US Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Across All States
- Thread starter The Good Gentleman
- Start date
Darn. Just when I thought Don Lemon was hiding amongst our ranks.Oh don't worry, I'm none of those
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...l_self_himself_on_fire_in_protest_of_equality
...So! Who else is excited!?
...So! Who else is excited!?
DragonMaster2010
Don't Let the Fall of America be Your Fall
I say it's about time honestly. The only reason I can see it taking so long is because of the heavy religious views that most of the Republican Party has.
Apparently it isn't lol. But it's at least making it much easier to identify all the horrible ****heaps against it.
So...tolerance and equality and freedom just so long as you agree with the ruling, right?
Because that's what I'm getting from this thread - "yay for tolerance! Unless you disagree! In which case, allow me to disguise my blatant intolerance by refusing you your own opinion! Yay!"
Yup, I'm one of the people you guys are all trashing in this "acceptance, love, freedom" thread. Considering I have never pushed my own views or agenda onto anyone either online or IRL, I find the sheer hypocrisy of some rather startling.
I don't hate gay people and I'm not afraid of them. I simply do not agree with the redefining of marriage and the potential undermining of liberties it will very likely bring because of the law forcing religious groups to sacrifice their beliefs in order to accommodate such unions. People complain about how there should be a separation of church and state. After this, it is unlikely to be possible seeing as the state now dictates what the church (or mosque, synagogue, temple etc) can and cannot do with regards to gay marriage.
I believe in loving and respecting people because they are people. I do not embrace homosexuality but neither do I spit on people who are homosexual. A difference of opinion should not be viewed as hatred of another person. There are lots of things in this world I do not deem acceptable or appropriate and others will feel the opposite. But never will I run them down, call them names or encourage violence and hatred because we differ in our views.
Such a shame that some pro-gay marriage people cannot manage the same.
Because that's what I'm getting from this thread - "yay for tolerance! Unless you disagree! In which case, allow me to disguise my blatant intolerance by refusing you your own opinion! Yay!"
Yup, I'm one of the people you guys are all trashing in this "acceptance, love, freedom" thread. Considering I have never pushed my own views or agenda onto anyone either online or IRL, I find the sheer hypocrisy of some rather startling.
I don't hate gay people and I'm not afraid of them. I simply do not agree with the redefining of marriage and the potential undermining of liberties it will very likely bring because of the law forcing religious groups to sacrifice their beliefs in order to accommodate such unions. People complain about how there should be a separation of church and state. After this, it is unlikely to be possible seeing as the state now dictates what the church (or mosque, synagogue, temple etc) can and cannot do with regards to gay marriage.
I believe in loving and respecting people because they are people. I do not embrace homosexuality but neither do I spit on people who are homosexual. A difference of opinion should not be viewed as hatred of another person. There are lots of things in this world I do not deem acceptable or appropriate and others will feel the opposite. But never will I run them down, call them names or encourage violence and hatred because we differ in our views.
Such a shame that some pro-gay marriage people cannot manage the same.
How about: gay and trans people - like all people - should have the basic human right to legal civil partnership.
It doesn't have to be in a church. It just has to be something they can legally do in a registry office to protect their own bond with somebody, and set their personal affairs in order.
Gay marriage. Not gay holy matrimony.
I've spoken to some religious people who seem to think that marriage is an invention of their particular religion or that it has a monopoly on the word. It really doesn't; marriage as a concept has been around long before Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc. This seems to be the crux of the problem - that churches have had a monopoly on the idea of partnership for a long time, and a non-religious option hasn't been legally available until recently.
I'm all for keeping gay marriage and religion separate, if they must behave like oil and water.
It doesn't have to be in a church. It just has to be something they can legally do in a registry office to protect their own bond with somebody, and set their personal affairs in order.
Gay marriage. Not gay holy matrimony.
I've spoken to some religious people who seem to think that marriage is an invention of their particular religion or that it has a monopoly on the word. It really doesn't; marriage as a concept has been around long before Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc. This seems to be the crux of the problem - that churches have had a monopoly on the idea of partnership for a long time, and a non-religious option hasn't been legally available until recently.
I'm all for keeping gay marriage and religion separate, if they must behave like oil and water.
Last edited:
This is something I have to keep explaining to people. I'm really happy that human rights took a step forward, but I also understand that there are a lot of people who aren't happy. I do wonder how things are going to work now. I do think people should have the right to say no to something they disagree with (or refuse service if it goes against their beliefs). I don't think it is fair that the government should force churches, etc. to marry a same sex couple if they are that opposed to it. It's unethical. So while this is an important step toward equality, it's not going to be all smooth sailing from here. In fact, I imagine it's going to get rough for some.
EDIT: Also, feminism lol
Last edited:
@Angel I think one of two things happened here:
1) You took the opinion of one or two people in the thread, and believed that everyone who shared their opinion on equality also shared in the bashing of those who don't share the view.
Or
2) You misconstrued it (which if this is the case, would be easy enough to see why given the nature of the topic).
To make my stance perfectly clear: I'm all for equal rights. This also means allowing people of differing opinions to say their piece without fear of persecution. As long as people are civil toward one another in their differences of opinion, I don't care. It's when it becomes mud-slinging that I get angry. You haven't resorted to mud-slinging, so naturally, the issue isn't with you--the issue is with people who deliberately go out of their way to take away those basic human rights.
To me, the world is not divided into black and white; it's never been, "you're either with us or against us". There's always a middle ground, neutral ground...and by the sounds of it, that's where you stand. There's nothing wrong with that. It's what makes you, you.
No one's having a go at you, Angel.
Just at the people who would spread hate-mongering.
1) You took the opinion of one or two people in the thread, and believed that everyone who shared their opinion on equality also shared in the bashing of those who don't share the view.
Or
2) You misconstrued it (which if this is the case, would be easy enough to see why given the nature of the topic).
To make my stance perfectly clear: I'm all for equal rights. This also means allowing people of differing opinions to say their piece without fear of persecution. As long as people are civil toward one another in their differences of opinion, I don't care. It's when it becomes mud-slinging that I get angry. You haven't resorted to mud-slinging, so naturally, the issue isn't with you--the issue is with people who deliberately go out of their way to take away those basic human rights.
To me, the world is not divided into black and white; it's never been, "you're either with us or against us". There's always a middle ground, neutral ground...and by the sounds of it, that's where you stand. There's nothing wrong with that. It's what makes you, you.
No one's having a go at you, Angel.
Just at the people who would spread hate-mongering.
Last edited:
Most of the complaining from anti-gay marriage people I see in the last two days is because they apparently expect the pro crowd to behave gracefully. Supposedly there's been a lot of pointing and laughing and talk about who's got the tastiest tears, and certain miffed antis are grumbling about it and all the "special snowflakes" being happy.
Personally I'm not pointing and laughing at anybody, but the anti crowd haven't had to deal with the kind of persecution and mockery gay people get on a daily basis in many parts of this planet still. Are there any equivalents of the WBC that picket funerals with boards that say "GOD HATES BREEDERS", or did the likes of Putin actually come out on world broadcast TV and 'implore' straight people not to fiddle Russian kids if they visit Sochi? Exactly. I'm not surprised some of the pros have been reveling a bit too enthusiastically in it. The treatment of gay people in so many places is still nothing short of pathetic and supremely childish, especially since the world and law now tends to operate on logic-based reasoning and there is a ton of scientific evidence that proves sexuality is determined by hormones, not devils and their devices.
In any case, it might be a battle won, but the war is not over. And it probably never will be.
Personally I'm not pointing and laughing at anybody, but the anti crowd haven't had to deal with the kind of persecution and mockery gay people get on a daily basis in many parts of this planet still. Are there any equivalents of the WBC that picket funerals with boards that say "GOD HATES BREEDERS", or did the likes of Putin actually come out on world broadcast TV and 'implore' straight people not to fiddle Russian kids if they visit Sochi? Exactly. I'm not surprised some of the pros have been reveling a bit too enthusiastically in it. The treatment of gay people in so many places is still nothing short of pathetic and supremely childish, especially since the world and law now tends to operate on logic-based reasoning and there is a ton of scientific evidence that proves sexuality is determined by hormones, not devils and their devices.
In any case, it might be a battle won, but the war is not over. And it probably never will be.
Last edited:
@Angel
I think you're taking this the wrong way.
I myself am Catholic, but I am also bisexual, so I'm really happy that they finally legalized this.
However, being Catholic, I do not believe that the church should be forced to marry someone that they refuse to marry.
Now, if the church is okay with it (like this one Jewish church I saw not too long ago), then that's perfectly fine, but if they refuse then that is their right and trying to force them is infringing on their beliefs and that isn't okay whatsoever.
I'm all for equality, but the church has every right to refuse marrying someone and they shouldn't be forced to do otherwise.
I hope this helps.
I think you're taking this the wrong way.
I myself am Catholic, but I am also bisexual, so I'm really happy that they finally legalized this.
However, being Catholic, I do not believe that the church should be forced to marry someone that they refuse to marry.
Now, if the church is okay with it (like this one Jewish church I saw not too long ago), then that's perfectly fine, but if they refuse then that is their right and trying to force them is infringing on their beliefs and that isn't okay whatsoever.
I'm all for equality, but the church has every right to refuse marrying someone and they shouldn't be forced to do otherwise.
I hope this helps.
Then let me ask you something: What is the downside to giving everyone a chance to marry and be...erm, merry? Are you losing anything by accepting and agreeing with this ruling?
By NOT agreeing with it, you are quite literally on the side of the fence that only a single select group can get married. By agreeing with it, you are on the fence that everyone can do it. The former leaves a whole bunch of people out, the latter makes everyone happy - unless your thing is to make a whole bunch of people out and unhappy.
You're applying the same sort of broken, nonsensical logic that they Fox News anchor did: "When you give rights to a minority, you take away rights from the majority. Simple logic." Except it isn't. It's idiot logic. Because no one is losing any rights anywhere. Marriage isn't some state sponsored, mandatory thing - it's entirely your choice, and it's a symbol of your love for someone else. The only difference is now, marriage is a little bit more open-minded than it used to be.
I'm sorry to say this dude, but by NOT agreeing with this, you are quite literally saying "not everyone should have a chance at love and happiness." That's the thought process of a terrible person and a douchebag, and for some crazy reason, I really don't think that's you. XD
By making gay marriage available at registry offices and not churches, everyone can have their cake and eat it too.
Civil partnership/marriage should NOT be something you have to ratify under a church roof. Churches should NOT be forced to marry those they think are icky. The church is the "select" club, so to speak, so it should NOT be the only option available to a country's population.
Those churches who wanna consider themselves progressive or whatever can offer it if they want to, I can't see other churches being forced to do anything. The church literally operates however it sees fit, and is already granted certain exemptions under law. Can't see this law making them do anything. Registry offices and divorce lawyers however, will be doing good business.
Civil partnership/marriage should NOT be something you have to ratify under a church roof. Churches should NOT be forced to marry those they think are icky. The church is the "select" club, so to speak, so it should NOT be the only option available to a country's population.
Those churches who wanna consider themselves progressive or whatever can offer it if they want to, I can't see other churches being forced to do anything. The church literally operates however it sees fit, and is already granted certain exemptions under law. Can't see this law making them do anything. Registry offices and divorce lawyers however, will be doing good business.
This.
And do you have to be married to feel love and happiness? I know many cohabiting couples who feel marriage to be utterly unnecessary - even constricting - but they are perfectly happy and in love. I disagree with the redefining of marriage. I believe it to be between a man and a woman.
But naturally that makes me an idiot and a raging homophobe and Putin's biggest fan.
Like I said there are lots of things in this world that I disagree with. But I'm not marching against them all, I just disagree. That is all.
Again, legal civil partnership should be a basic human right.
If you've ever had to deal with the fallout from legal issues regarding it, you'd more than likely agree. It is not fair to deny a group of human beings the legal right to protect their assets and their partners through it. The right to do so should not mean they have to do so with the opposite sex only.
The problem is that marriage is an intersection of law and something apparently the church believes belongs to itself. Separate the two if you must, but grant all the legal rights given to "normal" married couples to everyone else and give it a different name if that helps. I could care less for the words used, only that it is legally valid and recognized.
It is no more fair than denying someone of a different religion the right to legal recognition of their partnership, just because they aren't Christian and won't be accepted in a church.
If you've ever had to deal with the fallout from legal issues regarding it, you'd more than likely agree. It is not fair to deny a group of human beings the legal right to protect their assets and their partners through it. The right to do so should not mean they have to do so with the opposite sex only.
The problem is that marriage is an intersection of law and something apparently the church believes belongs to itself. Separate the two if you must, but grant all the legal rights given to "normal" married couples to everyone else and give it a different name if that helps. I could care less for the words used, only that it is legally valid and recognized.
It is no more fair than denying someone of a different religion the right to legal recognition of their partnership, just because they aren't Christian and won't be accepted in a church.
Legal rights, yes. Absolutely.
Redefining marriage was unnecessary, in my eyes, for this to happen.
In the UK at least, civil partnerships offer exactly the same legal rights as married couples. So why the marriage option?
Redefining marriage was unnecessary, in my eyes, for this to happen.
In the UK at least, civil partnerships offer exactly the same legal rights as married couples. So why the marriage option?
Redefinition is unnecessary, yes. Although people use the word "marriage" commonly, so I assume this is part of the reason. I think of marriage as the catch-all term most everybody uses in everyday conversation, and "holy matrimony" as the specifically religious term. They definitely should not be redefining holy matrimony - for it to be "holy" it has to stick to whatever rules were laid down for it to be considered as.
Far as I know, though, each individual church has the right still to refuse to perform marriages on various bases, including whether or not the couple is even religious or a regular churchgoer... am I right on that? If that's the case, it should continue to be the case because the church is a select group of people with select beliefs. That's the whole point of it, I thought. Forcing the church to perform gay marriage is like forcing a women's support group to accept men, or a kids playgroup to accept adults... defeats the purpose.
I just want there to be another option available for other people who are not of this select group, to be able to have their partnership honored legally. Which I hope happens, and that the churches who don't want to participate will be permitted to decline couples who don't meet the criteria for their group. Far as I know, this is how it currently operates anyway.
I'm not sure on what level you're talking. Are you saying that members of gay civil partnerships shouldn't be allowed to say "we are married?" or "that's my husband" or are you talking on official documents and in official language it shouldn't be used. It is, after all, just a word, and language does change over time - or is always in flux.
Because for everyday purposes, I doubt it makes a difference what language people use. It's not devaluing anybody else's experience of marriage for them personally. We all know what it means and if I were married I'm not going to introduce my boyfriend to someone as "my civil partner" any more than you'd want to introduce your husband as anything but. You know? This is because we're all accustomed in this country to such common words as "husband", "wife", and "marriage" and what they mean, and to expect gay people to use different words is a means of making them feel outside and other, all over again after obtaining the right. Is it really necessary to do that? We don't expect non-religious people to use a different word for it, so why gays? It seems the word "marriage" no longer has a specifically religious context, since we allow non religious weddings, and it's been that way for a while now, so has already been redefined... is being redefined all the time I suppose. After all, there never used to be such a thing as divorce in some definitions, or the possibility of remarriage.
Like I said though, in a church context, in a religious joining, I'm all for people being particular and specific, and officially I hope that holy matrimony remains exactly what it says on the tin, even if the word marriage has been expanded for general use. I want there to be options for religious people to have their own sacred weddings and not be pressured into changing because the rest of society thinks they should. That is a liberty they should be entitled to in a free country. I'm sure they'll keep it too, the church has been around a very long time, and I honestly don't see how they could force it to change because of popular opinion while we also have laws protecting the freedom of belief and freedom to practice it.
Far as I know, though, each individual church has the right still to refuse to perform marriages on various bases, including whether or not the couple is even religious or a regular churchgoer... am I right on that? If that's the case, it should continue to be the case because the church is a select group of people with select beliefs. That's the whole point of it, I thought. Forcing the church to perform gay marriage is like forcing a women's support group to accept men, or a kids playgroup to accept adults... defeats the purpose.
I just want there to be another option available for other people who are not of this select group, to be able to have their partnership honored legally. Which I hope happens, and that the churches who don't want to participate will be permitted to decline couples who don't meet the criteria for their group. Far as I know, this is how it currently operates anyway.
I'm not sure on what level you're talking. Are you saying that members of gay civil partnerships shouldn't be allowed to say "we are married?" or "that's my husband" or are you talking on official documents and in official language it shouldn't be used. It is, after all, just a word, and language does change over time - or is always in flux.
Because for everyday purposes, I doubt it makes a difference what language people use. It's not devaluing anybody else's experience of marriage for them personally. We all know what it means and if I were married I'm not going to introduce my boyfriend to someone as "my civil partner" any more than you'd want to introduce your husband as anything but. You know? This is because we're all accustomed in this country to such common words as "husband", "wife", and "marriage" and what they mean, and to expect gay people to use different words is a means of making them feel outside and other, all over again after obtaining the right. Is it really necessary to do that? We don't expect non-religious people to use a different word for it, so why gays? It seems the word "marriage" no longer has a specifically religious context, since we allow non religious weddings, and it's been that way for a while now, so has already been redefined... is being redefined all the time I suppose. After all, there never used to be such a thing as divorce in some definitions, or the possibility of remarriage.
Like I said though, in a church context, in a religious joining, I'm all for people being particular and specific, and officially I hope that holy matrimony remains exactly what it says on the tin, even if the word marriage has been expanded for general use. I want there to be options for religious people to have their own sacred weddings and not be pressured into changing because the rest of society thinks they should. That is a liberty they should be entitled to in a free country. I'm sure they'll keep it too, the church has been around a very long time, and I honestly don't see how they could force it to change because of popular opinion while we also have laws protecting the freedom of belief and freedom to practice it.
Last edited:
From my point of view, it's not just about being able to get married, it's about the government recognizing that my and my partner's relationship is as genuine and important as a relationship between a man and a woman. If I were to be involved with a woman before this happened and something had happened to me, she probably wouldn't have received even half the rights a husband would have. Honestly, I'm not the marrying type, but knowing that I could marry a woman and we would have the exact same rights as if I married a man makes me happy. =) It's the equality thing. If you don't agree with that, that's fine with me; it's your beliefs and your opinion and I can respect that. What I can't respect is the people that are so against it that they say allowing people from the LGBT community to marry is going to result in people marrying animals and other crazy things. I dunno what Kool-Aid those guys have been drinking, but it's making them go a little nuts.
So how does it work in the us then? Because in the UK, a civil partnership has exactly the same legal rights as a marriage - the only difference now is that hetero couples may not enter into civil partnership but gays can pick either.
In the US, is that not the case? Or did they never have civil partnerships before this ruling?
In the US, is that not the case? Or did they never have civil partnerships before this ruling?
Don't say that out loud in the states...
I actually like Putin (a little) because he's the only (internationally-known) person to point out the United Nations' flaws.
Not saying Russia doesn't have flaws, but it's not the Eastern Bloc wasteland that everyone claims it to be, either.
-----------------
Edit:
Yeah, I understand why people would accuse anyone they disagree with as such -- it's because despite the fact that they say they're tolerant, they're actually kind of... not.