The connotation is definitely there from the phrase he used. Gays deserve equal rights as same sex couples because they are born that way...leaves what to be implied about everyone else? That is not a joke...

Ah, the butt love. Hetero or same sex, everyone loves the butt love. Rhythmically!

*related http://videosift.com/video/The-March-of-Marriage-Equality
*related http://videosift.com/video/Obamas-Speech-on-Same-Sex-Marriage-Ruling

The March of Marriage Equality has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Obama's Speech on Same Sex Marriage Ruling has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Ireland has become the first country in the world to introduce same sex marriage on the basis of a popular vote, after the ‘Yes’ side won a resounding victory in the marriage equality referendum, taking a decisive 62% of the vote. -DailyBeast
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/23/ireland-says-yes-to-marriage-equality.html

It's a good day to be Irish. Congrats Ireland. *promote *quality

The issue for you is not "change", but that society would "capitulate" for "such an insignificant demographic group" of "less than 4% of the population", correct?

You cited this Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/182837/estimated-780-000-americans-sex-marriages.aspx?utm_source=SAME_SEX_RELATIONS&utm_medium=topic&utm_campaign=tiles) of how many Americans were in same sex marriages.

Another Gallup poll shows the historical trend of religious self-identification in America from 1948 to 2014: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx

In 1948, the proportion of respondents who self-identify as either Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Jewish, is 95%. ~5% said "None" or didn't answer (less than 0.5% said "Other").

In following years, they tracked more detailed responses and grouped some as "Christian (nonspecific)" and Mormon, and changed the Roman Catholic grouping to just Catholic.

In 2014, those who specified a religion (which is everyone except those who said their religion was "None" or didn't answer) represented 80%.

The full statistics are in that link -- these two years are endpoints in the polls, but not outliers.

Thus, over 66 years Americans who identified as religious (not all of whom follow the Bible, but most do so I'll be generous to you) lost 15 percentage points. That's a rate of 0.227272 percentage points per year.

If Americans keep leaving religion behind at this same rate, in 2348 all religious people will represent less than 4% of the population.

Then we get to trample your rights, right Bob?

That's a big if, isn't it. Your god hasn't been demonstrated to exist, let alone to have created marriage. Regardless, it's still a non sequitur, I'm afraid. We're asking for the state institution of marriage rights to be extended to same-sex couples, not trees, or to polygamous relationships. To suggest otherwise is a ridiculous slippery-slope argument and a strawman.

Your church is free to choose who gets married within its premises. But like it or not, it's already possible for straight couples to get married with zero church involvement in the US and where I live in the UK. That right to a secular marriage is all that anyone is asking for. Whether gods or their earthly advocates want it is irrelevant; the church is already not involved in other non-religious marriages already, so it's not within its purview to argue against its implementation for same-sex couples.

Firstly, i don't remember seeing an american referendum on gay marriage, so i don't know what makes you think your "WE" decided anything.

But did i really just see this troglodyte compare consensual same-sex relationships to paedophilia - child rape - like there was no difference?

You are fucking sick in the head - genuinely disturbing and offensive homophobic point of view. This is not the 1930s.

Is this allowed on the sift? Imagine a gay person reading this... and being told they are morally equal to paedophiles? Being told that this community tolerates people who compares them so? Surely this is an offensive and inflammatory insult. I feel as though choggie has been banned for less in the past. I'm disgusted.

Racist, bigot and homophobic have nothing to do with this argument, Yet another straw man argument from the left.

The question really becomes Why should 1% demographic force the 99% to change its thinking?



http://www.gallup.com/poll/182837/estimated-780-000-americans-sex-marriages.aspx?utm_source=SAME_SEX_RELATIONS&utm_medium=topic&utm_campaign=tiles

Approximately 0.3% of adults in the U.S. are married to a same-sex spouse, and another 0.5% identify as being in a same-sex domestic partnership

I agree with part of what you said. Rights are not things that are given through law, rights are enforced through law.

Remember that the US constitution is a relatively recent addition in the grand scheme of things.

If you talked to someone 50 years ago, they wouldn't have accept same sex marriage as a right.

If you talk to someone in 100 years time, they might be shocked that we didn't have the right to walk down the street without harassment.

The point is that rights evolve over time. They are not set in stone, society decides on them.

There are some rights that nearly everyone agrees on, and some that people disagree on.

As a society and a species, we try to uphold the rights we deem important.

I down-voted it because the presenter was just annoying and looking for something to be offended over.

Also because, I don't really believe in the idea of "god given rights". Aside from the fact that I don't believe my rights have anything to do with something I don't believe in, the simple reality is that rights derive from societal values.

Most people today would agree that same sex couples should have the right to get married. But (in many cases) they can't.

Most people would say that the government doesn't have a right to unjustly spy on you. But they do anyway.

A few hundred years ago, there was an inalienable right to own slaves.

Rights are not some concrete physical law that underpins our existence, they exist because we as a society have decided they should. And as I said before, government is supposed to be the instrument that guarantees those rights are not violated.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/same-sex-marriage-is-now-legal-for-a-majority-of-the-u-s/

^Get your facts straight.

yea... because there are no sexist or homophobic christians.

How many female presidents ? Hmmm.... 0

Same-sex marriage anyone ? No ? That's fuck up ! Invade

This video shows that it's already changing. The video's argument is to get over it. For the guy in the video, he doesn't view it as sexist.

attitudes change all the time. If they didn't we wouldn't have equality of the sexes codified in the law, we'd still have slavery, support for same sex marriage would not be over 50 percent as it is now. Violence would still be the default method of resolving any conflict

it just takes time.

My analogy has nothing to do with accepting the job and backing out, it has everything to do with WHY they refused these clients service. These people were turned away because of their sexual orientation. That was the photographers own words, it's not contested. 'We don't want to shoot your wedding because same sex marriage is against our beliefs.' That's discrimination. It's really quite simple. If you turn down customers on the basis of sexual orientation you are discriminating. You pay a fine.