In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that states can not prevent same-sex couples from marrying and must recognize their marriages from other states. In the majority opinion by Justice Kennedy it is stated:
The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.
...and:
It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RedBear on Friday June 26 2015, @06:34PM
Uh, huh. Wow. At least one. And how many hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of opposite-sex couples have "kiddie-diddled" their own biological offspring and/or adopted or foster children? The statistics say quite a few, sadly. Looks like we should be banning traditional marriage. Won't somebody think of the childrens!!!ONE!!!
There should be a light bulb going off in your hate-filled hypocritical little bigoted brain right now, but of course that's not how hate-filled hypocritical little bigoted brains work.
The societal results will be the following: In 50 years approximately 6% of all marriages will probably be same-sex marriages, reflecting the approximately 6% of the population who have always been and always will be same-sex oriented. That seems to be a pretty stable statistical inference that can be made from recorded human history. About 66% of same-sex marriages will be fairly stable marriages that will last decades, just like with traditional marriage. Some percentage will end in divorce and acrimony, just like with traditional marriage. Like an increasing number of opposite-sex couples, the ones who can't have children naturally will adopt or use artificial insemination or surrogacy. And life will generally go on. Unless you teach them to be hate-filled hypocritical bigots, your grandchildren won't waste a single moment of their lives worrying about same-sex marriage destroying the world, because there will be no observable evidence of it destroying the world. Your grandchildren will probably be much more preoccupied with trying to fix the global climate we destroyed for them.
In 100 years: The same. In 200 years: The same.
Oh no, it's the end of civilization as we know it. Run for your lives. *yawn*
No, seriously, run. Go live in a cave in the hills or something. You'll feel a lot safer.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 26 2015, @06:40PM
Or, you could take the time to get a glimpse of things to come. The studies have been done, and are continuing, in Europe.
None of the studies really support my views - but they don't support the idea that things won't change, either.
But, the denizens who feed on the muck spewed by MSM aren't going to look for facts. Just go ahead and parrot what you've been told by MSM talking heads.
But, you can believe that things are going to change. You may not like the changes, either. You've heard of the "unintended consequences" thing before, I hope.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @06:48PM
> None of the studies really support my views
Lol, do you hear yourself?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:24AM
Yes, I do hear myself. I disagree with the majority opinion. I don't set myself up as a god, I haven't even cited God in my arguments. I look rationally at all the evidence. I understand that the scholars don't agree with me - but I also see that the scholars are concerned enough to study the issue. The scholars are proving themselves to be much smarter than the jingoistic masses who have permitted themselves to be brainwashed by a vocal minority.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:32AM
> I understand that the scholars don't agree with me - but I also see that the scholars are concerned enough to study the issue.
Apparently you don't hear yourself. You are trying to co-opt the authority of the people who disagree with you by saying you are vindicated by the fact that they are even studying the issue. Its heads you win, tails you win sophistry.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 26 2015, @07:46PM
but they don't support the idea that things won't change, either.
So what? You never want anything to change, or what?
You've heard of the "unintended consequences" thing before, I hope.
I'm not quite sure what unintended consequences will follow from allowing people of the same sex to marry one another. Do you have evidence that anything bad will happen, or are you just opposed to changing anything because it might somehow lead to something bad?
Can't get rid of mass surveillance. Something bad might happen. Can't get rid of big government. Something bad might happen. Can't get rid of slavery. Something bad might happen. This logic is ridiculous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @03:12AM
I wouldn't spend too much time or effort deconstructing Runaway's arguments. He hates faggots. It's that simple.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:28PM
That's the definition of conservatism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @08:25PM
That should be the first hint that you're delusional and have lost touch with reality.