Gay marriage legalised in the whole US by the supreme court

Status
Not open for further replies.
To be fair I see where koolpc is coming from. It's not right for the state to force him to divorce and marry a man
 
jetpaczx said:
Adds to the list of his titles...

To be frank what 2 consenting adults do behind closed doors is frankly none of my business. It does not effect me in any shape way or form...

You have to hand it to koolpc... 5.5/10 for reaction must work harder :)
Click to expand...

I think you might have missed my sarcasm.
 
Bensons said:
This thread gone weird lul.
Click to expand...

Of course it has, the lunatics are ranting nonsense.

Apparently now we allow homosexuals to marry we are also going to allow anyone to marry anything whatsoever, because that's the same thing. Personally I always wanted to marry my cat, my deceased mother and my lawnmower. Times be changing, so goals might be realised!

Did the loonies rant so much when same sex marriage was legalised in the UK, or is it just now when it has happened in a completely different country?
 
Last edited:
Woden said:
We get the usual suspects with the same rants everytime any nation legalizes gay marriage.
Click to expand...

You know how women's suffrage had opposition from some males, but most normal folk saw sense and were pro-womens rights? How it is completely normal now that women have the same rights and respect as men and all those people who were opposed to that have since died out? (admittedly, bar the odd neanderthal). Well the same fate awaits the people who hold dim views of gay marriage.

On from that, what did these strong opposers do before legislation was actually put in place in the Uk ? Did they lobby and petition against the idea? Did they invest time and effort into ensuring that it didn't happen? Because given the enthusiasm with which some here are labelling it as inhuman, unnatural and disgusting, I would have expected them to have put much effort into the above.

Alas I suspect quite the opposite though. I would guess the extents of most efforts are to sit in a pub and moan about it with like minded bigots, or merely make do with some noxious fb status that they actually think people give a flying hoot about.
 
Orionaut said:
Well, yes and no.

"Marriage" is a cultural/religious concept. As such it is sort of a club membership thing. It is wrong for the "State" to define what the rules for such club membership should be. [..]
Click to expand...

Not really, for two reasons:

Religion has not always been an inherent part of marriage (although it was and is frequently added, it often wasn't and isn't required).

Marriage throughout recorded history has always had some legal status. It therefore falls under the scope of the state (or smaller systems of government when and where there wasn't a state). Marriage always has been fundamentally a legal concept since it establishes rights and responsibilities enforced by law (and therefore by the state or whatever other system of rule is used).

My preferred system would remove all the confusion by treating the seperate things (personal, legal and religious) as the seperate things they are.
 
Glaucus said:
What absolute tosh, marriage pre dates religion, and in Christianity wasn't even official recognised till the council or Verona.
Click to expand...

You've just made yourself look bad. You're showing either ignorance or deceit, depending on whether you replied to my post without bothering to read it or you did read it and you're lying about it. It's one or the other and either makes you look bad.

Incidentally (and completely irrelevant to my post), neither you nor anyone else knows whether or not marriage predates religion since the evidence indicates that both predate recorded history. You do not know when the first marriage occured. You do not know when the first religion occured. So you cannot truthfully say which came first. And it's completely irrelevant to my post anyway.

Are you seriously arguing that religion never has any part in anyone's marriage? I don't see how you could believe that, but you described the idea that some people would want religious approval of their partnership as "absolute tosh" so it appears that you do believe that. Or, more likely, that you made something up and attributed it to me for some reason. Please don't do that.
 
semi-pro waster said:
I'm sure Angilion will be along to say but I didn't read it in that way, he isn't saying that marriage is specifically a religious issue but merely that there are three elements which are conflated in a typical marriage ceremony. There is a legal element - binding your worldly possessions together and setting up a legal relationship between the partners, there is a personal element - the commitment between partners but also there can be a religious element which is the partners being seen to be wedded together in the sight of their god.
Click to expand...

Yes.

My argument was that since those are three different things it would be clearer and fairer to treat them as three different things and name them as three different things, which would also end the whole stupid argument over the word 'marriage' by simply not using the word.

Obviously there's no implication that all three are required or that the three are mutually exclusive. That would be as silly as, for example, claiming that the existence of tea, milk and sugar means that tea, milk and sugar can only exist mixed together or that tea, milk and sugar can never exist in any combination of 2 or 3 of them, only always completely seperate.

I even clearly delineated the scope of each part, who determines the rules for who would be allowed each part, etc. There's no way anyone could read my post and come up with the "interpretation" Glaucus made, which has nothing to do with my post.
 
Last edited:
So, the majority of you wouldn't mind if you had a son and a daughter and they decided to get married to each other? You think that would be fine and hunky dory?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom