say most Christians dont follow Leviticus but their anti gay argument lies within it.

Leviticus 18:22 : "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination"

Leviticus 20:13: "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood is upon them"

Thanks for proving my point SFB

your welcome? i was just poiting out a flaw in his argument im not taking a side.
Jul 3 2015 11:05PM
2 5
profile picture
.frenchy
Posts: 18221 - Karma: 12,321
las.Says the guy who just constantly trolls and posts cringeworthy frog memes. You're not exactly a bastion of quality posts yourself, are you


Is anyone who posts on NSG a "bastion of quality posts" .... No.


The point of those frog memes are to be cringe worthy, I don't think anyone posts them in a serious manner.
Jul 3 2015 11:59PM
2 3
profile picture
las.
Posts: 1959 - Karma: 1,455
.frenchyIs anyone who posts on NSG a "bastion of quality posts" .... No.


The point of those frog memes are to be cringe worthy, I don't think anyone posts them in a serious manner.


There are many members on here who make quality posts. Unfortunately they're slowly being driven away in a large part by worthless members posting inane shit, i.e. endless frog memes, that only clutters the place up, which is a bit annoying.
Make a cult or something for your 4chan meme circlejerks - don't post it in the main forums
Jul 4 2015 12:16AM
6 2
profile picture
.frenchy
Posts: 18221 - Karma: 12,321
las.There are many members on here who make quality posts. Unfortunately they're slowly being driven away in a large part by worthless members posting inane shit, i.e. endless frog memes, that only clutters the place up, which is a bit annoying.
Make a cult or something for your 4chan meme circlejerks - don't post it in the main forums


yo for real tho when was the last time i posted a meme? 2009?
Jul 4 2015 12:24AM
2 3
profile picture
las.
Posts: 1959 - Karma: 1,455
.frenchyyo for real tho when was the last time i posted a meme? 2009?


I didn't mean you personally
Jul 4 2015 12:50AM
2 2
profile picture
Turkelton
Posts: 2829 - Karma: 8,558
S.J.WAs if, men get men. That's why you never see a miserable gay couple. That's why only 14% of gay marriages end in divorce. Because men get other men. If I could be gay I would be, because that lifestyle looks so much more enjoyable than being with a woman who get's all emotional every time she gets her period.


>says he's a feminist
>is a full blown misogynist

ayyyy, leftist hypo criticisms at their finest. Well memed my boy


What exact lifestyle of theirs is more enjoyable? hahahaha
Jul 4 2015 9:36AM
12 0
profile picture
S.J.W
Posts: 7609 - Karma: 31,185
Turkelton>says he's a feminist
>is a full blown misogynist

ayyyy, leftist hypo criticisms at their finest. Well memed my boy


What exact lifestyle of theirs is more enjoyable? hahahaha


You do realise you can be a feminist and still criticize woman right? But then again judging by your previous posts you have the IQ of the potato in your dp so I wouldn't put it past you if you didn't understand that concept.
Jul 4 2015 9:46AM
1 8
profile picture
Turkelton
Posts: 2829 - Karma: 8,558
S.J.WYou do realise you can be a feminist and still criticize woman right? But then again judging by your previous posts you have the IQ of the potato in your dp so I wouldn't put it past you if you didn't understand that concept.


I hope you get ravaged by the SJW horde.
Insulting my intelligence? Nice. Just because I don't agree with you politically.
You are such a white knight. Get cucked my boy
Jul 4 2015 9:56AM
7 2
profile picture
90053
Posts: 2565 - Karma: 3,728
TurkeltonWhat exact lifestyle of theirs is more enjoyable? hahahaha


well i mean some of it must be good if christians are calling it a temptation that must be fought
Jul 4 2015 9:58AM
3 1
profile picture
.frenchy
Posts: 18221 - Karma: 12,321
TurkeltonI hope you get ravaged by the SJW horde.
Insulting my intelligence? Nice. Just because I don't agree with you politically.
You are such a white knight. Get cucked my boy


HAHAHAHAHA losing it. you just rek't the kid out of this thread
Jul 5 2015 12:37AM
1 8
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
What is even happening in this thread
Jul 5 2015 10:30AM
1 1
profile picture
ImNotARacist
Posts: 5136 - Karma: -1,030
milk_manWhat is even happening in this thread


DAD?!?
Jul 5 2015 10:31AM
1 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
DlCKDAD?!?


Yes, son?
Jul 5 2015 11:30AM
1 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
milk_manWhat is even happening in this thread


You not answering my question.
Jul 5 2015 11:51AM
4 0
profile picture
Lonely
Posts: 6741 - Karma: 61,663
Huck_NorrisSee this is the distinction you're failing to realize. Marriage was never "yours" in any capacity. People were getting married for thousands of years before Jesus, and they get married now in all kinds of ways that "aren't Christian". Why aren't you freaking out over other religions' customs, arranged child weddings, divorce or adultery with the save fervor? It's just disingenuous that you attach such importance to gays yet every other non-Christian denomination-also "unholy"- is totally fine.

Beyond that though, there are two arms to "marriage". There is religious marriage, which consists of the customs and specific religious rituals that make it unique to that culture.

Then we have the LEGAL arm of marriage- the rights provided by the state married couples get through estate, insurance and taxation. This has absolutely no connection whatsoever to your religion and this is truly what gays want- equal protection from the government. They don't give a shit about you or your church and they don't care about your religions acceptance in any way, shape or form.

The fact that you expect the entire country to adhere by the laws of your personal religion- and have the government back you up- means you have no idea what the separation of church and state is, nor do you understand that the Christian faith doesn't own the term marriage or the legal rights it gives.

You're entitled to believe whatever you want, that's your right. Everyone else also has the right to tell you and Jesus to fuck off though and that's what you are flat out refusing to understand. The freedom OF religion also entails the freedom FROM religion.

Above and beyond that, shellfish and tattoos are mentioned in the same breath in Leviticus and none of you are up in arms about the abomination of shrimp and clams being legal and not one protest is happening outside a tattoo parlor today. These reasons are basically why you're full of shit AND an ignorant bastard to boot. Go fuck yourself.


That was beautiful. Screenshotting for future use.
Jul 5 2015 1:34PM
0 0
profile picture
ndye
Posts: 3756 - Karma: 7,094
.frenchy^ same lure I caught the CT state record brown trout on ;^)


You have an official weigh in on that fish? Or just a little twitter fame and some hype?
Jul 6 2015 10:23AM
1 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51642 - Karma: 162,187
Huck_NorrisSee this is the distinction you're failing to realize. Marriage was never "yours" in any capacity. People were getting married for thousands of years before Jesus, and they get married now in all kinds of ways that "aren't Christian". Why aren't you freaking out over other religions' customs, arranged child weddings, divorce or adultery with the save fervor? It's just disingenuous that you attach such importance to gays yet every other non-Christian denomination-also "unholy"- is totally fine.

Beyond that though, there are two arms to "marriage". There is religious marriage, which consists of the customs and specific religious rituals that make it unique to that culture.

Then we have the LEGAL arm of marriage- the rights provided by the state married couples get through estate, insurance and taxation. This has absolutely no connection whatsoever to your religion and this is truly what gays want- equal protection from the government. They don't give a shit about you or your church and they don't care about your religions acceptance in any way, shape or form.

The fact that you expect the entire country to adhere by the laws of your personal religion- and have the government back you up- means you have no idea what the separation of church and state is, nor do you understand that the Christian faith doesn't own the term marriage or the legal rights it gives.

You're entitled to believe whatever you want, that's your right. Everyone else also has the right to tell you and Jesus to fuck off though and that's what you are flat out refusing to understand. The freedom OF religion also entails the freedom FROM religion.

Above and beyond that, shellfish and tattoos are mentioned in the same breath in Leviticus and none of you are up in arms about the abomination of shrimp and clams being legal and not one protest is happening outside a tattoo parlor today. These reasons are basically why you're full of shit AND an ignorant bastard to boot. Go fuck yourself.


this
Jul 7 2015 6:30PM
0 0
profile picture
BravoWhiskey5280
Posts: 4020 - Karma: 520
Regardless of what your beliefs are on the matter, you can't deny the fact that this decision is blatantly unconstitutional. According to the constitution, the states are the only ones that have the jurisdiction and the authority to make these decisions. Like it or not, that's how it's suppose to be.

That's why I have a huge problem with this ruling. I could care less that gay marriage was made legal. I would actually celebrate the fact that it was made legal if it was done constitutionally. I will always be an advocate for the expansion of an individual's personal liberties. That's why I am libertarian. What I can't do though is I can't ignore the fact that this decision was made through the federal government unconstitutionally abusing their power. By throwing the system of checks and balances out the window, this ruling reinforces the federal governments thought that they can do whatever they want. So screw everything you thought you knew about the government and how its suppose to function according to our constitution. That document is now irrelevant to them, they obviously don't care about it because we the people didn't punish them for ignoring it. If there's no repercussions for blaintly ignoring the Constitution's system of checks and it's balances of powers than what's to stop them from doing it again?
Jul 7 2015 9:16PM
2 0
profile picture
S.J.W
Posts: 7609 - Karma: 31,185
BravoWhiskey5280Regardless of what your beliefs are on the matter, you can't deny the fact that this decision is blatantly unconstitutional. According to the constitution, the states are the only ones that have the jurisdiction and the authority to make these decisions. Like it or not, that's how it's suppose to be.

That's why I have a huge problem with this ruling. I could care less that gay marriage was made legal. I would actually celebrate the fact that it was made legal if it was done constitutionally. I will always be an advocate for the expansion of an individual's personal liberties. That's why I am libertarian. What I can't do though is I can't ignore the fact that this decision was made through the federal government unconstitutionally abusing their power. By throwing the system of checks and balances out the window, this ruling reinforces the federal governments thought that they can do whatever they want. So screw everything you thought you knew about the government and how its suppose to function according to our constitution. That document is now irrelevant to them, they obviously don't care about it because we the people didn't punish them for ignoring it. If there's no repercussions for blaintly ignoring the Constitution's system of checks and it's balances of powers than what's to stop them from doing it again?


The US government taking away states highway funding for not making the drinking age 21 was unconstitutional. And I tried to search archives of newspaper and news reports for outrage and I couldn't find a single article saying how it was unconstitutional. The 14th amendment states that all citizens have the same rights and equal protection of laws. Marrying the person you love is a right, that's why inter-racial marriage was legalized by the supreme court in 1967. The exact same arguments against gay marriage that bigots are using against gay marriage, are the same arguments that racists used for inter racial marriage.
Jul 7 2015 10:52PM
0 0
profile picture
BravoWhiskey5280
Posts: 4020 - Karma: 520
S.J.WThe US government taking away states highway funding for not making the drinking age 21 was unconstitutional. And I tried to search archives of newspaper and news reports for outrage and I couldn't find a single article saying how it was unconstitutional. The 14th amendment states that all citizens have the same rights and equal protection of laws. Marrying the person you love is a right, that's why inter-racial marriage was legalized by the supreme court in 1967. The exact same arguments against gay marriage that bigots are using against gay marriage, are the same arguments that racists used for inter racial marriage.


I don't doubt it. A bigot is a bigot, decades don't change that. I wonder how many people have the same opinion that I do? That being one that is all for gay marriage, but is against the ruling because of the way in which it was passed.
Jul 7 2015 11:29PM
0 0
profile picture
S.J.W
Posts: 7609 - Karma: 31,185
BravoWhiskey5280I don't doubt it. A bigot is a bigot, decades don't change that. I wonder how many people have the same opinion that I do? That being one that is all for gay marriage, but is against the ruling because of the way in which it was passed.


But the ruling is constitutional. You can't have a law that only affects one group of people, (straight couples). Under the 14th amendment all laws are equal and all people have the same rights under the law. So marriage being exclusively between a man and a woman is unconstitutional. Now marriage applies to every couple.

INB4 gay marriage will lead to polygamy, like everyone said before inter-racial was legalised.
Jul 7 2015 11:34PM
0 0
profile picture
BravoWhiskey5280
Posts: 4020 - Karma: 520
My reason why it's unconstitutional actually have nothing to do with the 14th amendment. The reason I believe it was unconstitutional is because the supreme court just overruled the state's authority and jurisdiction on the matter. The constitution specifically granted the state's the power to preside on matters such as this. Like it or not, but legally speaking this issue belonged to the States to decide over. Sunday is Christians or anybody else have a problem with. It's the Federal government thinking that they can bypass the powers granted to the state's in the constitution that I have a problem. Especially when they're doing it to preside over an issue that is political just as much as it is practical.
Jul 8 2015 12:38AM
0 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
BravoWhiskey5280My reason why it's unconstitutional actually have nothing to do with the 14th amendment. The reason I believe it was unconstitutional is because the supreme court just overruled the state's authority and jurisdiction on the matter. The constitution specifically granted the state's the power to preside on matters such as this. Like it or not, but legally speaking this issue belonged to the States to decide over. Sunday is Christians or anybody else have a problem with. It's the Federal government thinking that they can bypass the powers granted to the state's in the constitution that I have a problem. Especially when they're doing it to preside over an issue that is political just as much as it is practical.


The Supreme Court ruled it on it doesn't matter what your opinion is your not a constitutional scholar. They are and what you just stated is the supreme courts job and why they exist.

What you're basically saying is that states should have the right to oppressed people. And states should be allowed to follow their religious beliefs. That's not how our country or government works.
Jul 8 2015 8:55AM
0 1
profile picture
ImNotARacist
Posts: 5136 - Karma: -1,030
BravoWhiskey5280My reason why it's unconstitutional actually have nothing to do with the 14th amendment. The reason I believe it was unconstitutional is because the supreme court just overruled the state's authority and jurisdiction on the matter. The constitution specifically granted the state's the power to preside on matters such as this. Like it or not, but legally speaking this issue belonged to the States to decide over. Sunday is Christians or anybody else have a problem with. It's the Federal government thinking that they can bypass the powers granted to the state's in the constitution that I have a problem. Especially when they're doing it to preside over an issue that is political just as much as it is practical.

The 14th Amendment is part of the constitution dummy.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

The Supreme court was merely working for the people.
Jul 8 2015 9:57AM
0 0
profile picture
Charlie_Kelly
Posts: 11954 - Karma: 12,298
BravoWhiskey5280My reason why it's unconstitutional actually have nothing to do with the 14th amendment. The reason I believe it was unconstitutional is because the supreme court just overruled the state's authority and jurisdiction on the matter. The constitution specifically granted the state's the power to preside on matters such as this. Like it or not, but legally speaking this issue belonged to the States to decide over. Sunday is Christians or anybody else have a problem with. It's the Federal government thinking that they can bypass the powers granted to the state's in the constitution that I have a problem. Especially when they're doing it to preside over an issue that is political just as much as it is practical.


What about weed? Some states deemed it legal even though federally its illegal. Fed laws trump state laws.
Jul 8 2015 10:14AM
0 0
profile picture
miroz
Posts: 10333 - Karma: 3,945
Isn't there also debate about how the constitution should be used? Whether it's to be taken literally or that certain bodies can infer meaning based on current circumstance that our forefathers could not have predicted?

Regardless, and as has been mentioned already, this is the same series of events that took place during the Civil Rights Movements. The federal government is just looking out for the people.

If one wanted to bitch about federal government overreach, there are probably much better examples that one could find, with outcomes more detrimental to the people.
Jul 8 2015 12:44PM
0 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
mirozIsn't there also debate about how the constitution should be used? Whether it's to be taken literally or that certain bodies can infer meaning based on current circumstance that our forefathers could not have predicted?


The Constitution should be interpreted literally as it is the basis for all laws. And if something isn't right, and situations have changed you can always add or take away an amendment. Hence the word amendment.
Jul 8 2015 1:12PM
0 0
profile picture
jabroni.
Posts: 662 - Karma: 235
Granite_StateWhat about weed? Some states deemed it legal even though federally its illegal. Fed laws trump state laws.


one day the supreme court will rule weed legal and well all chill a little harder... federally
Jul 8 2015 4:38PM
0 0
profile picture
stinky_cheese
Posts: 1220 - Karma: 5,171
las.frog memes


Jul 9 2015 1:48AM
2 1
profile picture
death_grips
Posts: 255 - Karma: 594
I don't get it

like everyone on NS is all like "chill brah smoke kush and chill 420 lets go ski and be chill" but then also is super right-wing and anti liberal. Skiing itself is a pretty lax and liberal activity so why can't people just fuckin chyll and let people do what they do?

Jul 9 2015 8:14AM
1 0
profile picture
Lonely
Posts: 6741 - Karma: 61,663
nocturnalThe Constitution should be interpreted literally as it is the basis for all laws. And if something isn't right, and situations have changed you can always add or take away an amendment. Hence the word amendment.


But you can't exactly just slap an ammendment on there. That takes time and a whole lot of political bs
Jul 9 2015 8:25AM
0 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
I'm so annoyed by the rainbow profile pictures on facebook.
Jul 9 2015 10:48AM
1 3
profile picture
ndye
Posts: 3756 - Karma: 7,094
milk_manI'm so annoyed by the rainbow profile pictures on facebook.


AHH you are just a troll.
Jul 9 2015 12:44PM
1 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
ndyeAHH you are just a troll.


Yeah you're right. Nobody ever gets annoyed by bandwagons.
Jul 9 2015 12:59PM
0 1
profile picture
ndye
Posts: 3756 - Karma: 7,094
milk_manYeah you're right. Nobody ever gets annoyed by bandwagons.


Youre argument is that having to look at rainbows on your facebook feed is annoying, come on man.
Jul 9 2015 1:02PM
1 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
ndyeYoure argument is that having to look at rainbows on your facebook feed is annoying, come on man.


If only Facebook had a filter for people who believe the opposite
Jul 9 2015 1:31PM
0 2
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
milk_manIf only Facebook had a filter for people who believe the opposite


Here you go
Jul 9 2015 2:19PM
3 0
profile picture
onenerdykid
Posts: 6657 - Karma: 10,889
milk_manYeah you're right. Nobody ever gets annoyed by bandwagons.


Just because a lot of people do something, it doesn't follow that they jumped on the bandwagon. In order to know that, you need to know their motivations for doing it. If they believe in it and it just happens to be popular, then it is not a bandwagon. If they don't believe in it and do it because it is popular then it is a bandwagon. Both result in the same action (posting their FB picture with pride colors on it), but motive will make it different.
Jul 9 2015 3:45PM
1 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
onenerdykidJust because a lot of people do something, it doesn't follow that they jumped on the bandwagon. In order to know that, you need to know their motivations for doing it. If they believe in it and it just happens to be popular, then it is not a bandwagon. If they don't believe in it and do it because it is popular then it is a bandwagon. Both result in the same action (posting their FB picture with pride colors on it), but motive will make it different.


But how do you know if they really care. Maybe it's just popular to "care"
Jul 9 2015 3:49PM
0 1
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
milk_manBut how do you know if they really care. Maybe it's just popular to "care"


I would say trying to treat people as equals, is a pretty popular opinion, and people don't do it to look cool.
Jul 9 2015 3:51PM
0 0
profile picture
ndye
Posts: 3756 - Karma: 7,094
milk_manBut how do you know if they really care. Maybe it's just popular to "care"


I care because members of my family are gay and I want them along with all people of that orientation to be able to pursue happiness like I can. Go meet a gay person, I bet they arent as scary as you think.
Jul 9 2015 3:55PM
0 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
ndyeI care because members of my family are gay and I want them along with all people of that orientation to be able to pursue happiness like I can. Go meet a gay person, I bet they arent as scary as you think.


I don't dislike gay people, I would treat them like I would treat any other friend
Jul 9 2015 3:59PM
0 1
profile picture
ndye
Posts: 3756 - Karma: 7,094
milk_manI don't dislike gay people, I would treat them like I would treat any other friend


Except for you dont want them to pursue happiness in their own way, thats the only difference. "I treat them as I would treat any other friend, but just who has less rights than me"

Glad my family and friends are now protected from law from people with your views.
Jul 9 2015 4:09PM
1 0
profile picture
milk_man
Posts: 5252 - Karma: 5,983
ndyeExcept for you dont want them to pursue happiness in their own way, thats the only difference. "I treat them as I would treat any other friend, but just who has less rights than me"

Glad my family and friends are now protected from law from people with your views.


Actually no they never had less rights than me. Don't play that card, I'm not stupid. It used to be illegal for both myself and the gay person to marry someone of the same sex. Just because I would never do it doesn't mean I ever had more rights than them. I hate this victimization
Jul 9 2015 4:13PM
0 2
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
milk_manActually no they never had less rights than me. Don't play that card, I'm not stupid. It used to be illegal for both myself and the gay person to marry someone of the same sex. Just because I would never do it doesn't mean I ever had more rights than them. I hate this victimization


First of all it wasn't illegal it just wasn't recognized and you're not gay so you didn't want to get married to a man, an equivalent would be not allowing Christians to get married. See how unfair that is you're not allowed to be married just because of your lifestyle ( not saying being gay is a lifestyle but you get my point)
Jul 9 2015 4:17PM
1 0
All times are Eastern (-5)