Now now, just stop it, someone needs to remind you that the majority of the Christian religions in the USA support Same Sex Marriage.

Including: the United Church of Christ, Quaker, Metropolitan Community Church, Unitarian Universalist, Unity Church,  Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian even the Mennonites are going to have it soon.

Religion, any kind, can not be allowed nor supported as defined in the US constitution.  Even that new one in Indiana that lets people smoke pot which was a response to that secretly anti-gay ‘religious freedom’ law.

I will reiterate my protest and I will maintain this posture until my last breath. There is nothing inherently discriminatory or prejudiced about NOT supporting gay marriage.

A neutral state has absolutely no interest in issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples. It's only legitimate interest is maintaining the same for straight couples capable of reproducing. Marriage is an institution for the protection and establishment of the natural family as we know it conceptually from biology. Ersatz methods of procreation does not obviate this simple truth.

The Supreme Court enforced a popularity contest. What occured can be considered a judicial farce.

sure it does, who has to pay if a child loses his parents? the state. if the parents are a samesexcouple, ust one has to die make the parents lose the child to the system...  same goes for healthcare and when people get old ohh and now one spouse can get money from th othr after a divorce, so one less on foodstamps.

ohh and btw well played obama, now the people are freaking out about samesex marriage and not about obamacare, that ruling went under the radar after the samesex marriage, and people should be outraged by it.  obamacare will bleed the us dry because its a bad system,to much capitalism and to much benefits for the industrie.   europe has good working healthcare systems and they are all cheap, heavily regulated and mostly staterun. 

Are you also against marriage for straight people who are sterile, in the name of biology? Not everyone who gets married would be interested in becoming a family, I'm not sure I want kids, that doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Marriage is not about reproduction, nor is it a religious issue or a political issue; it is a personal issue.

You may keep your opinions and posture all you want but don't expect much understanding for it. Calling christians in the west a persecuted group is hugely disrespectful and overly dramatic in comparison with groups who are actually persecuted in this world. The US is among the only nations where it's practically impossible to become a president unless you're religious, if anyone is persecuted there, it would be non-religious citizens who keep being slapped across the hands and face with ridiculous restrictions, laws and morally patronizing acts with religious motives, backing and origins.
Almost everything is the exact opposite of how you're describing it.

If I were to tell the Syrian kid at work who fled the war and had his family killed by IS that you feel persecuted, he would probably stare at me in open-eyed amazement, understandably so.

PS: Devolving the human race into a fleshy vessel of biological instinct and duties is immensely backwards and goes against most philosophical and moral progress we've made for centuries.

Go ahead and reiterate it all you like, the SCOTUS and US Constitution disagree with you.  Case Closed.

Gays don't really need your support in marriage. They just ask that you leave them alone and mind your own, instead of their business. It is not an issue of support, it is an issue of tolerance and equality.

It is just a matter of understanding that they marry because of love for each other, and not out of spite to you.

I just wanted to quote this so more people would see it.  a forum Retweet, if you will. 

Your ignorance amuses me.  

While you are technnically right, there is no prejudice in simply not supporting something, it doesn't change the fact that refusing to do so makes you part of the problem.  You don't have to like it, but you can't deny it really should be a basic right to marry whom you want.  and no, there's no proper logic that states "Oh, will now gays, what's next, dogs or kids?" because that is a logical fallacy, as there are clear expectations and rules on it, same as there has been for decades with straight marriage.  IT's not like loving someone who happens to have the same genitals as you suddenly means we can marry our pets or inanimate objects.  

Faulty logic is faulty.

And as for the whole "Reproduce" and "Natural order" bullshit, well, look at our population.  we could use fewer people breeding, and almost nothing we do is 'natural' anymore, almost by definition.  So yeah, by refusing to support love, you are an affront to progess, part of the problem, and exactly what most forward thinking, progressive, modern, freedom loving people have every reason to despise. 

Get with the times.  Stop living in the past, and drop your attraction to some old timey wimey values that actually aren't even that traditional.  until recently, (like, in the grand scale of things, the last century and a half), it was customary to marrry off daughters as soon as they hit puberty.  You know, to strengthen relations with one's neighbour.  

And always remember:  If you like your damn tradition so goddamn much, then KEEP ENJOYING IT! this isn't going to put an end to traditional straight marriage, it's not like gays marrying makes your marriage preferences any less valid.  It's progress.  it's better, it's not taking anything away from what you have.  and if you think it is, you are flatly wrong, and as I reiterate, your ignorance amuses me to think that there are still people so backwards about this.  

It's quite amazing how Christians (and I know it's not all of them and not even most, but a significant portion) view giving people more freedom as an affront to their religious rights.

Your religious rights end at you. You have the right to believe what you like, and do what you like, until that right limits what another can do. If you want to pray 5 times a day facing Mecca, go for it. If you want to force other people to pray five times a day facing Mecca, you can't. If you want to not drive on Saturday, by all means don't. If you want to prevent other people from driving on Saturday, you can't. If you want to hate gay people, then go ahead. If you want to limit their rights, (or stone them to death as the Bible suggests) then you can't.

Your religious freedom does not include the freedom to oppress. And for those harping on about state rights, keep in mind that's the same argument that was used to support slavery. The big bad federal government can't take away my right to oppress people.

Yeah I'm sorry but this is incorrect. 115 countries/224 countries fail to reach the quota of 2.1 children for every female and therefore the population size is not stable and will not be stable in these countries and therefore in years to come a lower labour force will be available and the average age will increase dramatically which I think that I don't need to explain how damaging that is to society as a whole. If anything we need to have way more people breeding nowadays expecially in first world countries . Of course sme-sex marriage will not change this ferility rate so this decision is definately the step forward but just wanted to debunk your statement that "we could use fewer people breeding."