Gay marriage declared legal across the US in historic supreme court ruling


Wrath of Khan said:
marriage was not conceived for anything but the union of a man and a woman
Click to expand...
If you're claiming this from a religious standpoint then I suggest you actually read the bible, it most definitely says differently.If you're claiming it from a historical perspective then I'd have to get you in touch with some historians that would, again, tell you differently.

The notion of marriage being exclusively one man and one woman is actually fairly recent in our history.
 
Caine said:
The only reason that this was ever an issue to begin with is because governments have a tendency to meddle where they shouldn't.
Click to expand...
Amen to that.

People celebrating this kind of news to me is just like celebrating your own slavery, where you accepted in the first place that Governments should have a say in your private life.
 
Marriage should be outlawed.

Failing that, governments should not have anything to do with it.
 
Or... people should be free to live their lives any way they like so long as it doesn't directly harm others... However, if the 'harm' is moral objection too effing bad. Mind your own business.


I would love to be in a world where this is the case, but I have to keep a lot secret, even from you guys, even from my parents... you might say you are open minded, but the focus of my entire life has been to explore that which exists outside of what is accepted.


I am what those religious nuts fear... but I'm smart enough not to let them know that.
 
FaeMinx said:
but I have to keep a lot secret
Click to expand...
Same here, less so on the Internet than in real life though because diminished consequences.

FaeMinx said:
but the focus of my entire life has been to explore that which exists outside of what is accepted.
Click to expand...
I like investigating the unusual as well, then I like to mess about with what I've discovered, especially if it's something that you're not supposed to.
 
What has been an eye opener for me in this discussion is that quite a number of religious people object to gay marriage solely due to the use of the term 'marriage'.

Until recently, I interpreted their opposition to be a form of intolerance towards non-heterosexual partnerships. While I'm sure that there are many for whom this is true, there are also plenty of religous people who have no issue whatsoever with a registered partnership of homosexuals or lesbians such that they can benefit from the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple. I think fallacy being made here is that the term 'marriage' in the law does not (or should not) refer to a specific religious interpretation of marriage. It is merely an overloaded term.

Ideally, the state should decouple current benefits and rights from an umbrella concept (now called marriage), or alternatively just rename the concept instead. E.g. if one marries in church then one automatically gets a registered partnership in state, but it is the partnership which gives the rights, not the marriage.

Reality however is that such changes are slow, very slow... Therefore simply giving non-heterosexuals the right to marry is a much easier change. After all, not discriminating people is more important than the removal of an overloaded term (at least in my opinion).

It is unfortunate that the church claims such a broad-term for a very specific pairing of people. I really struggle to not interpret this as intolerance, as I simple do not understand and cannot grasp the world view of the church, but it is good to see that there is more subtlety to this than meets the eye.
 
Striku said:
FaeMinx said:
but I have to keep a lot secret
Click to expand...
Same here, less so on the Internet than in real life though because diminished consequences.
FaeMinx said:
but the focus of my entire life has been to explore that which exists outside of what is accepted.
Click to expand...
I like investigating the unusual as well, then I like to mess about with what I've discovered, especially if it's something that you're not supposed to.
Click to expand...
I do it because I feel responsible. - I do not recognize any authority above me, so it is up to me to determine the nature of right and wrong, the essence of Truth, and to what degree and under what situations denial can be constructive.

While I feel I am making progress, it seems an almost impossible challenge.


One of the only things I am certain of is that decriminalizing anything and everything that doesn't directly harm others is the only way to minimise all the damage that is created around whatever the subject is.
 
So marridge in ireland was already made into a Christian event, Ireland seems to have survived. Im unsure how this change is supposedly what fills the bucket for what Ireland can muster.
 
Wrath of Khan said:
I'd strongly disagree. Marriage in my opinion is something important, even sacred. It's not discrimination to exclude other groups from it;

as marriage was not conceived for anything but the union of a man and a woman. It was simply never meant for such a thing;period.

Gay people were allowed to marry in Ireland just recently.

-My opinion they should have been granted the legal rights and allowed to form their own union or marriage like bond. 

The bond of marriage was meant to filter down to the children in providing a stable family environment, which hopefully led or leads to future good and useful members of society.

Legalizing gay marriage will not change peoples thinking on this issue, as you cannot force change peoples hearts and minds, be it sound or flawed reasoning.

Sadly I believe the union of marriage, which was already greatly fading, is now defunct in Ireland. Your messing with things that have greater ramifications.

I understand though that it's an implicit belief that marriage is just a simple joining of two people; and yes here's the bit I'll truly get flamed for but I believe marriage was is god given; it was a gift and something important.

I was sad when the so called equality referendum was passed in Ireland, tbh.

On the other hand I don't advocate a lack of compassion or hatred in any form.

Honestly all I saw was people regurgitating stuff that the "media" was spamming us with for fifteen years or so. People were truly uninformed and voted accordingly.

This notion of equality for everyone in everything is driving me nuts; facebook only hired 7 black people. Was it discrimination or just life? Are their offices largely based in white dominated areas?

My point is that life is tough, unfair and sometimes we don't get all the shit we want, or even a fraction of it. Al lot of people with personal grievances are using this inequality notion to get what they want.

Life is unfair, random and the percentages are never perfect.What in life is precise, perfectly even, accurate and utterly predictable; Nothing. Why then would one imagine that all things and all people can be perfectly equal;never gonna happen not if they try for a hundred thousand years. Foolhardy not to mention pointless; there are more important issues in the world rather than self indulgent crap.

Whatever happened to grin and bear, soldier on, because sometimes that's what you have to do.

Ok, end of rant...
Click to expand...
And in front of god they still can't marry (at least not in the Catholic church).
The marriage we are talking about is a contract for paying less taxes, buying a house together and getting/adopting children. Every pair (imo even ever loving group of people) should be able to get this.

Let the religion out of this.
 
rygD said:
Failing that, governments should not have anything to do with it.
Click to expand...
You die unexpectedly, that will you always meant to make being left unwritten. What happens to your stuff? It goes to your family. Your family is a bunch of assholes who sell off your stuff and have your dog put down because no one wants to deal with it. Meanwhile, your "life partner" of 20 years get jack all. If they're "lucky" they'll get the bill for your funeral. If only there were some sort of government recognized institution that gave someone equal (if not greater) rights as a family member than those you share blood with.You're in an accident. You could really use some comfort as you lay in the hospital bed in agony but only family members are allowed to visit. If only there were some sort of government recognized institution that gave someone equal (if not greater) rights as a family member than those you share blood with.

Things are going well. You and your "life partner" have moved in together. You're effectively sharing an income, which is problematic when tax time comes. Getting insurance is a pain with no way to formally share policies. If only there were some sort of government recognized institution that gave someone equal (if not greater) rights as a family member than those you share blood with.

If only. Unfortunately I know of no such thing.

So what were we talking about? Gay something or other?
 
Next step: Multi-marriage

you know, there are people so full of love that one person is not enough !! :p
 
In principle, I agree with the thought that neither religion nor government should mess with whomever I choose to share my life with. That is in the theorethical, ideal world. In practice, though, we live in a world where marital status matters in at least two senses - It does matter in some religious groupings, and it does matter juridically, in the kind of situations that WizardStan describes. That means that we're not living in the ideal world, but that should come as no surprise to anyone, really :)

And when we acknowledge that we don't live in the ideal world, we'd better try to tweak it towards betterment as well as we can. And one obvious betterment is this - To make it so that at least the juridical effects of the institution of marriage (recognition of a voluntarily chosen life partner in situations like those WS describes) isn't bogged down with one or another religious bias. So, well...Could the world be better? Yes, mucho so. Is this betterment? Definitely.
 
Wrath of Khan said:
Marriage in my opinion is something important, even sacred. It's not discrimination to exclude other groups from it; as marriage was not conceived for anything but the union of a man and a woman. It was simply never meant for such a thing;period. [...]  The bond of marriage was meant to filter down to the children in providing a stable family environment, which hopefully led or leads to future good and useful members of society.
Click to expand...
And this, I must reply to as well, because it is simply not correct. In the old jewish tradition, which means the part of the bible that we call the Old Testament, marriage has nothing to do with "a stable environment for children" or "the union of a man and a woman" - It was a strict tool to keep check on the purity of the bloodlines, since old jewish tradition places a very high importance in the purity of your heritage. Therefore, the marriage rules strictly forbids interracial marriages, but does allow all kinds of things we'd find not-quite-ok today, such as a man having several wives (Multi-marriage has good support in the old biblical times), a rapist getting justified by marrying his victim, a childless widow being forced to marry her dead husbands closest relative in order to "keep the bloodline" and so on. And, of course, the other important bit is as a business transaction between families. In a way, the women of old testament times had only slightly more worth than cattle, and were bought and sold as wives in order to stabilize business networks.

In the christian tradition, meanwhile, the church really didn't like marriage. The church considered marriage to be something common people did in order to satisfy their urges, and the best course of action would be to not marry (following Paul, of course). If they considered themselves married, then that was something that people did out of the folk traditions - the church wanted nothing to do with that. It actually took until 1184 until the church started recognizing marriage as a sacrament (although it still was something people did on their own), and until 1563 that the church actually got down to making marriage a church ceremony. In that time inbetween, the church actually did recognize same-sex marriages, by the way - the focus was on the consenting union, not on the genders of the married. 

So, if marriage is an institution given by God and codified by the church, it sure took the church a long time to find that out.

And, of course (and as others has commented), that does disregard all other forms of marriage, in the traditions outside of the reach of the christian church. 
 
My (rather blunt) viewpoint is if it can consent then you should be able to marry it.


I seriously doubt anything like the above will ever happen though since we're not living in the Star Trek universe.
 
Striku said:
My (rather blunt) viewpoint is if it can consent then you should be able to marry it.

I seriously doubt anything like the above will ever happen though since we're not living in the Star Trek universe.
Click to expand...
But this way excludes plushie, cuscions and real dolls !!! :D

(or maybe acquiescence is acceptable ?!) :D

anyway I agree with you
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WizardStan said:
You die unexpectedly, that will you always meant to make being left unwritten. What happens to your stuff? It goes to your family. Your family is a bunch of assholes who sell off your stuff and have your dog put down because no one wants to deal with it. Meanwhile, your "life partner" of 20 years get jack all.
Click to expand...
Same thing as when you always meant to marry him or her but never managed to before he or she died, isn't it?
Arranging these kind of matters doesn't have to be tied to marriage at all. The fact that it is was just a minor convenience for the majority and major inconvenience for the minority that was not allowed to get married.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top