Gay Marriage legalized in the United States

Maybe it might have been a better idea to move this thread to Serious Discussions at this point.

mis wrote

Maybe it might have been a better idea to move this thread to Serious Discussions at this point.

Maybe. But I've said everything I have to say.
Forcing someone to do something against this persons will is as bad as keeping someone out.
I would advocate that churches should marry homosexual people, because of obvious reasons. But I'm not into forcing them to do.

biokouwr wrote
mis wrote

Maybe it might have been a better idea to move this thread to Serious Discussions at this point.

Maybe. But I've said everything I have to say.
Forcing someone to do something against this persons will is as bad as keeping someone out.
I would advocate that churches should marry homosexual people, because of obvious reasons. But I'm not into forcing them to do.

There's a wicked bad flaw about this but I'm really weary about pointing it out because, again, I've been noticing the mods here get in a knot about things really quickly, Missu. It makes any kind of branching discussion difficult at best.

Waifu wrote

There's a wicked bad flaw about this but I'm really weary about pointing it out because, again, I've been noticing the mods here get in a knot about things really quickly, Missu.

The flaw would probably be what would go first: The right of not doing something or the right of not being excluded because of superficial things.

Waifu wrote
biokouwr wrote
mis wrote

Maybe it might have been a better idea to move this thread to Serious Discussions at this point.

Maybe. But I've said everything I have to say.
Forcing someone to do something against this persons will is as bad as keeping someone out.
I would advocate that churches should marry homosexual people, because of obvious reasons. But I'm not into forcing them to do.

There's a wicked bad flaw about this but I'm really weary about pointing it out because, again, I've been noticing the mods here get in a knot about things really quickly, Missu. It makes any kind of branching discussion difficult at best.

I'm particularly okay with discussion like this, as long as it doesn't blatantly attack or offend someone on purpose. I'm actually glad that people are taking this thread more seriously than I intended it to be.

biokouwr wrote
Waifu wrote

There's a wicked bad flaw about this but I'm really weary about pointing it out because, again, I've been noticing the mods here get in a knot about things really quickly, Missu.

The flaw would probably be what would go first: The right of not doing something or the right of not being excluded because of superficial things.

I'm not sure what you mean. Is tired.
Essentially what's going down is subjectivity of justice. Justice is dominated by morality, which in turn is completely subjective.

So I have to appeal to your morality.

Is denying service to someone because they are black/asian/etc. acceptable in an establishment? Is it wrong to force the person who is turning them down to provide them with service? Considering the fact that homosexuality has already been proven to be, well, ingrained, it's as much a choice as it is a black man's choice to be black or a Chinese man's choice to be Chinese. It's with this logic that I find denial of service unacceptable.

Waifu wrote

I'm not sure what you mean. Is tired.
Essentially what's going down is subjectivity of justice. Justice is dominated by morality, which in turn is completely subjective.

So I have to appeal to your morality.

Is denying service to someone because they are black/asian/etc. acceptable in an establishment? Is it wrong to force the person who is turning them down to provide them with service? Considering the fact that homosexuality has already been proven to be, well, ingrained, it's as much a choice as it is a black man's choice to be black or a Chinese man's choice to be Chinese. It's with this logic that I find denial of service unacceptable.

I said it in my early posts. Excluding someone because of those reasons is an act of injustice.
But I do think, that forcing a not-governmental (sorry for being unclear here) person to act against their will (marring gay people or here serving black/asian/white etc. people) is also not okay.
Don't get me wrong: Someone who would do that is an asshole.

I'm just not into forcing people to do stuff they don't agree with.

Also. This equation is a bit flawed, as racism can not be equalized with an unwillingness to marry gay people.
Racism is motivated by tribalism (as far I know) while the unwillingness of to marry gay people stems from (1) the idea that marriage is a commitment of men and women (as human can only reproduce in this formation) to create and nurture the next generation of humans.

1: here again, as far I know. Should this not apply that may be a complete different situation; inform me if you want.

biokouwr wrote
Waifu wrote

I'm not sure what you mean. Is tired.
Essentially what's going down is subjectivity of justice. Justice is dominated by morality, which in turn is completely subjective.

So I have to appeal to your morality.

Is denying service to someone because they are black/asian/etc. acceptable in an establishment? Is it wrong to force the person who is turning them down to provide them with service? Considering the fact that homosexuality has already been proven to be, well, ingrained, it's as much a choice as it is a black man's choice to be black or a Chinese man's choice to be Chinese. It's with this logic that I find denial of service unacceptable.

I said it in my early posts. Excluding someone because of those reasons is an act of injustice.
But I do think, that forcing a not-governmental (sorry for being unclear here) person to act against their will (marring gay people or here serving black/asian/white etc. people) is also not okay.
Don't get me wrong: Someone who would do that is an asshole.

I'm just not into forcing people to do stuff they don't agree with.

Also. This equation is a bit flawed, as racism can not be equalized with an unwillingness to marry gay people.
Racism is motivated by tribalism (as far I know) while the unwillingness of to marry gay people stems from (1) the idea that marriage is a commitment of men and women (as human can only reproduce in this formation) to create and nurture the next generation of humans.

1: here again, as far I know. Should this not apply that may be a complete different situation; inform me if you want.

It's not flawed and can be equalized quite easily in the manner that I just stated.

A black man is black because of their genes.
A homosexual is a homosexual because of their genes.

Yes, they're both not racist, but then that'd be saying misogyny/misandry is okay because it's not racist. It's still a discriminatory class of equal caliber by definition.

This is essentially how it goes down: If it's your personal property you own it and it belongs to you and it interferes with no one? Fine. Totes McTotes fine. Kinda like how I don't like people in my house. Fuck off, I don't need people here and no one can make me let people in.

However, a church is a public establishment, one that I do not believe is even owned by anyone in particular. A holyman is just a pretentious staff member, and anyone who thinks different is a bit loopy. Therefor lies the question:

Does the church accept money for a union?

If so, this is a denial of service and is unacceptable. Note that I'm not even using my definition or morality, but simply the that of, well, capitalism, which is what our loving USA thrives upon.

Waifu wrote

It's not flawed and can be equalized quite easily in the manner that I just stated.

A black man is black because of their genes.
A homosexual is a homosexual because of their genes.

Yes, they're both not racist, but then that'd be saying misogyny/misandry is okay because it's not racist. It's still a discriminatory class of equal caliber by definition.

Just because something comes from the same place does not mean, that it is handled the same.
You have to look at the motivation behind it. And I see a difference in there with racism and an unwillingness of to marry gay people.
Please tell me if I got this motivation wrong.

However, a church is a public establishment, one that I do not believe is even owned by anyone in particular. A holyman is just a pretentious staff member, and anyone who thinks different is a bit loopy. Therefor lies the question:

Does the Church accept money for a union?
If so, this is a denial of service and is unacceptable. Note that I'm not even using my definition or morality, but simply the that of, well, capitalism, which is what our loving USA thrives upon.

Is the Church in the USA governmental? Then yes.

I don't know how it's in the USA, but German Churches collect donations.

You also have to think about the conditions Churches make to get the service.
They want that a couple has a male and a female part. Forcing them to ignore their demands on a couple is wrong.
It's not like you can only get married by Church.

biokouwr wrote
Waifu wrote

It's not flawed and can be equalized quite easily in the manner that I just stated.

A black man is black because of their genes.
A homosexual is a homosexual because of their genes.

Yes, they're both not racist, but then that'd be saying misogyny/misandry is okay because it's not racist. It's still a discriminatory class of equal caliber by definition.

Just because something comes from the same place does not mean, that it is handled the same.
You have to look at the motivation behind it. And I see a difference in there with racism and an unwillingness of to marry gay people.
Please tell me if I got this motivation wrong.

However, a church is a public establishment, one that I do not believe is even owned by anyone in particular. A holyman is just a pretentious staff member, and anyone who thinks different is a bit loopy. Therefor lies the question:

Does the Church accept money for a union?
If so, this is a denial of service and is unacceptable. Note that I'm not even using my definition or morality, but simply the that of, well, capitalism, which is what our loving USA thrives upon.

Is the Church in the USA governmental? Then yes.

I don't know how it's in the USA, but German Churches collect donations.

You also have to think about the conditions Churches make to get the service.
They want that a couple has a male and a female part. Forcing them to ignore their demands on a couple is wrong.
It's not like you can only get married by Church.

You were just making a case that they came from different origins, to which I pointed out they have different end results, then you mistakenly said that they had the same origins in thinking that was my intention. So a bit scrambled there.

I'm assuming you're asking if the chuch is with our government. It's foggy at best. For all the bluster and chants that we get that the church and government is separate, it's been proven quite a few times that it most certainly is not.

What 'conditions'?

And again your view on justice, to me, is fundamentally flawed by our standard, which leads me to believe we're at an impasse.

Waifu wrote
biokouwr wrote
Waifu wrote

It's not flawed and can be equalized quite easily in the manner that I just stated.

A black man is black because of their genes.
A homosexual is a homosexual because of their genes.

Yes, they're both not racist, but then that'd be saying misogyny/misandry is okay because it's not racist. It's still a discriminatory class of equal caliber by definition.

Just because something comes from the same place does not mean, that it is handled the same.
You have to look at the motivation behind it. And I see a difference in there with racism and an unwillingness of to marry gay people.
Please tell me if I got this motivation wrong.

However, a church is a public establishment, one that I do not believe is even owned by anyone in particular. A holyman is just a pretentious staff member, and anyone who thinks different is a bit loopy. Therefor lies the question:

Does the Church accept money for a union?
If so, this is a denial of service and is unacceptable. Note that I'm not even using my definition or morality, but simply the that of, well, capitalism, which is what our loving USA thrives upon.

Is the Church in the USA governmental? Then yes.

I don't know how it's in the USA, but German Churches collect donations.

You also have to think about the conditions Churches make to get the service.
They want that a couple has a male and a female part. Forcing them to ignore their demands on a couple is wrong.
It's not like you can only get married by Church.

You were just making a case that they came from different origins, to which I pointed out they have different end results, then you mistakenly said that they had the same origins in thinking that was my intention. So a bit scrambled there.

I'm assuming you're asking if the chuch is with our government. It's foggy at best. For all the bluster and chants that we get that the church and government is separate, it's been proven quite a few times that it most certainly is not.

What 'conditions'?

And again your view on justice, to me, is fundamentally flawed by our standard, which leads me to believe we're at an impasse.

I think my formulation was a bit unclear. The origin I talked about was that it was decided by the genes.

>I'm assuming you're asking if the chuch is with our government. It's foggy at best. For all the bluster and chants that we get that the >church and government is separate, it's been proven quite a few times that it most certainly is not.
Okay. I don't know that. I'm not from the USA.

>What 'conditions'?
That the couple, that is married by the church is one of a male and a female, because humans can only reproduce in this formation. While I think that this is a spurious argument the church is allowed to have that view and select the couples to this view.

It should be clear that I support gay marriage but I also think that no pastor should be forced (by the state) to marry them if they don't want to do this.

PS: I would advocate that churches should marry homosexual people, because of obvious reasons. But I'm not into forcing them to do.

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.