Redefining marriage was the only way for this to happen in the states. And even then, we have no shortage of assholes who are willing to (hypothetically, though not really) set themselves on fire to protest this.
US Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Across All States
- Thread starter The Good Gentleman
- Start date
Putin's a badass. If he was born 200 years ago, his brand of pragmatism and ruthlessness would easily make him the most powerful man in the world. And he can kill you with his bare hands.
Though, keeping the Pope waiting for two whole hours? Not. Cool.
Though, keeping the Pope waiting for two whole hours? Not. Cool.
Business Insider wrote about that, actually...
http://www.businessinsider.com/ian-bremmer-vladimir-putin-most-powerful-man-world-2015-5?op=1
But I don't like the Pope. I honestly couldn't care less if Putin made him wait for an entire day.
Would you like it if I called you a terrorist-loving Jew?
:| Hard to get offended or upset about things that are hilariously untrue.
Who isn't calling me a terrorist-loving Jew around this place.
But no, not every gay person is gonna find it lulzy. Just as people are bothered about the useage of words like marriage.
But no, not every gay person is gonna find it lulzy. Just as people are bothered about the useage of words like marriage.
See, basic rights? That's what they are: basic. As in, taken as a given. I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with someone being denied jobs, finances, health care etc based on their sexuality. That is utterly disgusting. It is actually inhumane, to me.
My stance on the redefinition of marriage will never change and the word, to me, has very specific connotations which now no longer apply due to the changes in legislation. Partnership, fine. Marriage, no. Call it semantics but I would still strongly disagree. I'm a stickler like that.
Back to the US? It should never have come to this just to get the same basic rights as anyone else. You get a job based on your suitability, not anything else.
This is what I try to get through to people: I am not sating homosexuals must be kept away from society or culled or experimented on or whatever. I simply disagree with the redefining of marriage. End of.
My stance on the redefinition of marriage will never change and the word, to me, has very specific connotations which now no longer apply due to the changes in legislation. Partnership, fine. Marriage, no. Call it semantics but I would still strongly disagree. I'm a stickler like that.
Back to the US? It should never have come to this just to get the same basic rights as anyone else. You get a job based on your suitability, not anything else.
This is what I try to get through to people: I am not sating homosexuals must be kept away from society or culled or experimented on or whatever. I simply disagree with the redefining of marriage. End of.
The problem with that, though, is that Christianity (or pretty much any present-day religion, for that matter) didn't invent "marriage", concept or otherwise.
"Marriage", as a concept, has existed far longer than most current day religions, including Christianity, so it's not something that belongs strictly to your religion, or mine, or anyone else's.
Nor is it something that we can say "can't and/or shouldn't be redefined", because we ourselves didn't "define" it in the first place, nor did we "make" or "invent" it.
Obviously I'm not trying to make you support it if you don't, but it wasn't really "redefining" if your religion didn't make it in the first place.
We didn't invent the concept of "marriage", so we can't "define" it, regardless if it's been a certain way for a long time or not.
Also, like I said before, though I definitely support the ruling, I don't think churches or any religious figures should be forced to marry anyone that they would otherwise refuse to, regardless of the reasoning, with this being no exception.
If the church and/or religious person in question are perfectly okay with doing it, then great!
But if not, then they shouldn't be forced to do something they don't want to whatsoever.
You can get married outside of a church anyways, so it doesn't really matter.
That's just my thoughts, at least. *shrug*
"Marriage", as a concept, has existed far longer than most current day religions, including Christianity, so it's not something that belongs strictly to your religion, or mine, or anyone else's.
Nor is it something that we can say "can't and/or shouldn't be redefined", because we ourselves didn't "define" it in the first place, nor did we "make" or "invent" it.
Obviously I'm not trying to make you support it if you don't, but it wasn't really "redefining" if your religion didn't make it in the first place.
We didn't invent the concept of "marriage", so we can't "define" it, regardless if it's been a certain way for a long time or not.
Also, like I said before, though I definitely support the ruling, I don't think churches or any religious figures should be forced to marry anyone that they would otherwise refuse to, regardless of the reasoning, with this being no exception.
If the church and/or religious person in question are perfectly okay with doing it, then great!
But if not, then they shouldn't be forced to do something they don't want to whatsoever.
You can get married outside of a church anyways, so it doesn't really matter.
That's just my thoughts, at least. *shrug*
Last edited:
Yup, the church didn't invent the concept (or rules) of marriage per se - it has just had a monopoly on performing it for quite a few centuries until recently in the UK. The church was introduced and it decided what it wanted marriage to be.
For those believing same sex marriage is offensive to the concept, the Christian concept of what marriage is is one of the most recent here and the pagan people of this land were made to adopt it by their occupiers, the Romans, according to historical document (as I'm sure you'll know...). So, it's six of one and half dozen of the other in terms of who's forcing what ideas on the definition of marriage here, the Christian definition certainly wasn't here first. So who is supremely qualified to say what marriage should be? Society? The current popular religion? You? Me?
I get people don't like change but let's face it, there was a time when Christianity and its definitions was the "new thing". We can't expect others to honor our own personal definitions of what a thing should be either. I can no more seriously say what marriage is and should be to someone else. Only the law can exact that, I suppose.
Some guy married his car I heard recently. My type of thing? No. Marriage? I guess it was, if a marriage service was performed and it says so on a legal document. He likes to think of his car as his wife; no idea how that works, but then people have married dogs in India, and inanimate objects in other place for spiritual reasons. Weird? Maybe. Harmful? In the case of the guy marrying his car, no. Offensive to me personally? None of my business. . . and not really. I'm more offended by people who marry and divorce and marry again fifteen times and can still keep a straight face in church at the next one - that's more of a mockery of promising yourself to someone before God, in my opinion.
As an aside, the world's going to have overpopulation and resource issues very soon; I'm kinda thinking that is going to cause the downfall of human civilization rather than gay marriage, which more than likely won't be contributing to that problem a whole lot. (That's aimed at certain individuals out there who 'spiritually detect' this gay marriage law is going to bring an asteroid down on the U.S.A.. Yup, seriously. We're still waiting for our asteroid obliteration here in the UK, Canada, etc. ... As Dr. Venkman would say, "for your sake, buddy, I hope you're right.")
For those believing same sex marriage is offensive to the concept, the Christian concept of what marriage is is one of the most recent here and the pagan people of this land were made to adopt it by their occupiers, the Romans, according to historical document (as I'm sure you'll know...). So, it's six of one and half dozen of the other in terms of who's forcing what ideas on the definition of marriage here, the Christian definition certainly wasn't here first. So who is supremely qualified to say what marriage should be? Society? The current popular religion? You? Me?
I get people don't like change but let's face it, there was a time when Christianity and its definitions was the "new thing". We can't expect others to honor our own personal definitions of what a thing should be either. I can no more seriously say what marriage is and should be to someone else. Only the law can exact that, I suppose.
Some guy married his car I heard recently. My type of thing? No. Marriage? I guess it was, if a marriage service was performed and it says so on a legal document. He likes to think of his car as his wife; no idea how that works, but then people have married dogs in India, and inanimate objects in other place for spiritual reasons. Weird? Maybe. Harmful? In the case of the guy marrying his car, no. Offensive to me personally? None of my business. . . and not really. I'm more offended by people who marry and divorce and marry again fifteen times and can still keep a straight face in church at the next one - that's more of a mockery of promising yourself to someone before God, in my opinion.
As an aside, the world's going to have overpopulation and resource issues very soon; I'm kinda thinking that is going to cause the downfall of human civilization rather than gay marriage, which more than likely won't be contributing to that problem a whole lot. (That's aimed at certain individuals out there who 'spiritually detect' this gay marriage law is going to bring an asteroid down on the U.S.A.. Yup, seriously. We're still waiting for our asteroid obliteration here in the UK, Canada, etc. ... As Dr. Venkman would say, "for your sake, buddy, I hope you're right.")
Last edited:
I'm just appealing to the god(s) of rational conversation here, so to speak.
I mean if I say: "My definition of marriage is THE definition of marriage, and all else is incorrect or offensive," there's not a whole lot of rational-style conversation can be had on the matter. The statement just is and can't be appealed to, nor does it want to be appealed to.
I'm just saying that yeah, the definition of marriage - outside of personal opinion - was/is always changing and being redefined. The current "accepted" notion of what it is is neither new, nor especially ancient, does not belong to one particular religion or church or non-religious school of thought. It's foremost a cultural practice, and cultures can and do change over time.
Who "owns" the concept of marriage? Nobody. And everybody.
*shrug*
I mean if I say: "My definition of marriage is THE definition of marriage, and all else is incorrect or offensive," there's not a whole lot of rational-style conversation can be had on the matter. The statement just is and can't be appealed to, nor does it want to be appealed to.
I'm just saying that yeah, the definition of marriage - outside of personal opinion - was/is always changing and being redefined. The current "accepted" notion of what it is is neither new, nor especially ancient, does not belong to one particular religion or church or non-religious school of thought. It's foremost a cultural practice, and cultures can and do change over time.
Who "owns" the concept of marriage? Nobody. And everybody.
*shrug*
Have to say, none of my gay friends could be happier; nor I for them. It's a bit hard to celebrate, since I feel like this is two decades too late. Regarding that comment about pot someone made earlier: They don't even need to legalize it. Plenty of people like me aren't bothered at all buying it tax-free. 
@Angel I agree it is wrong to force a church or anyone to approve a matrimony they wholeheartedly don't want to. All the gay people I know wouldn't even want to be married in such a place, either way. It's kind of ironic: the US prides its self on standing up for the underdog, but the inevitability of a democracy is the voting minority not getting what they want. Even if it's 49% of the country (citing a lot of presidential elections across history). Time is a funny thing, the future has a way of fixing our **** ups in the present. Give it a few years. Some angry folks will make some noise, they'll be granted the ability to deny a matrimony, then they'll exploit it, then it'll be amended to prevent abuse, then the amendment will step on someone else's toes, etc. The best AND worst part of legislation is how long it can take to get anything done. Sometimes it means it denies something we feel should've been lawful years ago. Other times, it protects us from hasty decisions in times of panic.
As for the definition of "marriage..." well, I don't know about that. I guess my opinion on that one is defined a bit like this: I could not in good conscience walk up to a gay couple and say that marriage isn't for them; that I hold the keys to its definition both in the dictionary and literally; and lastly that they don't fit that mold because of something they can't control. While I do very much like the idea of marriage just being for what I know as a magical bond between man and woman, I'm heterosexual and subject to bias. To them, I'm sure two guys is some of the most heartwarming **** ever, yo. I also know language is subject to change. Words are created, labeled as taboo, and redefined on a regular basis. Gay used to just mean happy, right?
I do respect you for speaking up as the minority. Freedom of Speech means nothing if not the freedom to disagree.
@Angel I agree it is wrong to force a church or anyone to approve a matrimony they wholeheartedly don't want to. All the gay people I know wouldn't even want to be married in such a place, either way. It's kind of ironic: the US prides its self on standing up for the underdog, but the inevitability of a democracy is the voting minority not getting what they want. Even if it's 49% of the country (citing a lot of presidential elections across history). Time is a funny thing, the future has a way of fixing our **** ups in the present. Give it a few years. Some angry folks will make some noise, they'll be granted the ability to deny a matrimony, then they'll exploit it, then it'll be amended to prevent abuse, then the amendment will step on someone else's toes, etc. The best AND worst part of legislation is how long it can take to get anything done. Sometimes it means it denies something we feel should've been lawful years ago. Other times, it protects us from hasty decisions in times of panic.
As for the definition of "marriage..." well, I don't know about that. I guess my opinion on that one is defined a bit like this: I could not in good conscience walk up to a gay couple and say that marriage isn't for them; that I hold the keys to its definition both in the dictionary and literally; and lastly that they don't fit that mold because of something they can't control. While I do very much like the idea of marriage just being for what I know as a magical bond between man and woman, I'm heterosexual and subject to bias. To them, I'm sure two guys is some of the most heartwarming **** ever, yo. I also know language is subject to change. Words are created, labeled as taboo, and redefined on a regular basis. Gay used to just mean happy, right?
I do respect you for speaking up as the minority. Freedom of Speech means nothing if not the freedom to disagree.
Last edited:
If I misread the first part of your post, I apologize.
To the government, marriage is a public service. It's a cut-and-dry title that involves reorganizing your taxes and filing your relationship away somewhere. To a church its a holy matrimony with religious connotations. Church =/= government. A church owes nothing to the public. By definition, its only business is its members.
Smoking indoors is explicitly illegal. Go far enough outside the city and you'll find people smoking in restaurants.
I can't really say "would it be wrong" because morals are an intangible human invention. I can only comment on those two things myself.
A) Breastfeeding in public is weird to me. How you gonna spend your whole life covering up and saying the top of your body has privates too, then once you have a baby its "I NO LONGER CARE SO LOOK THE OTHER WAY."
Don't get me wrong. I love seeing all of your boobs. I just get frustrated sometimes because the kid is in the way.
B) Seeing eye dogs are kind of necessary if you like having blind customers. You'd have to be a pretty huge dick or have some reason being blind in your establishment is just unsafe. Like if your restaurant happens to also be a skate park for some reason.
Last edited:
I'm saying you can slip into a restroom to feed your baby, or in the car. A mom has that option. A blind person is blind at all times whether they want to be or not, and they need those dogs at all times, whether we like them or not.
Yeah, you can't control when your baby gets hungry. That doesn't mean you can't get up and walk somewhere private to handle it. Let it cry for a few minutes while you go. Most parents have to get pretty used to that sound anyway.
I don't see why a gay couple would want to get married by a group that's so ignorant. Say they wanted a punk rock wedding and wanted to try, I'd say they're the ones disturbing the peace at that point. You won't get anywhere running around blowing whistles on every hatred circle jerk. We have more churches than hospitals, deal with it and go find another one if you want it so badly. The legislation was more or less to do with government filing and benefits. I don't think anyone expected a new law to erase hatred. Sooner or later the equality hordes will change it anyway regardless of what either of us think.
Most of the people you fundamentally disagree with are only products of their environments. The worst way to reach out to them is to stomp on their belief system. Take away stance on a political issue and they're no different from you. There's really only 1-2 figureheads preaching ignorance and lots and lots of followers. That much is true for both sides. I've met plenty of people who are on what I think is the right side of the argument but it does no good talking to someone who wasn't even thinking for themself. What's there to discuss when everything they have to say was uttered by Bill Maher the night before anyway?
I'd rather watch a rerun than talk to someone like that. At least Bill Maher can be entertaining. Even if he is a debaucherous prick.
How are you going to preach "love" when they don't even agree with you on what "love" is?
How are you going to logically lay out why your "love" is true "love" when they only know it as what they were told?
How do you know that your definition of "love" isn't simply a product of your environment?
You will never truly be able to prove your opinion as a fact, that's why none of them will ever accept it as such.
All you end up doing by confronting this disagreement is breaking glass houses.
Last edited:
So you're saying that if it turned out that male jizz was 10 times better for a babies developement, you would be ok with guys whipping it out to feed their kid?
Sure, everyone's "doing it" for their own reasons, but at the end of the day a movement has to commit to what it wants. In this case, it was legal recognition and the title of "marriage." They can want to have their matrimony granted in whatever way they choose and they'll probably make sure not to stop until that happens (civil rights movements are kind of like achievement hunting: no surrender until 100%). What they'll never be able to do is stop those people from wanting to discriminate.
So, you're agreeing with me then?
Because when opinion translates into a real-world consequence, people loathe the idea of settling for a world different from how they think it should be. If all we did all day was sit on our asses and hang out together there'd be no reason to disagree over anything. My faith in humanity says people would go on disagreeing anyway.
That's fine. You don't have to answer if you don't want to. I guess in a way you did. Why are your boobs not "obscene" but my little sergeant is? There's no reason to objectively admit one without the other. The point I was getting to was you can't really say it's gross or wrong without contradicting yourself.
I'll say it again. You have laws that prevent discriminatory actions, but you can't change a person's opinion. You will only insult them if you try. Legislation can make it unlawful for them to be spiteful or discriminatory in any official context, but you can't make them be polite. You can't force them to understand or accept. Most of them are happy to keep their disapproval to themselves, believe it or not, as long as they're left alone. I don't mean churches. I mean people.
Just because "there's no reason to" disagree and discourse it doesn't mean people won't. People will argue over anything. I'm pretty sure ESPN Sports Center was invented just to spark arguments over things that are ultimately just entertainment and don't actually matter at all. This applies to all fandoms, tumblr drama, discussion boards, etc. All are examples of people starting arguments when they "have no reason to." Some part of the human being is always seeking a feud: legitimate or not.
Last edited:
What in blazes...? I thought I was just having my brain picked? O-o
where exactly did this become a debate for you?
Everything I posted was to satisfy your own curiosity. You said so yourself.
A) my problem with breastfeeding wasn't that it provided nutrients so the point you're disagreeing with isn't even one I made. I think public breastfeeding is strange. So what?
b) I'm "talking in circles" because these are my opinions you're asking for. They aren't going to change over the course of a forum thread. If you find opposing viewpoints so unsightly then refrain from asking for them.
Last edited:
Off-topic: I'm for topless rights.
Back on-topic: Hooray for same-gender marriage and the state.
Back on-topic: Hooray for same-gender marriage and the state.