This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Whoop! Ruling against the ban on same sex marriage causing it to become legal across the US of A.
The first same sex couple has already got married in Georgia. Actual Georgia.
Nice one.
The first same sex couple has already got married in Georgia. Actual Georgia.
Nice one.
33
8
1
1
In reply to Conf#2:
Yes. I enjoyed watching Obama quite sternly telling the people of America what is right and what is wrong these days. Big change from when I was growing up about 20 years ago.
Yes. I enjoyed watching Obama quite sternly telling the people of America what is right and what is wrong these days. Big change from when I was growing up about 20 years ago.
3
1
In reply to Conf#2:
Can't remember if this made it onto here at the time but it's an enjoyable speech from when NZ passed the gay marriage bill a couple of years back.
youtube.com/watch?v=AfSGOK5jC9I&
Can't remember if this made it onto here at the time but it's an enjoyable speech from when NZ passed the gay marriage bill a couple of years back.
youtube.com/watch?v=AfSGOK5jC9I&
2
1
1
In reply to Conf#2:
Yes, good news on a day with little enough of that
But three people have disliked your post.
Why?
Yes, good news on a day with little enough of that
But three people have disliked your post.
Why?
2
2
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Hah - why indeed! Can you tell who they are? (I'm new to the post liking thing - last time I was on here they didn't exist)
Oh haters. Why must they hate, so?
Hah - why indeed! Can you tell who they are? (I'm new to the post liking thing - last time I was on here they didn't exist)
Oh haters. Why must they hate, so?
4
3
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
It's 5 now.
because they are obviously adverse to icky bum sex or prefer to get their morals from a story book (and not even a good one at that).
It's 5 now.
> Why?
because they are obviously adverse to icky bum sex or prefer to get their morals from a story book (and not even a good one at that).
8
3
In reply to Conf#2:
To all those who have disliked the posts - don't knock it until you've tried it!
To all those who have disliked the posts - don't knock it until you've tried it!
5
1
In reply to Conf#2:
To anyone that has clicked 'dislike' to this post (5 so far)... would you care to explain why?
To anyone that has clicked 'dislike' to this post (5 so far)... would you care to explain why?
5
1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Personally I'd like to be able to see who likes and dislikes posts, I'd be happy to stand by any like or dislike I make. It's a like on this topic by the way.
Personally I'd like to be able to see who likes and dislikes posts, I'd be happy to stand by any like or dislike I make. It's a like on this topic by the way.
3
In reply to Tony the Blade:
Well clearly this news means that they have to go and marry someone of the same sex, whether they want to or not. All men will be in nothing but hotpants by Christmas.
> To anyone that has clicked 'dislike' to this post (5 so far)... would you care to explain why?
Well clearly this news means that they have to go and marry someone of the same sex, whether they want to or not. All men will be in nothing but hotpants by Christmas.
6
8
1
In reply to Conf#2:
There's an argument that says courts shouldn't fashion laws. They are just there to interpret them. Changes of this significant a nature shouldn't really be up to the Courts. In this particular instance the courts were used as a political tool with which to change the legal framework in large parts of the US. This would have been better if it was done either by a mass plebiscite or by publicly elected representatives. In saying that I'm all for equality for everyone and I don't really see it as a bad thing as in reality the conservative nature of Congress and the Senate with the Republican majorities in both and the conservative nature of a lot of US States that it would likely have taken anywhere between another 5 and 20 years to get this through by legislative means.
There's an argument that says courts shouldn't fashion laws. They are just there to interpret them. Changes of this significant a nature shouldn't really be up to the Courts. In this particular instance the courts were used as a political tool with which to change the legal framework in large parts of the US. This would have been better if it was done either by a mass plebiscite or by publicly elected representatives. In saying that I'm all for equality for everyone and I don't really see it as a bad thing as in reality the conservative nature of Congress and the Senate with the Republican majorities in both and the conservative nature of a lot of US States that it would likely have taken anywhere between another 5 and 20 years to get this through by legislative means.
1
In reply to Conf#2:
The question I have is what would happen if they want a confederate flag wedding cake?
The question I have is what would happen if they want a confederate flag wedding cake?
3
In reply to Frank4short:
Surely they are just interpreting law, federal law that supersedes state law.
Surely they are just interpreting law, federal law that supersedes state law.
In reply to Conf#2:
I'm wondering if it's just homophobes who have disliked this topic, or if there's another reason?
Am starting to think if there weren't the like and dislike options, people might verbalise what they're thinking, or put it into writing rather, which could be beneficial for debate.
I second your 'Whoop!'
I'm wondering if it's just homophobes who have disliked this topic, or if there's another reason?
Am starting to think if there weren't the like and dislike options, people might verbalise what they're thinking, or put it into writing rather, which could be beneficial for debate.
I second your 'Whoop!'
Post edited at 16:55
2
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Ha ha
> The question I have is what would happen if they want a confederate flag wedding cake?
Ha ha
1
1
In reply to Conf#2:
Exactly, that's what I'm wondering. It does them no good, as emotional and physical health are closely interlinked.
It's as bad as disliking mixed race marriages and relationships, in it's irrationality and what it contributes...
> Hah - why indeed! Can you tell who they are? (I'm new to the post liking thing - last time I was on here they didn't exist)
> Oh haters. Why must they hate, so?
Exactly, that's what I'm wondering. It does them no good, as emotional and physical health are closely interlinked.
It's as bad as disliking mixed race marriages and relationships, in it's irrationality and what it contributes...
Post edited at 17:03
1
2
In reply to The New NickB:
That's what I thought, they are just basically saying one amendment in particular allowed for Gay marriage. They didn't create a rule just said it's not legal, under the constitution, to not allow it.
Big few days for Obama, obamacare was probably even more important for him, that's his legacy.
> Surely they are just interpreting law, federal law that supersedes state law.
That's what I thought, they are just basically saying one amendment in particular allowed for Gay marriage. They didn't create a rule just said it's not legal, under the constitution, to not allow it.
Big few days for Obama, obamacare was probably even more important for him, that's his legacy.
5
1
In reply to Conf#2:
They may simply disagree with you. I don't know, but someone disliking your post doesn't necessarily make them a "hater", bloody awful word that it is.
I didn't dislike your post btw.
> Hah - why indeed! Can you tell who they are? (I'm new to the post liking thing - last time I was on here they didn't exist)
> Oh haters. Why must they hate, so?
They may simply disagree with you. I don't know, but someone disliking your post doesn't necessarily make them a "hater", bloody awful word that it is.
I didn't dislike your post btw.
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
There's not an awful lot of room to dislike post without having a bit of an unsavoury reason. I don't think "simply disagreeing" is really very simple at all when what you're disagreeing with is granting equal rights to a minority.
Of course, it's everyone's right to express their political view (qualified by harming the rights of others of course), but if the view you hold is socially toxic, then expect a bad reaction!
No, but it makes you wonder what the motive is, if it's not holding socially toxic views*...
*That said, I don't know whether there are nuances to gay marriage in the US as there are in the UK where civil partnerships existed before (and the marriage issue was a weird religious/symbolic thing). But you'd expect anyone holding a nuanced view on the subject to express that rather than clicking 'dislike' which has the unsavoury implication above.
> They may simply disagree with you.
There's not an awful lot of room to dislike post without having a bit of an unsavoury reason. I don't think "simply disagreeing" is really very simple at all when what you're disagreeing with is granting equal rights to a minority.
Of course, it's everyone's right to express their political view (qualified by harming the rights of others of course), but if the view you hold is socially toxic, then expect a bad reaction!
> I don't know, but someone disliking your post doesn't necessarily make them a "hater"
No, but it makes you wonder what the motive is, if it's not holding socially toxic views*...
*That said, I don't know whether there are nuances to gay marriage in the US as there are in the UK where civil partnerships existed before (and the marriage issue was a weird religious/symbolic thing). But you'd expect anyone holding a nuanced view on the subject to express that rather than clicking 'dislike' which has the unsavoury implication above.
3
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I guess with dis/like being anon, somebody who really doesn't like same sex marriages can 'happily' dislike anything to do with them without having to worry about explaining why.
> There's not an awful lot of room to dislike post without having a bit of an unsavoury reason. I don't think "simply disagreeing" is really very simple at all when......
I guess with dis/like being anon, somebody who really doesn't like same sex marriages can 'happily' dislike anything to do with them without having to worry about explaining why.
Post edited at 18:20
1
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Oh I agree that in the context of this thread it's possible, indeed likely, that the dislikes were from people who don't want equal rights for gay people. Some of this may come from a position of hatred; some may be more nuanced, and the problem with a nuanced argument is that it is more difficult to articulate, so I can understand why someone would simply click "dislike" rather than try to articulate their thoughts.
It may also be someone who doesn't necessarily disagree with gay marriage, but doesn't like the, for want of a better word, crowing nature of the OP (I can't think of the right word, less strong than crowing). I have some degree of sympathy with this if it is the case - gay marriage was a very contentious issue in this country, and a more muted response from the victors may have been appropriate toward those on the other side of the debate to us.
But it's probably just people who don't like gays or gay rights. It would be interesting for those who disliked the OP to explain.
Oh I agree that in the context of this thread it's possible, indeed likely, that the dislikes were from people who don't want equal rights for gay people. Some of this may come from a position of hatred; some may be more nuanced, and the problem with a nuanced argument is that it is more difficult to articulate, so I can understand why someone would simply click "dislike" rather than try to articulate their thoughts.
It may also be someone who doesn't necessarily disagree with gay marriage, but doesn't like the, for want of a better word, crowing nature of the OP (I can't think of the right word, less strong than crowing). I have some degree of sympathy with this if it is the case - gay marriage was a very contentious issue in this country, and a more muted response from the victors may have been appropriate toward those on the other side of the debate to us.
But it's probably just people who don't like gays or gay rights. It would be interesting for those who disliked the OP to explain.
2
2
In reply to Timmd:
Probably religious people who rant on about the sanctity of marriage and how it should just be a union of men/woman for breeding purposes etc bla bla. They may even tell you that they are cool with civil partnerships and how some of their best friends are gay etc etc
> I'm wondering if it's just homophobes who have disliked this topic, or if there's another reason?
Probably religious people who rant on about the sanctity of marriage and how it should just be a union of men/woman for breeding purposes etc bla bla. They may even tell you that they are cool with civil partnerships and how some of their best friends are gay etc etc
1
2
In reply to The New NickB:
As I understand it (and i'm happy to be proven mistaken) the case centred around existing law, which was specifically brought into being 40/50+ odd years ago to stop racist establishments/counties/police departments/courts/etc from prosecuting or implementing county/state laws to prevent couples of mixed race marrying, in this particular instance it's been challenged on human rights grounds essentially saying it should be equally applicable to same sex marriages as mixed race marriages.
Whilst it has had a profoundly positive end effect you wouldn't be far wrong saying that the challenge used existing law which was originally intended for something totally different to shoehorn in same sex marriage. That in the eyes of the people who are either undecided or anti-same sex marriage it's using the court system to form a law which they might have been more accepting of if it had been implemented through the normal democratic processes. In saying that the right wing in the US have near broken a great country through their greed and us of the Judiciary as a means to foment laws that favour them. So them losing the same way every once in a while is definitely a good thing in this instance.
> Surely they are just interpreting law, federal law that supersedes state law.
As I understand it (and i'm happy to be proven mistaken) the case centred around existing law, which was specifically brought into being 40/50+ odd years ago to stop racist establishments/counties/police departments/courts/etc from prosecuting or implementing county/state laws to prevent couples of mixed race marrying, in this particular instance it's been challenged on human rights grounds essentially saying it should be equally applicable to same sex marriages as mixed race marriages.
Whilst it has had a profoundly positive end effect you wouldn't be far wrong saying that the challenge used existing law which was originally intended for something totally different to shoehorn in same sex marriage. That in the eyes of the people who are either undecided or anti-same sex marriage it's using the court system to form a law which they might have been more accepting of if it had been implemented through the normal democratic processes. In saying that the right wing in the US have near broken a great country through their greed and us of the Judiciary as a means to foment laws that favour them. So them losing the same way every once in a while is definitely a good thing in this instance.
In reply to Conf#2: i would note also that this is a subject in which majority opinion in the US has stung enormously in the last few years so legalising gay marriage is absolutely the majority opinion.
1
1
In reply to mac fae stirling:
I can't help thinking that if it said in the Bible and other religious books that people putting their fingers in one another's ears was wrong, people would use their minds to think through how there couldn't possibly be any reason for that to be so, but put sexuality into the mix, and suddenly it's 'homosexuality is a sin' or 'marriage is about bringing up children', which must surely mean childless marriages aren't truly valid, but if you suggest that it doesn't quite lead to them agreeing.
I had a (very friendly on the whole) Christian guy being against gay marriage, and he seemed a bit stumped when I suggested conventional childless marriages can't be valid either, after he mentioned it being about families and children.
> Probably religious people who rant on about the sanctity of marriage and how it should just be a union of men/woman for breeding purposes etc bla bla. They may even tell you that they are cool with civil partnerships and how some of their best friends are gay etc etc
I can't help thinking that if it said in the Bible and other religious books that people putting their fingers in one another's ears was wrong, people would use their minds to think through how there couldn't possibly be any reason for that to be so, but put sexuality into the mix, and suddenly it's 'homosexuality is a sin' or 'marriage is about bringing up children', which must surely mean childless marriages aren't truly valid, but if you suggest that it doesn't quite lead to them agreeing.
I had a (very friendly on the whole) Christian guy being against gay marriage, and he seemed a bit stumped when I suggested conventional childless marriages can't be valid either, after he mentioned it being about families and children.
Post edited at 19:14
1
1
2
In reply to Timmd:
>
They can claim the "we're practising" exemption...
>
> I had a (very friendly on the whole) Christian guy being against gay marriage, and he seemed a bit stumped when I suggested conventional childless marriages can't be valid either, after he mentioned it being about families and children.
They can claim the "we're practising" exemption...
1
In reply to Timmd:
>
Good one - This is usually what happens When logic is applied to any of these arguments.
>
> I had a (very friendly on the whole) Christian guy being against gay marriage, and he seemed a bit stumped when I suggested conventional childless marriages can't be valid either, after he mentioned it being about families and children.
Good one - This is usually what happens When logic is applied to any of these arguments.
2
1
In reply to mac fae stirling:
Exactly, my gay friends' Christian parents have accepted him whole heartedly.
> Aye, it's homophobia behind a pious mask.
Exactly, my gay friends' Christian parents have accepted him whole heartedly.
2
In reply to Timmd:
Come on, whoever it is who disliked the above, state your case as to why.
The dislike button is a way for people to be sneakily mean spirited without popping their heads above the parapet.
I bet whoever it is doesn't post and have the courage of their convictions.
You coward
> Exactly, my gay friends' Christian parents have accepted him whole heartedly.
Come on, whoever it is who disliked the above, state your case as to why.
The dislike button is a way for people to be sneakily mean spirited without popping their heads above the parapet.
I bet whoever it is doesn't post and have the courage of their convictions.
You coward
Post edited at 21:04
2
2
In reply to Timmd:
it is indeed cowardice. Isn't that one of the 7 deadly sins?... ahh, no, my mistake. getting confused with avarice
> You coward
it is indeed cowardice. Isn't that one of the 7 deadly sins?... ahh, no, my mistake. getting confused with avarice
1
In reply to Frank4short:
To be honest I can see pretty strong parallels between the intension of the original law and how it has been interpreted this week.
To be honest I can see pretty strong parallels between the intension of the original law and how it has been interpreted this week.
1
In reply to Timmd:
In this case, anonymous dislikes do look like cowardice. Or, at least, lack of conviction.
In this case, anonymous dislikes do look like cowardice. Or, at least, lack of conviction.
2
2
In reply to captain paranoia:
Hopefully my winky smiley shows I'm being tongue in cheek about calling them a coward. It's not that importing in the grand scheme of things, not compared to a sunny English summer, which seems to be happening here and there. You get my drift.
Hopefully my winky smiley shows I'm being tongue in cheek about calling them a coward. It's not that importing in the grand scheme of things, not compared to a sunny English summer, which seems to be happening here and there. You get my drift.
2
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Exultant?
> It may also be someone who doesn't necessarily disagree with gay marriage, but doesn't like the, for want of a better word, crowing nature of the OP (I can't think of the right word, less strong than crowing). I have some degree of sympathy with this if it is the case - gay marriage was a very contentious issue in this country, and a more muted response from the victors may have been appropriate toward those on the other side of the debate to us.
Exultant?
1
In reply to Frank4short:
Not so sure, it's the 14th amendment which came in 1870 or so
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It's about Liberty, equal privileges...
So laws specifically banning gay marriage were unconstitutional..
Not so sure, it's the 14th amendment which came in 1870 or so
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It's about Liberty, equal privileges...
So laws specifically banning gay marriage were unconstitutional..
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Yes it would.
It's in the nature of homophobia though, and how gay people can have to develop some 'antenna' to spot where dislike is coming from, in that it can go unspoken.
It's been found that the more homophobic a man is, the better he is at spotting somebody who is gay, due to seeing them as some kind of threat. It can often happen that, in the way that when people are accepting of one another (and of humanity in general if that makes sense), people in a room will relax and be at ease, but if somebody enters who is homophobic but unspokenly so, it can change things, so that while everybody else is chilled and friendly, the homophobic man is the one who'll be stony faced and less at eased, through picking up on what he (wrongly) judges to be a threat.
So loosely, the experience of gay people can mirror that of homophobic people, but with an important difference, in picking up on people who might very well be a threat, or at least be rather unpleasent to/around them. Hate is something which often doesn't go unnoticed, essentially*.
*Perhaps except by the occasional unfortunate person who is killed after meeting another bloke while out socialising.
> But it's probably just people who don't like gays or gay rights. It would be interesting for those who disliked the OP to explain.
Yes it would.
It's in the nature of homophobia though, and how gay people can have to develop some 'antenna' to spot where dislike is coming from, in that it can go unspoken.
It's been found that the more homophobic a man is, the better he is at spotting somebody who is gay, due to seeing them as some kind of threat. It can often happen that, in the way that when people are accepting of one another (and of humanity in general if that makes sense), people in a room will relax and be at ease, but if somebody enters who is homophobic but unspokenly so, it can change things, so that while everybody else is chilled and friendly, the homophobic man is the one who'll be stony faced and less at eased, through picking up on what he (wrongly) judges to be a threat.
So loosely, the experience of gay people can mirror that of homophobic people, but with an important difference, in picking up on people who might very well be a threat, or at least be rather unpleasent to/around them. Hate is something which often doesn't go unnoticed, essentially*.
*Perhaps except by the occasional unfortunate person who is killed after meeting another bloke while out socialising.
Post edited at 12:37
1
In reply to Timmd:
I am intrigued to know why you think that objecting to same sex marriage automatically infers homophobia ?
It could, of course, but it could also be because their view of what marriage *is* is more closely aligned to the traditional church / society view (that marriage is about starting and looking after a family) than the more libertarian view that it is simply a partnership.
I am intrigued to know why you think that objecting to same sex marriage automatically infers homophobia ?
It could, of course, but it could also be because their view of what marriage *is* is more closely aligned to the traditional church / society view (that marriage is about starting and looking after a family) than the more libertarian view that it is simply a partnership.
1
In reply to GrahamD:
But unless the same people object to those hetero couples who marry and remain childless, then we come right back to homophobia. Indirect homophobia possibly, but homophobia all the same.
But unless the same people object to those hetero couples who marry and remain childless, then we come right back to homophobia. Indirect homophobia possibly, but homophobia all the same.
1
In reply to GrahamD:
This puts it better than I could...
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/captive-virgins-polygamy-and-sex-slaves-wha...
> I am intrigued to know why you think that objecting to same sex marriage automatically infers homophobia ?
> It could, of course, but it could also be because their view of what marriage *is* is more closely aligned to the traditional church / society view (that marriage is about starting and looking after a family) than the more libertarian view that it is simply a partnership.
This puts it better than I could...
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/captive-virgins-polygamy-and-sex-slaves-wha...
Post edited at 14:31
2
In reply to GrahamD:
I think actively wanting to prevent gay marriage expresses the view that gay relationships and straight relationships do not have equal value (and implicitly therefore that gay people and straight people don't have equal value). Excluding certain people from society's most important institutions is in my view a statement that they do not share an equal stake in society; it's not compatible with equal rights.
I'd be interested in the arguments that show how one can be opposed to gay marriage while still believing that gay people and straight people deserve equal rights.
The 'family' argument doesn't wash, on the basis both of childless couples and gay couples with kids. If a certain religion wants not to marry gay people in their temples or whatever, on the basis of some made-up garbage they believe, fine - no one's forced to follow a religion. But in civil matters, our laws and institutions must deliver equal rights.
> I am intrigued to know why you think that objecting to same sex marriage automatically infers homophobia ?
I think actively wanting to prevent gay marriage expresses the view that gay relationships and straight relationships do not have equal value (and implicitly therefore that gay people and straight people don't have equal value). Excluding certain people from society's most important institutions is in my view a statement that they do not share an equal stake in society; it's not compatible with equal rights.
I'd be interested in the arguments that show how one can be opposed to gay marriage while still believing that gay people and straight people deserve equal rights.
The 'family' argument doesn't wash, on the basis both of childless couples and gay couples with kids. If a certain religion wants not to marry gay people in their temples or whatever, on the basis of some made-up garbage they believe, fine - no one's forced to follow a religion. But in civil matters, our laws and institutions must deliver equal rights.
4
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Depends what your definition of marriage is. Again, if your view is that it is a civil partnership arrangement but still object to gay marriage then of course you are implying that rights are different. If you are under the impression that the primary function of marriage is about having and protecting children and maybe even preserving some diversity in the gene pool then its not a matter of rights its a matter of biology.
Again, depends on your definition of marriage
It does, however, 'wash' for many people. Just because some gay couples adopt (obviously not produce) kids and some heterosexual couples chose not to or can't have kids doesn't change the perception of many many heterosexual couples who do have kids.
To be honest I wish there was a much clearer distinction made between civil weddings (which infer all the legal rights) and a religious wedding which shouldn't (in a secular society) have any legal validity. We don't though and hence the disagreements. People are talking about different things.
> I think actively wanting to prevent gay marriage expresses the view that gay relationships and straight relationships do not have equal value
Depends what your definition of marriage is. Again, if your view is that it is a civil partnership arrangement but still object to gay marriage then of course you are implying that rights are different. If you are under the impression that the primary function of marriage is about having and protecting children and maybe even preserving some diversity in the gene pool then its not a matter of rights its a matter of biology.
> I'd be interested in the arguments that show how one can be opposed to gay marriage while still believing that gay people and straight people deserve equal rights.
Again, depends on your definition of marriage
> The 'family' argument doesn't wash, on the basis both of childless couples and gay couples with kids.
It does, however, 'wash' for many people. Just because some gay couples adopt (obviously not produce) kids and some heterosexual couples chose not to or can't have kids doesn't change the perception of many many heterosexual couples who do have kids.
To be honest I wish there was a much clearer distinction made between civil weddings (which infer all the legal rights) and a religious wedding which shouldn't (in a secular society) have any legal validity. We don't though and hence the disagreements. People are talking about different things.
In reply to GrahamD:
Doesn't it go against diversity in the gene pool as your are limiting who you share genes with to effectively one person? Sleeping around is going to increase diversity, although that would be a great excuse of Jeremy Kyle of why someone has had children with 10 different people.
> and maybe even preserving some diversity in the gene pool
Doesn't it go against diversity in the gene pool as your are limiting who you share genes with to effectively one person? Sleeping around is going to increase diversity, although that would be a great excuse of Jeremy Kyle of why someone has had children with 10 different people.
In reply to GrahamD:
Being an ex-Catholic, I actually have certain sympathy or allowance for people who are shaped enough by their religion that their first response is to say that a change to marriages is wrong for religious reasons, but if they don't see childless marriage as not being valid, that's when I start to wonder if they're homophobic.
I think on here it can sometimes be easy to end up posting as strongly as other people seem to, when in everyday life you're more chilled.
Being an ex-Catholic, I actually have certain sympathy or allowance for people who are shaped enough by their religion that their first response is to say that a change to marriages is wrong for religious reasons, but if they don't see childless marriage as not being valid, that's when I start to wonder if they're homophobic.
I think on here it can sometimes be easy to end up posting as strongly as other people seem to, when in everyday life you're more chilled.
2
In reply to Timmd:
All that says is that literal adherence to the words in the bible is not desirable. No surprise there.
But its not hard to imagine a situation where a society had no religion but nevertheless that society saw a value in keeping or encourageing parents to stay together to give offsprings the best chance of being catered for, by the immediate and extended family - rather than a free for all mother ends up looking after the child and men fight each other for the mating rights.
Its not hard to see how a purely practical institution like this form of marriage (from before any concept of a welfare state) would be 'adopted' and adapted by major religions - its what they do after all and it should also not be a surprise that in many societies (without welfare states) it is still valid and why it lingers on even into societies that have only recently developed a welfare state. Religion adds inertia and our welfare system isn't perfect.
All that says is that literal adherence to the words in the bible is not desirable. No surprise there.
But its not hard to imagine a situation where a society had no religion but nevertheless that society saw a value in keeping or encourageing parents to stay together to give offsprings the best chance of being catered for, by the immediate and extended family - rather than a free for all mother ends up looking after the child and men fight each other for the mating rights.
Its not hard to see how a purely practical institution like this form of marriage (from before any concept of a welfare state) would be 'adopted' and adapted by major religions - its what they do after all and it should also not be a surprise that in many societies (without welfare states) it is still valid and why it lingers on even into societies that have only recently developed a welfare state. Religion adds inertia and our welfare system isn't perfect.
In reply to Timmd:
I'm definitely not homophobic and I'm definitely not religious by the way ! I do however see a logical reason for why marriage as an institution evolved to be about family - in older societies its the only practical purpose ! There is no practical purpose in pairing people up otherwise.
I'm definitely not homophobic and I'm definitely not religious by the way ! I do however see a logical reason for why marriage as an institution evolved to be about family - in older societies its the only practical purpose ! There is no practical purpose in pairing people up otherwise.
In reply to JoshOvki:
I'm thinking more about the rules that go with inbreeding in family keeping genetic diversity. It might also help in allowing non-physically dominant males to mate which might help propagate other desirable human traits like intelligence
I'm thinking more about the rules that go with inbreeding in family keeping genetic diversity. It might also help in allowing non-physically dominant males to mate which might help propagate other desirable human traits like intelligence
In reply to GrahamD:
I absolutely agree with you that we conflate the religious ideas about marriage with what we as a society need to build our laws on so forth around.
If there are religious ideas about marriage that might conflict with gay marriage (which might be to do with kids, not so sure about the genetic diversity bit, but I'm not qualified to comment on what marriage means in this religion or that) - then these are private matters for the individual followers of that religion. For religious people to take their views about marriage and seek to apply them to society in general is just arrogance, and as I say above it's not compatible with laws that deliver equal rights. Whether atheist, secular people get married or not has nothing to do with any religious concerns. Those concerns have no meaning nor relevance in making laws that we all have to live by.
If all this comes down to the is that actual word 'marriage' then I'm afraid the logical step of taking that word away from all civil marriages is an unreasonable request. It's just disproportionate action to protect the feelings of a handful of religious people who think that they have some special privilege in defining what that word means (for everyone). It can mean something specific to a religious follower in their church, temple or mosque, and yet mean something slightly different in secular, civil society in which the law takes precedent over religious belief.
I absolutely agree with you that we conflate the religious ideas about marriage with what we as a society need to build our laws on so forth around.
If there are religious ideas about marriage that might conflict with gay marriage (which might be to do with kids, not so sure about the genetic diversity bit, but I'm not qualified to comment on what marriage means in this religion or that) - then these are private matters for the individual followers of that religion. For religious people to take their views about marriage and seek to apply them to society in general is just arrogance, and as I say above it's not compatible with laws that deliver equal rights. Whether atheist, secular people get married or not has nothing to do with any religious concerns. Those concerns have no meaning nor relevance in making laws that we all have to live by.
If all this comes down to the is that actual word 'marriage' then I'm afraid the logical step of taking that word away from all civil marriages is an unreasonable request. It's just disproportionate action to protect the feelings of a handful of religious people who think that they have some special privilege in defining what that word means (for everyone). It can mean something specific to a religious follower in their church, temple or mosque, and yet mean something slightly different in secular, civil society in which the law takes precedent over religious belief.
2
2
In reply to GrahamD:
I get where you're coming from, and I didn't imagine you were either, but if you see gay or lesbian couples in the supermarket with child(ren) in tow, and think about recent studies which find the children brought up by same sex couples grow up to be equally well adjusted, it could be that it's time for our concept of marriage to change in step with modern society.
(On a related tangent, if a literal following of the Bible isn't what modern religious people adhere too, then there's no reason why they should use references to homosexuality being wrong to have any traction in shaping society either, it's not 'fair', or consistent, people can't have it both ways if everybody in society is going to be included.)
> I'm definitely not homophobic and I'm definitely not religious by the way ! I do however see a logical reason for why marriage as an institution evolved to be about family - in older societies its the only practical purpose ! There is no practical purpose in pairing people up otherwise.
I get where you're coming from, and I didn't imagine you were either, but if you see gay or lesbian couples in the supermarket with child(ren) in tow, and think about recent studies which find the children brought up by same sex couples grow up to be equally well adjusted, it could be that it's time for our concept of marriage to change in step with modern society.
(On a related tangent, if a literal following of the Bible isn't what modern religious people adhere too, then there's no reason why they should use references to homosexuality being wrong to have any traction in shaping society either, it's not 'fair', or consistent, people can't have it both ways if everybody in society is going to be included.)
Post edited at 15:47
2
In reply to GrahamD:
You're right of course, but would it be churlish to point out that furthermore some gay couples have twice as many wombs available as a straight couple and are fully capable of producing kids? (Albeit with the necessity of out-sourcing a small quantity of quite readily available goop at the very start of the process.)
There are also gay people who might like to marry who already have kids from a previous relationship of course. But really it's all irrelevant because, as you rightly point out, this "marriage is about children" thing is bollocks anyway. Maybe if anyone had ever tried to apply that argument to straight couples it would be worthy of a moment's thought before dismissing it out of hand, but nah.
Funny, the way people carry on about "traditional" marriage, you'd almost think marriage has never been re-defined before. At least not in the last couple of thousand years.
> It does, however, 'wash' for many people. Just because some gay couples adopt (obviously not produce) kids and some heterosexual couples chose not to or can't have kids doesn't change the perception of many many heterosexual couples who do have kids.
You're right of course, but would it be churlish to point out that furthermore some gay couples have twice as many wombs available as a straight couple and are fully capable of producing kids? (Albeit with the necessity of out-sourcing a small quantity of quite readily available goop at the very start of the process.)
There are also gay people who might like to marry who already have kids from a previous relationship of course. But really it's all irrelevant because, as you rightly point out, this "marriage is about children" thing is bollocks anyway. Maybe if anyone had ever tried to apply that argument to straight couples it would be worthy of a moment's thought before dismissing it out of hand, but nah.
Funny, the way people carry on about "traditional" marriage, you'd almost think marriage has never been re-defined before. At least not in the last couple of thousand years.
1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Why would I be anything less than very excited that a group of people are now able to have the rights only extended to those legally married in the US? Hospital visitation, joint parenthood, power to make medical decisions for them, ability to live on a marriage visa etc etc.
Why would I not crow the delights of something being brought into law that goes some way to telling LGB kids that they are equal to their straight siblings, thus slightly increasing their chance of living long, happy lives?
Exalting from the rooftops. (if that is something it's possible to do) A muted response when people have been fighting for this for decades? When it will save the lives of persecuted teenagers? I don't think so. It is not a 'both sides have their opinion' debate - it is a matter of civil rights. The history books will be just as celebratory as the OP.
Why would I be anything less than very excited that a group of people are now able to have the rights only extended to those legally married in the US? Hospital visitation, joint parenthood, power to make medical decisions for them, ability to live on a marriage visa etc etc.
Why would I not crow the delights of something being brought into law that goes some way to telling LGB kids that they are equal to their straight siblings, thus slightly increasing their chance of living long, happy lives?
Exalting from the rooftops. (if that is something it's possible to do) A muted response when people have been fighting for this for decades? When it will save the lives of persecuted teenagers? I don't think so. It is not a 'both sides have their opinion' debate - it is a matter of civil rights. The history books will be just as celebratory as the OP.
3
2
In reply to Conf#2:
I'm not arguing with you - I'm on the same side of the argument (although I'm pretty sure I don't care as much about it). I'm simply explaining why people may have disliked your post.
I'm not arguing with you - I'm on the same side of the argument (although I'm pretty sure I don't care as much about it). I'm simply explaining why people may have disliked your post.
2
1
In reply to Conf#2:
I find it laughable that gay couples have only just been given this right,it's 2015 for gods sake.its just seems so stupid,Why shouldn't gay people have the right to be miserable like the rest of us.
I find it laughable that gay couples have only just been given this right,it's 2015 for gods sake.its just seems so stupid,Why shouldn't gay people have the right to be miserable like the rest of us.
1
1
In reply to Conf#2:
Exactly.
> It is not a 'both sides have their opinion' debate - it is a matter of civil rights.
Exactly.
1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
I'm not sure if it's the tone they'd have disliked so much, more what it's being celebratory about?
> I'm not arguing with you - I'm on the same side of the argument (although I'm pretty sure I don't care as much about it). I'm simply explaining why people may have disliked your post.
I'm not sure if it's the tone they'd have disliked so much, more what it's being celebratory about?
Post edited at 20:26
1
In reply to Timmd:
I reckon I've spent enough time speaking for others on this thread. Like I said, it would be helpful if people justified their use of the dislike facility against the pro-gay marriage posts.
I reckon I've spent enough time speaking for others on this thread. Like I said, it would be helpful if people justified their use of the dislike facility against the pro-gay marriage posts.
2
2
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Perhaps it says something positive if people won't or can't put into words their opposition, that the arguments against it aren't particularly strong?
Perhaps it says something positive if people won't or can't put into words their opposition, that the arguments against it aren't particularly strong?
Post edited at 21:06
3
In reply to Timmd:
I'm not sure if it's the tone they'd have disliked so much, more what it's being celebratory about?
Unfortunately, I think a lot of it is down to people being 'mischievous' and they don't actually care one way or the other about this particular subject or others that they press the Dislike button for.
I rarely use the Like button and only do so when I fully agree with the post.
I never use the Dislike button. What's the point - no one actually knows your viewpoint, which is what this forum is all about. If you disagree with a post, either in its entirety or parts of, then spend a few moments to put that in words and add something to the debate.
I'm not sure if it's the tone they'd have disliked so much, more what it's being celebratory about?
Unfortunately, I think a lot of it is down to people being 'mischievous' and they don't actually care one way or the other about this particular subject or others that they press the Dislike button for.
I rarely use the Like button and only do so when I fully agree with the post.
I never use the Dislike button. What's the point - no one actually knows your viewpoint, which is what this forum is all about. If you disagree with a post, either in its entirety or parts of, then spend a few moments to put that in words and add something to the debate.
2
In reply to Frank4short:
Yes, but the Supreme Court has made clear in judgements on many issues that the interpretation of the law changes as society changes. For example, what might be considered a reasonable punishment in one era might be considered cruel and unusual in another. Hopefully, one day, social views will change such that the death penalty becomes seen as cruel, for example. At that point the Supreme Court will be entitled to declare it illegal without needing a change in the law.
> There's an argument that says courts shouldn't fashion laws. They are just there to interpret them. Changes of this significant a nature shouldn't really be up to the Courts.
Yes, but the Supreme Court has made clear in judgements on many issues that the interpretation of the law changes as society changes. For example, what might be considered a reasonable punishment in one era might be considered cruel and unusual in another. Hopefully, one day, social views will change such that the death penalty becomes seen as cruel, for example. At that point the Supreme Court will be entitled to declare it illegal without needing a change in the law.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...