Gay Marriage legalized in the United States

Saikou wrote

snip

"An ability, desire, or promise to procreate is not and has not been a prerequisite for a valid marriage"
If it was, it'd be incredibly stupid. 'Oh, you're infertile/unwilling to have kids? Too bad, you don't get to marry.'

"If rights were defined my who exercised them in the past, then received practices could serve as their own continued justification and new groups could not invoke rights one denied."
I agree with this. If you give rights only to the people who originally had them, you're not going to get anywhere. Women's suffrage, black people having right at all, et cetera are some good examples.

I really don't see the problem with legalizing marriage that doesn't have the clear intent to procreate. It's just two people that love each other. Also, allowing couples that are unable to procreate to marry !== legalizing incestous marriage.
Unless I misread that.

EDIT: Some quick snippets from the ruling that defend the results.

"The history of marriage as a union between two persons of the opposite sex marks the beginning of these cases. To the respondents, if would demean a timeless institution if marriage were extended to same-sex couples. But the petitioners, far from seeking to devalue marriege, seek it for themselves because of their respect - and need - for its privileges and responsibilities"
People in married couples get benefits. This ruling spreads these benefits to more couples.

"The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. Changes, such as the decline of arranged marriages and the abandonment of the law of coverture, have worked deem transformations in the structure of marriage, affecting aspects of marriage once viewed as essential. These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the insitution. Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations."
Yes, just because change worked before it doesn't mean it'll work now, but claiming changing marriage would necessarily diminish its value it untrue. Learning from patterns in history is important.

More noise kicked up to hide TPP, just like the idiotic rebel flag ban.

The sad thing is that I can almost guarantee this red herring tactic will be extremely effective against most of America.

2 months later

8784
hurch counts as a service much how you'd expect from, say, a restaurant or a barber
shop? Then no, it's not good to let them choose because that's basically discrimination.
In fact, it's discrimination on both counts, but it becomes illegal once it's a
service.

Forcing churches to marry gays would be an affront on religous freedom... it's pretty clear how Christianty views homos, people shouldn't be forced to cooperate with what they see as sin, and if you try and force them, bad things will happen.

wyrda wrote

8784
hurch counts as a service much how you'd expect from, say, a restaurant or a barber
 shop? Then no, it's not good to let them choose because that's basically discrimination.
 In fact, it's discrimination on both counts, but it becomes illegal once it's a
 service.

Forcing churches to marry gays would be an affront on religous freedom... it's pretty clear how Christianty views homos, people shouldn't be forced to cooperate with what they see as sin, and if you try and force them, bad things will happen.

Kim Davis comes to mind.

17494
how did this amazing thread become alive again

it's okay to bump old threads if it continues the discussion. it's only shitposting in old threads that is bad.

To me it's pretty simple, the government shouldn't have anything to do with a religious cermony (sepereation of church and state, eh?). Gays should be allowed to married, because it has nothing to do with the state, but no priest or priestess should be forced to wed faggots. I don't really get why homosexuals would want to take part in a religious cermony (within the abrahamic religions) which condemns their way of life. Gay marriage shouldn't be a matter of legal or illegal, it ought to be between the couple and the religious or spiritual constituancy which they decide to belong to. Civil unions however, ought to be readily availbile to people regardless of sexual orientation.

Em. wrote

To me it's pretty simple, the government shouldn't have anything to do with a religious cermony (sepereation of church and state, eh?). Gays should be allowed to married, because it has nothing to do with the state, but no priest or priestess should be forced to wed faggots. I don't really get why homosexuals would want to take part in a religious cermony (within the abrahamic religions) which condemns their way of life. Gay marriage shouldn't be a matter of legal or illegal, it ought to be between the couple and the religious or spiritual constituancy which they decide to belong to. Civil unions however, ought to be readily availbile to people regardless of sexual orientation.

I could be wrong here, but I think marriage currently warrants the benefits of a legally wed couple over just a close relationship between the two, which isn't legally binding.

mis wrote
Em. wrote

To me it's pretty simple, the government shouldn't have anything to do with a religious cermony (sepereation of church and state, eh?). Gays should be allowed to married, because it has nothing to do with the state, but no priest or priestess should be forced to wed faggots. I don't really get why homosexuals would want to take part in a religious cermony (within the abrahamic religions) which condemns their way of life. Gay marriage shouldn't be a matter of legal or illegal, it ought to be between the couple and the religious or spiritual constituancy which they decide to belong to. Civil unions however, ought to be readily availbile to people regardless of sexual orientation.

I could be wrong here, but I think marriage currently warrants the benefits of a legally wed couple over just a close relationship between the two, which isn't legally binding.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned civil unions which gives the same tax-breaks and benefits of marriage, as far as I know.