Castlevania Dungeon Forums
Off Topic => Off Topic => Topic started by: BLOOD MONKEY on June 26, 2015, 07:36:15 AM
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/26/supreme-court-gay-marriage_n_7470036.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/26/supreme-court-gay-marriage_n_7470036.html)
Yay! What a day to be alive, Jim! and what a bad day to be a supporter in alabama when the riots start to happen
-
Well it's in the peoples' constitutional rights to love or marry whomever they want so this decision is long overdue. In fact it shouldn't have been an issue with from the start, but stupid people will be stupid.
-
Well it's in the peoples' constitutional rights to love or marry whomever they want so this decision is long overdue.
They had to stop the radio broadcast on it today because they had hundreds of people screaming: "It's about fucking time!" Everywhere. And I agree with them. 300 years is too long to wait imo.
-
I was literally jumping with joy when I heard this news.
Yay! What a day to be alive, Jim!
-
Fabulous~
-
Between this and the confederate flag deal, the world is either becoming a better place to live or there is going to be a major confrontation in the United States between decent human beings and everybody else...
-
YES! A lot of people are celebrating. :)
-
Congrats US!
I lol'ed when I read that some people are threatening to move to Canada because of this.
Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for, what, 10 years? ;D ;D ;D
-
I lol'ed when I read that some people are threatening to move to Canada because of this.
Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for, what, 10 years? ;D ;D ;D
LOL! If they want to avoid gay couples then those people should move to Vatican city. They'll find no-such refuge up here.
-
This is amazing news.
It should never of been left up to the states in the first place. The US is getting better!
I can think of at least one more federal law that ought to change now too, since it's not even enforced. ;-)
Better politics and better games. Times are getting good!
-
Leave it to me to always have the unpopular opinion, but I don't believe the supreme court has the authority to alter the legal definition of marriage. That role should be left to Congress or to state legislatures.
I'm glad the gay community has finally achieved nationwide marriage recognition, but for me a supreme court decision wasn't the right way to do it. There's something inherently political about this decision that I'm not very happy about.
It's also worth noting how thoroughly reductionist the most popular view on gay marriage is; if it really was all about "people who love each other should get married", we'd basically be left with a non-issue. The thing is, legal marriage comes with a complicated assortment of legal benefits and constraints, and IMO adapting them to gay couples requires at least some degree of legislative thought, not a unilateral judicial decision.
-
That's definitely one step closer to gay acceptance in the United States.
-
Well it's in the peoples' constitutional rights to love or marry whomever they want so this decision is long overdue.
It is? Where does the constitution address marriage?
My concern is that changing the definition of marriage opens up a can of worms. If it's only about consenting adults who love each other, then why should incest between consenting adults be illegal? Why should polygamy be illegal?
-
I don't support gay marriage or being gay in general but hopefully with this being done we can tackle something more important here. Like I said I'm not a fan of the stuff but I respect people's rights. So, I'm kinda eh with the whole thing.
-
It is? Where does the constitution address marriage?
It doesn't address that directly however it would be considered under the rights of the people.
The first ten amendments to the Constitution—the Bill of Rights—came into effect on December 15, 1791, limiting the powers of the federal government of the United States and protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors in American territory.
"The Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of assembly and the freedom to petition. It also prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment and compelled self-incrimination. Among the legal protections it affords, the Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law respecting establishment of religion and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. In federal criminal cases it requires indictment by a grand jury for any capital offense, or infamous crime, guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial jury in the district in which the crime occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy."
then why should incest between consenting adults be illegal?
I believe insest is illegal not so much in terms of morals but due to the fact that it is damaging to the human genome. Many royal peoples of other nations did this in the belief it would keep their royal blood strong. When in reality it caused all sorts of health problems due to the lack unique DNA with in the genome. It is the difference that makes us strong. Without a fresh infusion of DNA we would eventually die off. This almost happened to the Egyptian royal dynasty.
Why should polygamy be illegal?
If everyone in practicing polygamy was in full agreement then I don't see much of an issue with it. The problem is that it's not like that and this is due to the fact that the only ones who're doing this are those segregated religious sects. The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints, formally run by Warren Jeffs, is a good example of this. They forced women of young age (teens to be exact) and have then marry seniors who're in their 60's and over. The women do not get a choice in this and it is very disturbing as it violates their rights under the charter. There is supposed to be a segregation of church and state yet you have these nutjobs start up their own religions so they can side-step the law to some extent and do whatever they want to their followers. Religious freedom is one thing. Oppression used under the belief of religion is another thing entirely.
-
X, a summary of the Bill of Rights from a website doesn't exactly explain what the Constitution has to do with marriage. In fact, the whole debate here is centered around the 14th amendment (which isn't part of the bill of rights), and this clause in particular:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Now, where does marriage factor into this? Well, according to the majority opinion:
Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law.” [...] In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs. [...] Applying these established tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution.
And after showing, through various premises, that the 'right to marry' is a fundamental liberty protected by the 14th Amendment, the opinion concludes that:
Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right. The right of same-sex couples to marry is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment [...]
Now, here's what I don't like about the Court's logic (note that this is MY OPINION, and I don't pretend to know law better than supreme court justices. I'm just trying to give some insight into the matter):
Same-sex couples have no specific rights under the fourteenth amendment. The 'right to marry' protected by the amendment explicitly applies to individuals: "no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law." And yet, throughout the whole opinion, the 'right to marry' and the 'right of same-sex couples to marry' are used interchangeably, while they are in fact two very distinct things. Gay individuals are indeed guaranteed the right marry, and are not denied any right to marry other individuals based on their sexual orientation.
This confusion is pretty flagrant in a later passage from the opinion:
These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty.
The opinion at first explicitly refers to the liberty of the person, and then tells us that couples are being deprived of that liberty. Yet the legal entity that is a couple has no rights and no liberties under the 14th Amendment. Only persons do.
Food for thought.
-
Thanks for the food :) Though I prefer a burger with onion rings ;D
-
Anytime Polygamy comes up in conversation people automatically think the LDS faith. Just to make sure everyone is one the same page here. Warren Jeffs is part of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and not the main branch of the church. So, yes while the church practiced polygamy at one point they haven't since like 1890. So, anytime you read about someone doing it in the news or whatever just remembered they are not part of the main church body.
-
Where I live and work, not many people were hooting and hollering about it, they're more worried about legalizing pot than about gay rights. Gay marriage I can live with, kids who smell like a pot factory though, make me gag (I hate that smell, my ex-gf did that crap) I can do without.
-
Where I live and work, not many people were hooting and hollering about it, they're more worried about legalizing pot than about gay rights. Gay marriage I can live with, kids who smell like a pot factory though, make me gag (I hate that smell, my ex-gf did that crap) I can do without.
Well see, the reason many people want it legalized, like i and my relatives do, is because it has great medical uses. It can help with things such as minor PTSD, or glaucoma, which both of my parents have. Recreational use is not one of the reasons I would like it to be legalized.
-
Where I live and work, not many people were hooting and hollering about it, they're more worried about legalizing pot than about gay rights. Gay marriage I can live with, kids who smell like a pot factory though, make me gag (I hate that smell, my ex-gf did that crap) I can do without.
Yeah I hate the smell of pot too. It stinks to high heaven. I can agree with legalizing it for medicinal use but only so long as people don't take it out in public with them. If they want to smoke that stuff that's fine, but they should keep it within their own homes. I don't want the air quality to degrade any further then it already has. And it's really unfortunate that they abuse the substance just because they can. They aren't even caring or thinking how it'll effect others or other peoples' rights to breath air that's not saturated with pot.
-
Bottom line. Alcohol is 100 times worse. The rank smell of a drunk is way worse than the smell of a plant to me.
Countless people die from alcohol poisoning or alcohol related accidents.
How many people do you hear about overdosing from pot? It's a safer recreational option in every way.
My family as well as many of my friends have been devastated by alcohol. My friend lost his brother to a drunk driver. My parents divorced over it. My dad needs assisted living for alcohol induced dementia. And as a country we say that drug is acceptable.
There is no reason for marijuana to be illegal over booze. None.
It's the same thing with cigarettes. They are loaded with chemicals, kill people (even people who do not smoke them) and stink like shit. There is absolutely no redeeming quality to them, yet they are legal.
I know many people who smoke marijuana recreationally. Most of then have great careers, are healthy and in no way resemble the stereotype that society has tried to portray since the Regan era. Don't get me startered on that.
Most of the people I know who smoke are not "pot heads". They are responsible adults who like to have a little bit at night on the weekends or before they go to bed. These people (including myself) do not deserve to be cast as criminals. It's bullshit.
It's not significantly harmful, it's not a gateway drug. And society would be far better off with marijuana over booze or cigarettes.
-
Marijuana is an addictive, psychoactive drug that comes with a slew of well-documented, adverse neurological effects. There is every reason for it to be illegal over alcohol.
-
Marijuana is an addictive, psychoactive drug that comes with a slew of well-documented, adverse neurological effects. There is every reason for it to be illegal over alcohol.
Alcohol is an addictive psychoactive drug that comes with a slew of well-documented, adverse
Neurological effects. Sorry to copy what you said, but if the shoe fits right? There also is roughly 2.5 million world wide alcohol related deaths each year.
The CDC doesn't even have a category for marijuana related deaths. That's how low they are, if there are any at all.
Marijuana was actually banned in the US for reasons linked to racism (especially towards Mexicans) and industries that profit from it being illegal. As far as scientific facts and it's current classification go we have Richard Nixon and his ignorance to thank for that. I'm not going to go into specifics because you are capable of doing your own research.
I'm not saying that marijuana is a healthy thing to do. It is mildly addicting (something like a 10% addiction rate). But it is without a doubt far less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes or any other recreational drug for that matter. Non-biased research backs this up.
So it is becoming legal. The federal government does not even enforce it's ban at this time.
It's a special day for my state. Marijuana is finally being provided to patients. Good news for the 11 year old boy who has 100 seizures a day.
We also had a good day when gay marriage was made legal. My brother who is in a commited relationship with a great guy can enjoy the same benefits my wife and I share.
Sorry you feel the way you do. But I'm not sorry that things are finally moving in the right direction.
-
Just to clarify what I meant.
Alcohol isn't a drug. It's a beverage, has its own nutritional value, and its relevant toxins are actually filtered by the human body - taken with moderation, it has absolutely no effect on the body's functionality. Drunkenness and related incidents are all results of its abuse.
Marijuana is a drug, has a clear effect no matter the dose, and is used medicinally as a painkiller, recreationally as a means to attain an artificially heightened mental state. Both short-term and long-term usage of the drug lead to definite adverse health effects.
I only posted because I didn't really buy into the comparison argument: "Abuse of X is harmful, and X is legal. I think usage of Y seems less harmful, so it should be legal too".
So "the right direction" is pretty relative, if you ask me. I'm all for its medical use, but the way its legalization has been implemented in several states suggest that its use will be far broader than that.
Anyways, I don't have any authority to tell people what they should consume - neither does the government, in fact. It's part of the individual's basic liberties. But if the government wants to keep a harmful drug off the general market, I'm not exactly going to stand in its way.
-
Alright guys, can you make a seperate thread for this? We are getting off topic here, and the discussion is starting to get hot.
If you continue to discuss, I will have the thread closed.
-
I think the discussion about drugs is interesting, but I agree with Kokushibyo--it ought to be in its own thread, not the gay marriage thread. So let's talk about the gay marriage ruling in this thread, but if you want to start another thread to continue the drugs/alcohol discussion, that's fine :)
-
I was extremely ecstatic when I heard the news of this, it's a great relief to me. There's still a lot left to do as far as LGBTI rights though. Especially for transgender people, really need to be able to legally change gender without getting invasive and costly surgery. And many many non-discrimination laws do not include gender identity as something that's not a valid reason to be fired or evicted. Plus so many other things that need to get done.
-
I don't know if this point has been brought up or not but I wonder in Canada if gay marriages are less likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages.
-
I don't know if this point has been brought up or not but I wonder in Canada if gay marriages are less likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages.
Homosexual couples are probably a lot more happier with marriage then heterosexual couples, especially now that they don't have to worry about any legal ramification bulls**t. A lot of weight has been taken off humanity's shoulders now so there should be many more happy homosexual couples out there.