-
Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Access to private conversations with other members.
- Fewer ads.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage
- Thread starter Dick Whitman
- Start date
outofplace
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2005
- Messages
- 62,300
I'm not celebrating anybody being put out of business. You made that up. Please don't lump everybody who disagrees with you into one homogeneous group. There are far too many of us to all feel the same way about everything.
There is a difference between the government forcing your religious beliefs on others and individuals doing it. I shouldn't have to explain that to you.
But really, you're dodging the subject again, which makes me think you don't have a legitimate answer to my point. In this case, marriage is a legal issue, not a religious one. Just admit it. You want your church to define marriage in this country.
exmediahack
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2007
- Messages
- 11,147
I'm also one that has tempered on this over the past five years. Probably because I've done stories about same-sex couples who were in this legal battle. They have young children and, really, just wanted the same rights as everyone else.
On the overall spectrum, I figure I'm probably one of the five most socially/economically conservative people on this board -- a Reagan Republican who worked one of the very few losing Republican Senate campaigns of 1994 (yeah, looking back, that candidate was a whack job).
Twenty years ago, I was staunchly pro-life, wanted no part of what we used to call "socialized medicine" and same-sex marriage wasn't even on the radar as an issue.
I'm still staunchly pro-life and make no apologies for it. Yet I also know I can't legislate this in 2015.
The ACA is nothing more than a dog-whistle for older conservatives to get out and vote, just as this marriage deal has been. We're in a much more transient working society and that health insurance is tied to employment for people such feels so... outdated.
In 1989, if you had five jobs in 8 years, it meant you were an unloyal alcoholic.
Now it is just as likely to mean that other companies are snatching you up because you're a top performer. I think that plays a role here -- young professionals aren't as tied to a company and health insurance today should reflect that.
On the same-sex marriage ruling... I've lived in two of the "early adopting" states and, in neither case, did it wreck much of anything. If nothing else, it was a boost during the recession (find me a straight couple willing to pay $277 a night for a B&B in the Midwest).
The older I've gotten, I've worked with more people - people I really respect, professionally - in same-sex relationships. I think of their anguish as teenagers or college students having to stay "in the shadows". I think of self-esteem, depression and suicide issues because some people feel like outcasts.
That isn't right, regardless of what your faith or what the Bible tells you.
No one should feel like a second-class citizen because of something like this.
There are three real winners from today: Hillary Clinton, Chris Christie and divorce lawyers in the states where same-sex marriage was not legalized until today's SCOUTS ruling. They will cash in if it's a male-male relationship with two guys who are the same size.
On the overall spectrum, I figure I'm probably one of the five most socially/economically conservative people on this board -- a Reagan Republican who worked one of the very few losing Republican Senate campaigns of 1994 (yeah, looking back, that candidate was a whack job).
Twenty years ago, I was staunchly pro-life, wanted no part of what we used to call "socialized medicine" and same-sex marriage wasn't even on the radar as an issue.
I'm still staunchly pro-life and make no apologies for it. Yet I also know I can't legislate this in 2015.
The ACA is nothing more than a dog-whistle for older conservatives to get out and vote, just as this marriage deal has been. We're in a much more transient working society and that health insurance is tied to employment for people such feels so... outdated.
In 1989, if you had five jobs in 8 years, it meant you were an unloyal alcoholic.
Now it is just as likely to mean that other companies are snatching you up because you're a top performer. I think that plays a role here -- young professionals aren't as tied to a company and health insurance today should reflect that.
On the same-sex marriage ruling... I've lived in two of the "early adopting" states and, in neither case, did it wreck much of anything. If nothing else, it was a boost during the recession (find me a straight couple willing to pay $277 a night for a B&B in the Midwest).
The older I've gotten, I've worked with more people - people I really respect, professionally - in same-sex relationships. I think of their anguish as teenagers or college students having to stay "in the shadows". I think of self-esteem, depression and suicide issues because some people feel like outcasts.
That isn't right, regardless of what your faith or what the Bible tells you.
No one should feel like a second-class citizen because of something like this.
There are three real winners from today: Hillary Clinton, Chris Christie and divorce lawyers in the states where same-sex marriage was not legalized until today's SCOUTS ruling. They will cash in if it's a male-male relationship with two guys who are the same size.
BadgerBeer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2003
- Messages
- 2,093
Honest question Tony, how does having two men being married to each other change your life? How do two women being married affect your faith? I think it is clear how your religious views can affect those that don't share them so I would think you are the one pushing your faith onto others.
Baron Scicluna
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2007
- Messages
- 43,196
Yeah, that's going to pass Constitutional muster with flying colors.
DeskMonkey1
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2012
- Messages
- 996
""None of these bills would stop [gay marriage]," Courser said. "What they'll do is protect those folks from being forced to perform gay marriages as part of their official duties."
Um, how would that not stop gay marriage? Most clergy certainly wouldn't sign off
LongTimeListener
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2009
- Messages
- 40,531
At last, someone comes up with a workable solution.
Jindal: 'Let's just get rid of the court' | TheHill
Jindal: 'Let's just get rid of the court' | TheHill
Spartan Squad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2010
- Messages
- 17,570
Sorry, typo. But regardless, those who were denied the rights and privileges that come with marriage were denied equal protection because the government said for arbitrary reasons, they couldn't get married.
Starman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2002
- Messages
- 49,183
Disingenous lying teabag forks as usual.
In other news, in response to a new set of orders from ALEC and as part of their never ending quest for more localized control of government, the teabags vote to prohibit any local municipality from setting wage or leave time requirements higher than those in state law.
Michigan Republicans move to block local sick leave and minimum wage laws
Not that any local government was planning to do it anyway, but the teabags simply have to shove their collective cocks in the face of the working class, just to remind everybody they can do it.
In other news, in response to a new set of orders from ALEC and as part of their never ending quest for more localized control of government, the teabags vote to prohibit any local municipality from setting wage or leave time requirements higher than those in state law.
Michigan Republicans move to block local sick leave and minimum wage laws
Not that any local government was planning to do it anyway, but the teabags simply have to shove their collective cocks in the face of the working class, just to remind everybody they can do it.
Mr. Sunshine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2014
- Messages
- 9,247
Given how much pressure there is from both sides, I suspect death is the only way these current justices will be replaced.
Mr. Sunshine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2014
- Messages
- 9,247
Who was president the last time you were happy? Ford?
WriteThinking
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2008
- Messages
- 6,725
I'll start by saying this is a tough issue. I'll also say that old_tony is not the only one against this ruling, and raise my hand. I'm willing to bet there are others, too, who won't do so because it wouldn't be politically correct, or the nice thing to do.
Beyond faith-based reasons, though, I think there is a general issue that's being confronted about a lot of things, and that that is part of the problem. That is, people seem to not have much problem with anything anymore. Or else they say, too easily, that they don't. That, in my opinion, is a problem.
A person's stance against same-sex marriage may not have much actual impact on their life. Heck, I suspect that's what drives a lot of people's stance for it. They do not know, interact with, or deal closely with many who live that lifestyle, and so, basically, who cares, right? It doesn't make any difference to me so...it doesn't make any difference to me.
But a person still doesn't have to like this. It can be that they just don't, and that that influences their beliefs.
I'll use myself as an example. I am Christian but I'm not sure my disdain for this ruling even comes from that, really. I just know that I struggle with seeing men kiss men and women kiss women in any more than a peck-on-the-cheek way. I don't like it. It bothers me, and I can't give any reason other than the fact that it just seems wrong. It just does, in much the same way as polygamy or bestiality (which, I noticed, people have not addressed).
To me, it's just...wrong, and the fact that anybody, or everybody, else does not think the same way doesn't change anything. And being against one thing doesn't necessarily mean I am against something else, i.e. outofplace's argument that being against same-sex marriage means I have to be against voting for women.
It's just not so. People really can have one opinion about something, and also have another opinion about another thing. Not everything necessarily means the same thing to a person, or moves them as much, or as much in the same direction. It just doesn't.
Beyond faith-based reasons, though, I think there is a general issue that's being confronted about a lot of things, and that that is part of the problem. That is, people seem to not have much problem with anything anymore. Or else they say, too easily, that they don't. That, in my opinion, is a problem.
A person's stance against same-sex marriage may not have much actual impact on their life. Heck, I suspect that's what drives a lot of people's stance for it. They do not know, interact with, or deal closely with many who live that lifestyle, and so, basically, who cares, right? It doesn't make any difference to me so...it doesn't make any difference to me.
But a person still doesn't have to like this. It can be that they just don't, and that that influences their beliefs.
I'll use myself as an example. I am Christian but I'm not sure my disdain for this ruling even comes from that, really. I just know that I struggle with seeing men kiss men and women kiss women in any more than a peck-on-the-cheek way. I don't like it. It bothers me, and I can't give any reason other than the fact that it just seems wrong. It just does, in much the same way as polygamy or bestiality (which, I noticed, people have not addressed).
To me, it's just...wrong, and the fact that anybody, or everybody, else does not think the same way doesn't change anything. And being against one thing doesn't necessarily mean I am against something else, i.e. outofplace's argument that being against same-sex marriage means I have to be against voting for women.
It's just not so. People really can have one opinion about something, and also have another opinion about another thing. Not everything necessarily means the same thing to a person, or moves them as much, or as much in the same direction. It just doesn't.
Last edited:
Similar threads
