SCOTUS and Gay Marriage

[It'sNotAFakeID]

There are multiple ways of explaining the same thing.

[Landlord]

It's not the same thing at all, unfortunately. But you are right in your question.

 

If they are the same thing...

 

 

 

uhhh...?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Science could investigate this question. What we have is an unchanging difference. I think they're the same, such that one flows from the other. You think they're different.

 

It's cool. And I'm not picking and choosing, I'm professing my faith as i believe it.

[strigori]

I'm not convinced--maybe we're splitting hairs, but shouldn't you, through your faith--naturally do "works"?

 

It's the way it's worded, but it's basically the same thing.

Its the work around that the people use to get around the fact that they are horrible people, and make the world a worse place. They do whatever the hell they want, and 'ask forgiveness' later. Or in centuries past they bought indulgences from the church for things they were planning on doing.

[RedTooth]

The easiest way for the redefinition of marriage crowd to debate the topic is to make it about religion. But it's really not about religion (there are plenty of atheists who support marriage). And it's not about rights (if it was, the fight would be about civil union recognition, not about redefining marriage). It's about making people who deviate from the norm feel good about themselves.

[Lil' Red]

The easiest way for the redefinition of marriage crowd to debate the topic is to make it about religion. But it's really not about religion (there are plenty of atheists who support marriage). And it's not about rights (if it was, the fight would be about civil union recognition, not about redefining marriage). It's about making people who deviate from the norm feel good about themselves.

I agree that gay marriage shouldn't have anything to do with religion. It is a civil issue that shouldn't be misconstrued as a religious issue. If a religious institution does not want to marry a same-sex couple, they are completely free to do so. However, same-sex couples should be able to receive a marriage license as that is a civil matter unrelated to religion. Personally, I'm very thankful that I'm not deprived of rights merely because I "deviate from the norm". It is a shame that individuals are denied equality simply for that reason.

[strigori]

The easiest way for the redefinition of marriage crowd to debate the topic is to make it about religion. But it's really not about religion (there are plenty of atheists who support marriage). And it's not about rights (if it was, the fight would be about civil union recognition, not about redefining marriage). It's about making people who deviate from the norm feel good about themselves.

No, its about excluding, and keeping rights away from s group, by a group that thinks they 'own' marriage. Its something to remember that marriage existed before Christianity, and in cultures that never heard of it. And as key points in our own laws show, it is primarily about property rights, and always has been.

[sd'sker]

The easiest way for the redefinition of marriage crowd to debate the topic is to make it about religion. But it's really not about religion (there are plenty of atheists who support marriage). And it's not about rights (if it was, the fight would be about civil union recognition, not about redefining marriage). It's about making people who deviate from the norm feel good about themselves.

are you saying gays should feel bad about themselves?

[Landlord]

The easiest way to fix this topic is just to call it something else. Seriously, case solved. Just call it a civil union or a legal contract or whatever you want and enough Christians will realize it's a non-issue. Not all of them will, but not all of them can be expected to listen to reason.

[knapplc]

The easiest way to fix this topic is just to call it something else. Seriously, case solved. Just call it a civil union or a legal contract or whatever you want and enough Christians will realize it's a non-issue. Not all of them will, but not all of them can be expected to listen to reason.

 

That's what they do in France, where my sister-in-law got married. If you ONLY go to a house of worship the state doesn't recognize the marriage over there, but if you do both or just go to the Mairie (mayor's office) then you're legally wed.

 

You have your religious ceremony (if you like) and you have your legal ceremony. One does not infringe upon the other, and each convey different rights as apportioned by their respective governing bodies.

[Conga3]

The easiest way to fix this topic is just to call it something else. Seriously, case solved. Just call it a civil union or a legal contract or whatever you want and enough Christians will realize it's a non-issue. Not all of them will, but not all of them can be expected to listen to reason.

 

Better use 'Civil Pairing' instead.

 

A pair is 2. Take that Polygamy!

 

I always thought "Matrimony" was the religious sacrament...and "Marriage" was the civil term though...

 

...but I'm no historian or even good at words.

[Conga3]

The easiest way for the redefinition of marriage crowd to debate the topic is to make it about religion. But it's really not about religion (there are plenty of atheists who support marriage). And it's not about rights (if it was, the fight would be about civil union recognition, not about redefining marriage). It's about making people who deviate from the norm feel good about themselves.

are you saying gays should feel bad about themselves?

How do you now understand his point? Disappoint.

 

It's heard often when gay couples talk about their desire for marriage above and beyond the legal benefits received.

 

'We know we love each other...but marriage is something more." - or something along those lines.

 

Some gay couples, like many straight couples... don't necessarily 'need' a marriage to define their relationship and prove/solidify/express their love... but there are also those who people want to have the label of a married couple and participate in one of the oldest rituals of human society - creating a family.

 

If anything else, it allows them to say, 'This is my "wife/husband" instead of "partner" or whatever...allowing them to be part of the group, and that does probably make them feel better.

 

He makes a good point. This used to be about mostly about legal benefits. It's progressed into a full fledged desire to 'join the group' - which is understandable and not a bad thing.

 

--

 

What remains is simply a cultural norm and what we - as a society - wish to encourage and promote.

 

We have laws governing marriage contracts because we need them to maintain civil order since so many in our society enter marriage through their religion. And while you could argue religions adopted marriage from pre-existing culture, our current cultural norm was derived from the religious aspects of our society.

 

We further promote marriage through tax benefits and what not because as a society we believe we have a better chance at prosperity if we encourage stability and the "nuclear family unit".

 

--

 

Arguments can be made on both sides for recognizing gay marriage but...

 

1. Homosexuality is more accepted today than yesterday.

2. Two adults raising children is better than one any day, even if the "male" or "female" role is missing.

 

I don't see why we wouldn't encourage stable gay couples through a marriage contract because that can only benefit society as a whole. Furthermore, our society has gotten so far way from the "nuclear family unit" with the incredible number of single/unwed parents and divorces, why not try to gain some lost ground by encouraging gay parents to form a family unit.

[knapplc]

The easiest way for the redefinition of marriage crowd to debate the topic is to make it about religion. But it's really not about religion (there are plenty of atheists who support marriage). And it's not about rights (if it was, the fight would be about civil union recognition, not about redefining marriage). It's about making people who deviate from the norm feel good about themselves.

are you saying gays should feel bad about themselves?

How do you now understand his point? Disappoint.

 

You're projecting a "point" that RedTooth is best qualified to clear up. In the absence of an explanation by RedTooth, sd'sker's interpretation of that sentence is as valid as yours.

[Conga3]

The easiest way for the redefinition of marriage crowd to debate the topic is to make it about religion. But it's really not about religion (there are plenty of atheists who support marriage). And it's not about rights (if it was, the fight would be about civil union recognition, not about redefining marriage). It's about making people who deviate from the norm feel good about themselves.

are you saying gays should feel bad about themselves?

How do you now understand his point? Disappoint.

 

You're projecting a "point" that RedTooth is best qualified to clear up. In the absence of an explanation by RedTooth, sd'sker's interpretation of that sentence is as valid as yours.

Oh.... so you're the one who +1 his post. :/

 

I thought his point was rather clear -- and it must just be the position/angle I view this topic -- but sd'sker's logic jump that implies RedTooth must mean they should feel bad for thinking they want to feel better isn't a thought process I very much respect.

[knapplc]

I thought his point was rather clear -- and it must just be the position/angle I view this topic -- but sd'sker's logic jump that implies RedTooth must mean they should feel bad for thinking they want to feel better isn't a thought process I very much respect.

 

A logical person will conclude that the sentence can be read either way. You're projecting.

 

 

 

EDIT - and, since it's (apparently) important to you, no, I did not +1 that post, as you can see here. I could, but then he'd have two, and that would (apparently?) be an even bigger concern...