Texan Posted June 27, 2015 Posted June 27, 2015 Is it: The right decision - they should have the same right as heterogenous couples OR Wrong - its an unnatural union with widespread implications if legalized. Very notable that even as accommodating and liberal society that the US is, this judgement was approved only by the most slender of margins of 5-4.
Texy Posted June 27, 2015 Posted June 27, 2015 Sabby & Slickr finally has a reason to move to US now :cantstop:
Clarke Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Good to see the Supreme Court justices move beyond partisan lines. Justice Roberts helped in the Obamacare case and Justice Kennedy did this time :nice:
G_B_ Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 step in right direction. I do hope India follows suit at least by making homosexuality legal.
G_B_ Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Sabby & Slickr finally has a reason to move to US now :cantstop: you said it...
Brainfade Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Good to see the Supreme Court justices move beyond partisan lines. Justice Roberts helped in the Obamacare case and Justice Kennedy did this time :nice: They got one right (gay marriage) and one dead wrong (PPACA). Two people in a private relationship does not affect anyone else adversely. My increased premium does. Me. And funny you appreciate justices moving beyond partisan lines when they moved to your POV. Wonder if you'd have the same appreciation fotr Sotomayor if she had seen the big picture of PPACA effects and voted the other way.
Clarke Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 They got one right (gay marriage) and one dead wrong (PPACA). Two people in a private relationship does not affect anyone else adversely. My increased premium does. Me. And funny you appreciate justices moving beyond partisan lines when they moved to your POV. Wonder if you'd have the same appreciation fotr Sotomayor if she had seen the big picture of PPACA effects and voted the other way. The discussion wrt the supreme court is the constitutional legality of Obamacare, not its short or long term effects as you tried to twist it to suit your own agenda. You can however continue arguing your opposition to the act in the other threads.
Desi Cartman Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 50 years from now people will wonder why was this even a question.
coffee_rules Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 Everyone in India on FB is celebrating. Makes me wonder why! :wall:
Brainfade Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 The discussion wrt the supreme court is the constitutional legality of Obamacare' date=' not its short or long term effects as you tried to twist it to suit your own agenda. You can however continue arguing your opposition to the act in the other threads.[/quote'] Actually you're right. I was mixing up 2 issues. Legality and good policy are separate issues. Regardless, my 2nd point stands ... that you would appreciate nonpartisanship only when it suits your agenda.
Brainfade Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 I hope this ruling puts a stop to lame gay jokes as well as in your face gay advocacy running rampant in the media.
Sachin=GOD Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 step in right direction. I do hope India follows suit at least by making homosexuality legal. This.
Kalia_Test Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 :nice: I have a little objection in calling it marriage though.... Tradition, religion, culture - whatever you call - marriage is between opposite sexes. Why can't you retain at least the meaning that way? Legalize same sex relation and give all rights that a traditional 'spouse' is entitled to i.e property rights and whatever else - pension, alimony and whatever else - there won't be inheritance law changes anyway as they should be covered in adoption laws. I don't want to come across as anti anything but honestly, calling it 'marriage' sounds odd.
Brainfade Posted June 28, 2015 Posted June 28, 2015 :nice: I have a little objection in calling it marriage though.... Tradition, religion, culture - whatever you call - marriage is between opposite sexes. Why can't you retain at least the meaning that way? Legalize same sex relation and give all rights that a traditional 'spouse' is entitled to i.e property rights and whatever else - pension, alimony and whatever else - there won't be inheritance law changes anyway as they should be covered in adoption laws. I don't want to come across as anti anything but honestly, calling it 'marriage' sounds odd. Maybe the religious organizations must get together and decide on calling "it" something else. People understand marriage by its legal definition. End of story.
Texan Posted June 29, 2015 Author Posted June 29, 2015 :nice: I have a little objection in calling it marriage though.... Tradition, religion, culture - whatever you call - marriage is between opposite sexes. Why can't you retain at least the meaning that way? Legalize same sex relation and give all rights that a traditional 'spouse' is entitled to i.e property rights and whatever else - pension, alimony and whatever else - there won't be inheritance law changes anyway as they should be covered in adoption laws. I don't want to come across as anti anything but honestly, calling it 'marriage' sounds odd. That would be a technicality. Perhaps the court does not want to make a distinction between any marriage same sex or opposite sex.
Clarke Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Actually you're right. I was mixing up 2 issues. Legality and good policy are separate issues. Regardless' date=' my 2nd point stands ... that you would appreciate nonpartisanship only when it suits your agenda.[/quote'] I'm not disputing that in the case of the SC :)
Deleted_User_1 Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 ...but but it is written in the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. You know the book that God himself wrote. How can you go against God's word??
Recommended Posts