Gay Marriage declared legal across the United States in Supreme Court ruling

[NickCrash]

I've read articles and bits of papers of a study that found some particular portion of the brain that has to do with attraction is homosexual individuals actually develops more like the opposite sex's and is either the cause, or coincides with the homosexuality of said person. I'm talking about the physical/chemical makeup of this part of the brain, not just emotional.

I could bring up papers in which the GnRH and various other hormones are included, but yes, up to an extend, it has to do with the "abnormal" instability of male and female hormones triggered by the brain (even if the kidney is a bit responsible too). Not totally based on genetics though, but as everything else, our behaviour and tendencies are based on our personal experiences from an early age too. A mix of hormone balance, experience, and many other factors we don't know up to which point they add to this, leads to a person to be attracted to one gender, or another, or both, with all 3 categories having fluctuations or not the same type or intensity of attraction. (sorry I can't explain it very well). Just find the person who makes you emit more Oxytocin than usual.

If I may, I shall share some of my views on the matter.

First of all, as far as the legal document is concerned, which is the main focus of the discussion, the marriage is a connection between two people, which verifies their bond, and seals it in front of their peers and the community. Marriage, as a procedure, is not only an emotional bonding, but also a safety lock in terms of legal procedures that are applied in each respective country and state inside of it. That said, two homosexual people can now by the law verify this connection and are provided with safety when a situation of a divorce, death, social services, legal documents and taxation (with all the benefits married couples enjoy). Therefore from a strict legal point of view this is a landmark.

At the same time, the UN has declared several human rights that supposedly apply to all those considered human, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, race (as in skin colour), any disability, and many other less relevant categories. The right of dignity is first on the list, followed by the right of life. This hierarchy proves that a life in which certain civil rights are not given to a group of people, based on their personal views or actions (which of course do not cause harm to the others, as one's freedom stops where another's begins) is against the very principle of dignity, even if... technically it's still life. Hence I can only consider it arbitrary when rights are denied based on personal preferences or characteristics that are neither up to change or negotiation, nor cause harm to other groups simply by existing. Allowing those people to marry, in terms of ethics and civil rights, is then the only logical action.

[placeholder due to bad internet connection]

[Neo]

This all happened -before- this bill was passed. Make of it what you will, but being forced to serve a customer against your will for whatever the reason may be, it doesn't sit right with me at all. 'Be tolerant, or else.' If you want tolerance, you should accept and tolerate the fact that some don't agree with what you are asking of them to do. Regardless if you find it to be bigoted or not, they shouldn't be scared into fake tolerance, because that does nothing to help the cause and is a detriment to others as well. I'm sure there are others who would be happy to do business with the couples in question.

And of course the biggest one of all which has already been mentioned numerous times, a Christian church that would be FORCED to hold ceremonies for same sex couples against their will. It's not a matter of if, but when this controversy will come to the forefront as an issue. That much I promise you.

Ya see, we've been through this thing in the past where businesses decided to discriminate who they would serve simply based on the way someone was born. We've since decided that shouldn't be allowed because its primitive as fuck and enacted laws against it. (Granted, I'm not sure if sexuality is covered in said law, but it should be)

[Govictory]

@StarryD, I am sorry to break it to you but same sex marriage is in fact not in the constitution still, see since the Supreme court (Judicial branch of the government) ruled on the issue it is not an amendment since an amendment has to go through congress like a normal bill thus this subject is still not part of the constitution on top of that the way this matter was handled is actually unconstitutional believe it or not because it actually conflicts with the 10th amendment which says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I would have posted a link but this toaster of a laptop only has IE and has too many safety features to let me copy and paste so you can look it up if you want. But back on topic, since the constitution does not declare a definite position on marriage this matter is actually supposed to be handled by the states not the government.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Govictory

[The Fush]

When it comes to how the christian religious community are mainly reacting to it, with many against it due to how it defies their beliefs and laws, I'm afraid I honestly can't treat them with due respect. Everyone can have their beliefs and opinions, but when those beliefs start silencing the beliefs of others, I'm not going to give them the time of my day. I'm not going to accept people saying that they and everyone else have the right to express their own opinion when their opinion stops others from giving theirs in the first place.

On a lighter note, I'm incredibly happy and touched to see how joyous and celebratory many of my friends are; I've been sent pictures from some of my friends at a parade nearby and they just seem so happy to be alive at this time, truly expressing themselves without as much fear of oppression. IMO, there is literally no difference between sexuality and their respective marriages other than the sexes and genders of the people involved, and I'm glad that more people are starting to agree.

[Tomas Elliot]

When it comes to how the christian religious community are mainly reacting to it, with many against it due to how it defies their beliefs and laws, I'm afraid I honestly can't treat them with due respect. Everyone can have their beliefs and opinions, but when those beliefs start silencing the beliefs of others, I'm not going to give them the time of my day. I'm not going to accept people saying that they and everyone else have the right to express their own opinion when their opinion stops others from giving theirs in the first place.

On a lighter note, I'm incredibly happy and touched to see how joyous and celebratory many of my friends are; I've been sent pictures from some of my friends at a parade nearby and they just seem so happy to be alive at this time, truly expressing themselves without as much fear of oppression. IMO, there is literally no difference between sexuality and their respective marriages other than the sexes and genders of the people involved, and I'm glad that more people are starting to agree.

I just thought I would address this. I am a devout christian. A catholic, in fact. And I think, no offense, that this point is absolutely stupid, the exact kind of thing that could only be a concern in America (it should be clear by now that I don't have the highest opinion of America as a country).

Allow me to make something clear: "marriage" is a term that refers to two very different things. In some religions, "marriage" refers to a ritual performed in the name of God (or the gods, depending on the religion) following a very specific procedure. If said procedure clearly states "sorry, this ritual is not for homosexual people", then homosexual people don't get it. When in Rome, do as the romans do. When you are in a church, you play by the rules of the church.

But in legal jurisdiction, "marriage" refers to the civil right two PEOPLE (notice the term "people": there is no constitution in the entire western world that makes an exception for homosexual people) have to form a family together, in the process gaining access to a number of privileges. As this is a civil right guaranteed by the constitution, it is the duty of public officials (in Italy for example it is the major of a town who has this duty) to administer this civil right for anyone who requests it, regardless of color of the skin of sexual orientation.

Therefore, being heterosexual and a devout catholic christian, when I get married it will be in a church, in front of a priest. Meanwhile, my gay pal will get married in the city hall, in front of the major. I won't interfere with his right, and he won't interfere with mine. How does this discriminate me in any way?

Golden Rule of democracy: you are free to do as you please as long as you don't limit the freedom of somebody else. How do gay people getting married limit my freedom? Quite honestly, I could care less.

Excuse me sir. Please don't generalize the "christian religious community". Firstly, not all christians are the same, many minor confessions that exist in America are WAY more extreme than us catholics (which is saying a lot). Secondly, there are literally millions of people like me in Italy and all around the world. As I once said in another topic, "devout" and "bigot" are two very different things.

The christian concept of marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples because it is a belief of the curch that the ultimate task of said rite is to promote reproduction (heck the italian word for it, "matrimonio", comes from the latin mater, which means, you guessed it, mother). However, as I clearly said in my quoted post, the religious marriage and the civil marriage are two very different things, so nothing forbids that hetrosexual people getting married in a church and homosexual people getting married in a city hall can coexist peacefully, without interfering with one another.

This position of mine is shared by what I strongly believe is the majority of the christians all around the world, so again, please don't generalize. Lately badmouthing christians has become some kind of trend, and while I do understand that there are, in many countries (including my own sadly), some very vocal minorities who still think and act like people from the Middle Age, I hate them as much as you do, and I don't want to be confused with them. Thank you very much.

[The Fush]

Excuse me sir. Please don't generalize the "christian religious community". Firstly, not all christians are the same, many minor confessions that exist in America are WAY more extreme than us catholics (which is saying a lot). Secondly, there are literally millions of people like me in Italy and all around the world. As I once said in another topic, "devout" and "bigot" are two very different things.

The christian concept of marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples because it is a belief of the curch that the ultimate task of said rite is to promote reproduction (heck the italian word for it, "matrimonio", comes from the latin mater, which means, you guessed it, mother). However, as I clearly said in my quoted post, the religious marriage and the civil marriage are two very different things, so nothing forbids that hetrosexual people getting married in a church and homosexual people getting married in a city hall can coexist peacefully, without interfering with one another.

This position of mine is shared by what I strongly believe is the majority of the christians all around the world, so again, please don't generalize. Lately badmouthing christians has become some kind of trend, and while I do understand that there are, in many countries (including my own sadly), some very vocal minorities who still think and act like people from the Middle Age, I hate them as much as you do, and I don't want to be confused with them. Thank you very much.

yo i'm sorry if i didn't make myself completely clear but at what point did i refer to every single christian instead of just "many"

I understand that the words I used may still be somewhat generalizing, and I do apologize for that, but I have seen religious communities around me abhorring this new practice and I did not intend to address and generalize the religion as a whole in any way. I tried to make it clear that I wasn't referring to absolutely everyone in my post.

[Tomas Elliot]

yo i'm sorry if i didn't make myself completely clear but at what point did i refer to every single christian instead of just "many"

I understand that the words I used may still be somewhat generalizing, and I do apologize for that, but I have seen religious communities around me abhorring this new practice and I did not intend to address and generalize the religion as a whole in any way. I tried to make it clear that I wasn't referring to absolutely everyone in my post.

Well this kind of misunderstanding is bound to happen if you say "christian religious communitY", singular, instead of "religious communitIES", plural. But yeah, I know the kind of people you are talking about: they piss me off because they give a bad name to my religion. Which is why I am so dead set in not being confused with them. What they believe in is NOT what I believe in.

What I believe in is the teaching of that one guy who saved a whore from lapidation, washed the feet of dirt poor people, and whipped some rich merchants who were doing their business in the Temple. And not once did he ever say, to my knowledge, "homosexual people are not citizens". What he did say, however, was "Give Cesar what belongs to Cesar, and give God what belongs to God", meaning that religious beliefs and the laws of a country should always be kept separated... Which brings me back full circle to my earlier point about religious marriage and civil marriage coexisting

[Gaunt]

What I believe in is the teaching of that one guy who saved a whore from lapidation, washed the feet of dirt poor people, and whipped some rich merchants who were doing their business in the Temple. And not once did he ever say, to my knowledge, "homosexual people are not citizens". What he did say, however, was "Give Cesar what belongs to Cesar, and give God what belongs to God", meaning that religious beliefs and the laws of a country should always be kept separated... Which brings me back full circle to my earlier point about religious marriage and civil marriage coexisting

I could argue with your point but i'm not going to as this is not the place and would bring us off topic.

[Jelly]

ripped straight from tumblr:

[Eviora]

I'm really happy about this ruling! It's great to see so many couples finally able to have their committed relationships equally recognized under the law. ^.^

As for things like "right to refusal", I think many people underestimate just how insidious that can be. For one, there's no good reason to apply it only to the LGBT community - you'd have to grant the right to refuse service to people of any given race, gender, and even religion. In particularly uniform areas, that could devolve into some horrible tyranny of the masses, where a certain group (let's be real; in the US, it'd probably be Christians) all unite in banning the "unworthy" from their stores, and boycott any other businesses that dare defy them. That may be a stretch, but it isn't outside the realm of possibility. I don't really see how this would be good for anyone, and it would raise more than a few serious ethical issues.

[Shamitako]

On right of refusal (in this case I'll be focusing on businesses)

I definitely think they should be allowed to refuse to serve whomever they like for whatever reason they like. That's their problem. If they don't want to serve me, they're the ones losing a customer, not me. If they don't want to serve gay people, or Muslims, or Native Americans, then let them. They're a private business after all, aren't they? And in doing so, they lose paying customers who are in one of these groups they refuse or who take issue with them refusing certain people groups

TL;DR

Refusing gay people service is bad for business, but they should be allowed to do it anyways

[Eviora]

What if it isn't a frivolous as selling a cake, though? What if, say, the product is a pill that cures a lethal, fast acting disease, and only this seller has access to the pill at the time? Should they be able to effectively sign your death warrant because you're gay? In a society that would allow that, I don't think we could end up with anything but rampant hatred.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Eviora

[Antilegend]

This all happened -before- this bill was passed. Make of it what you will, but being forced to serve a customer against your will for whatever the reason may be, it doesn't sit right with me at all. 'Be tolerant, or else.' If you want tolerance, you should accept and tolerate the fact that some don't agree with what you are asking of them to do. Regardless if you find it to be bigoted or not, they shouldn't be scared into fake tolerance, because that does nothing to help the cause and is a detriment to others as well. I'm sure there are others who would be happy to do business with the couples in question.

And of course the biggest one of all which has already been mentioned numerous times, a Christian church that would be FORCED to hold ceremonies for same sex couples against their will. It's not a matter of if, but when this controversy will come to the forefront as an issue. That much I promise you.

Agreed. Though you reach a point where you fight for equality, suing a company into the ground when you've got many other options available to you is just as frivilous and malevolent as refusing to let a couple use their land for their wedding, or baking them a cake for their day. Forcing that opinion onto people who, respectfully, don't agree with it violates the same rights they fought so hard to acquire. I sincerely hope we find a happy medium sooner than later.

In my my serious opinion I believe there aren't as many consequences as people believe. Here in NZ same-sex marriage has been legal for almost two years and there have been few issues concerning Christian venue ceremonies etc. despite roughly 40% of the population being Christian.

I'm Canadian, and gay marriage has been legal here since 2005. America's population is much, much bigger than New Zealand and Canada. The religious right in the United States has a greater population than both of our countries combined. The bigger the population, the louder the outcry.

What if it isn't a frivolous as selling a cake, though? What if, say, the product is a pill that cures a lethal, fast acting disease, and only this seller has access to the pill at the time? Should they be able to effectively sign your death warrant because you're gay? In a society that would allow that, I don't think we could end up with anything but rampant hatred.

That's when you try and help. In those situations, when vaccines are handed out to cure a deadly disease, it becomes a human right to have access to said medicine. If you're denied medicine based on your sexual orientation, you're being denied the right to life based on someone else's opinion,and that isn't right. Being denied this theoretical pill that'll save your life and being denied a cake for your wedding, while comparable, are two different issues on two different magnitudes.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Antilegend

[Shamitako]

That's when you try and help. In those situations, when vaccines are handed out to cure a deadly disease, it becomes a human right to have access to said medicine. If you're denied medicine based on your sexual orientation, you're being denied the right to life based on someone else's opinion,and that isn't right. Being denied this theoretical pill that'll save your life and being denied a cake for your wedding, while comparable, are two different issues on two different magnitudes.

Pretty much this. If their refusal is going to kill me then that's akin to murder and should be dealt with

[Tomas Elliot]

What if it isn't a frivolous as selling a cake, though? What if, say, the product is a pill that cures a lethal, fast acting disease, and only this seller has access to the pill at the time? Should they be able to effectively sign your death warrant because you're gay? In a society that would allow that, I don't think we could end up with anything but rampant hatred.

Uh... I think Alexus meant "let priests or whatever refuse to marry gay people", not "get the hell out of my shop we don't want gay people here" :/

Also because refusing to sell stuff to a gay person makes no sense for a simple reason: unless you are going around dressed like a drag queen, how are they even supposed to know that you are gay? To my knowledge, gay people don't go around with a "hi, I am gay" plate on their chest, and it has never happened to me to be told by a shop clerk "here is the stuff you wanted to buy... But wait, are you gay?".

I won't go in details into the healthcare part because healthcare is one of the reasons why I think America is a stupid country, so yeah, that cause me to derail from the topic at hand...

[Shamitako]

No, I was referring to shops in cases like the ones Jericho mentioned

I don't know that the church gets money for marrying people so it doesn't really apply in the same way

[Tomas Elliot]

I don't know that the church gets money for marrying people

You would be surprised.

But ok, sorry for the misunderstanding :/

[Eviora]

Uh... I think Alexus meant "let priests or whatever refuse to marry gay people", not "get the hell out of my shop we don't want gay people here" :/

Also because refusing to sell stuff to a gay person makes no sense for a simple reason: unless you are going around dressed like a drag queen, how are they even supposed to know that you are gay? To my knowledge, gay people don't go around with a "hi, I am gay" plate on their chest, and it has never happened to me to be told by a shop clerk "here is the stuff you wanted to buy... But wait, are you gay?".

I won't go in details into the healthcare part because healthcare is one of the reasons why I think America is a stupid country, so yeah, that cause me to derail from the topic at hand...

No, the issue is about businesses. This has been an ongoing discussion based on some laws that have been passed or suggested recently. Namely, some people want the right to refuse to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. And you could certainly imagine a hypothetical religion that hates gay people so thoroughly that its members want nothing to do with them.

@Antilegend and Kosher,

Would that not be a violation of the seller's "religious rights", though? Their religion may be of the type I describe above. Are you saying it's okay to force them to violate a religious belief because a life is on the line? Murdering someone and allowing them to die naturally are very different things.

[Tomas Elliot]

No, the issue is about businesses. This has been an ongoing discussion based on some laws that have been passed or suggested recently. Namely, some people want the right to refuse to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. And you could certainly imagine a hypothetical religion that hates gay people so thoroughly that its members want nothing to do with them.

@Antilegend and Kosher,

Would that not be a violation of the seller's "religious rights", though? Their religion may be of the type I describe above. Are you saying it's okay to force them to violate a religious belief because a life is on the line? Murdering someone and allowing them to die naturally are very different things.

Am I the only one who thinks we are getting to some seriously sci-fi scenarios? I mean, I have never seen in my entire life a doctor who would ask for the sexual orientation of his patients before curing them. Then again, in America doctors ask you if you have healthcare insurance before curing you, sowhat do I know?

SEEN? That's why I didn't want to get in the whole healthcare territory, I knew I would end up making that joke. I better leave at this point, call me again when the discussion has returned to civil rights ;-;

[Shamitako]

Well, look at it this way:

Is the seller's religious right or the person's right to life more important? (Hint, one of these is considered a fundamental human right owo)

As opposed to the seller's religious rights and the consumer's... um, right to purchase a cake at their wedding? (IDK what right allows people to buy stuff) which of those is worth more?

Basically: Life>Seller and Seller=Consumer

[Neo]

Y'all are honestly discussing whether or not people should be allowed to segregate their establishments in 2015. You've gotta be kidding me.

[Antilegend]

Would that not be a violation of the seller's "religious rights", though? Their religion may be of the type I describe above. Are you saying it's okay to force them to violate a religious belief because a life is on the line? Murdering someone and allowing them to die naturally are very different things.

At their personal level, I'm sure they would feel their rights are being "violated", yes. But this isn't about a business making cakes; in this scenario, this is a life or death scenario where you only save the lives of people you deem worthy of saving. You can understand how their rights and personal beliefs would be suspended for the sake of everyone getting the medicine, yeah?

To say that you're not killing them simply because you didn't pull the trigger isn't correct to say, though. If you have the means of saving someone's life but refuse to based on your belief or opinion, it'd be like you've killed them yourself, would it not?

[Eviora]

@ Tomas: These "sci-fi scenarios" are thought experiments, which are extremely helpful tools for figuring exactly what someone's position is.

@ Kosher: There's your mistake. Your rights end where other people's rights begin. Your right to life is only sufficient to overrule someone else's right if that right is imagined.

The whole issue about buying a cake is not actually a matter of being able to obtain a cake. It's a matter of dignity, a matter of giving all people opportunity to live their lives without having to go to extreme lengths to work around some belief held by the majority.

Selling in a non-discriminatory manner is simply part of what's involved in being a business owner/runner. You wouldn't argue that it's fine for a doctor to bar their patients from medicine or medical procedures just because the doctor's religious beliefs are opposed to medicine, would you? It's the same thing. Those who are unwilling to serve the public equally should simply not put themselves in positions where they are obligated to do so. Trying to compare rights on a case-by-case basis would be utterly impractical; instead, we select principles to live by. That's why it doesn't matter whether you consider the product being sold to be frivolous or not.

[Deleted User]

Ya see, we've been through this thing in the past where businesses decided to discriminate who they would serve simply based on the way someone was born. We've since decided that shouldn't be allowed because its primitive as fuck and enacted laws against it. (Granted, I'm not sure if sexuality is covered in said law, but it should be)

The difference between the discrimination based off of skin color and sexual orientation is a bit different. Skin color in no way conflicts with Christian values (unless of course you take a quote out of context from somewhere).

Regardless. I am of the belief that people should be allowed to be bigots if they so choose in this sense. It's their business, if they want to lose customers because of their intolerance, they should be free to make that decision. Forced tolerance isn't real tolerance.

As for things like "right to refusal", I think many people underestimate just how insidious that can be. For one, there's no good reason to apply it only to the LGBT community - you'd have to grant the right to refuse service to people of any given race, gender, and even religion. In particularly uniform areas, that could devolve into some horrible tyranny of the masses, where a certain group (let's be real; in the US, it'd probably be Christians) all unite in banning the "unworthy" from their stores, and boycott any other businesses that dare defy them. That may be a stretch, but it isn't outside the realm of possibility. I don't really see how this would be good for anyone, and it would raise more than a few serious ethical issues.

My belief also still stands here. As for the right of refusal. Specifically when talking about the church. Homosexual relations go against their beliefs, and for the state to force the Church to hold said actions is completely and 100% unconstitutional. As for businesses I'll some it up like this, they should have the 'Freedom to be an Asshole'. Do I agree with their decisions? No. But forcing someone to do business with someone they don't want to for ANY reason is wrong in my eyes. Obviously this differs for government owned, public services provided by the state, like a bus or public schooling, but privately owned businesses should be able to do as they please, even if it they're being bigots. Are we going to start forcing private catholic schools/universities to accept homosexual students? (I wouldn't advise that at all though). Their religious views would be forced to be circumvented in that case.

[Neo]

The difference between the discrimination based off of skin color and sexual orientation is a bit different. Skin color in no way conflicts with Christian values (unless of course you take a quote out of context from somewhere).

Regardless. I am of the belief that people should be allowed to be bigots if they so choose in this sense. It's their business, if they want to lose customers because of their intolerance, they should be free to make that decision. Forced tolerance isn't real tolerance.

The bible was used to justify discrimination against us for 400 years. Miss me with that shit. Fact of the matter is, segregation in all forms is fucked up and shouldn't be allowed.