U.S. Supreme court overturns anti gay marriage laws.

[Vitalius]

However I extend the offer if you would like to PM me

Well, to be perfectly honest, I am fine with homosexuals having those rights. Like, taking care of your partner in the hospital. Making those types of decisions and getting those benefits (taxes and such). Being protected from being fired for being gay and the like.

I'm not fine with calling it marriage though. That delves into the religious side of things, and while I know other religions have their own versions of marriage, where it came from, etc, the US has enough "Christian" tones to it's laws, culture, and other things that it's usually us that decide these things either by vote or by president (I believe 90+% have been Christian, with a couple of Jewish people). 

Plus we are the major majority. Might doesn't make right, but when you are in a person's house, you go by their rules (oversimplification, but it is essentially how it is).

I'm just kinda bothered by all the "sheep". :|

[Pingypoker]

5 to 4?

 

I really can't see how people can be so ignorant. Whatever, at least it passed.

[beebskadoo]

Well, to be perfectly honest, I am fine with homosexuals having those rights. Like, taking care of your partner in the hospital. Making those types of decisions and getting those benefits (taxes and such). Being protected from being fired for being gay and the like.

I'm not fine with calling it marriage though. That delves into the religious side of things, and while I know other religions have their own versions of marriage, where it came from, etc, the US has enough "Christian" tones to it's laws, culture, and other things that it's usually us that decide these things either by vote or by president (I believe 90+% have been Christian, with a couple of Jewish people). 

Plus we are the major majority. Might doesn't make right, but when you are in a person's house, you go by their rules (oversimplification, but it is essentially how it is).

I'm just kinda bothered by all the "sheep". :|

Sorry if i come off kind of harsh, but i'm a bit passionate about certain things. As for in 'someones house' the house was supposed to be free of any sort of majority rule when it came to religion and politics. The founders understood the impact that religion had on politics and set it up to be that way. Many of the founders were Deists but the Judeo-christian presidents definitely outweigh them but that shouldn't matter when it comes to the american political system.

[bluepoodleguy]

Let this society progress itself into disaster-look at history and the fall of empires. Progressive? Feminism has mutated into institutionalized misandry. Respect for minorities had become the tyranny of minorities who demand preferential treatment on the basis of historical inequality. Their agenda is not the call for respect but a simple grab for power. Also this ruling does not nationally legalise gay marriage in America. It grants equal status to gay couples to those states that recognize gay marriage as an example government benefits.

[Vitalius]

Sorry if i come off kind of harsh, but i'm a bit passionate about certain things. As for in 'someones house' the house was supposed to be free of any sort of majority rule when it came to religion and politics. The founders understood the impact that religion had on politics and set it up to be that way. Many of the founders were Deists but the Judeo-christian presidents definitely outweigh them but that shouldn't matter when it comes to the american political system.

It's fine. I don't think you came off as harsh at all.

Yes, that is what the Bill of Rights was for. To protect the Minority from the Majority. However, theory and practice are hardly ever the same. 

In fact, if you really look at the system the forefathers had, it was basically to keep the uneducated populace in check so that the elite (people like them) could lead the nation unhindered. But in this case, the founding fathers *were* the minority. You could even say they made those amendments to protect themselves. Don't get me wrong, they were brilliant and truly cared about the nation, but as James Maddison said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." That includes the leaders. It's built to look like the people are in control, but set up so that power only circulates within the top echelon and rarely deviates from it's path.

Anyway, off topic. 

While it is true that the Bill of Rights prevents certain rights from being abused of the Minority, it only protects those certain rights. 

Let this society progress itself into disaster-look at history and the fall of empires. Progressive? Feminism has mutated into institutionalized misandry. Respect for minorities had become the tyranny of minorities who demand preferential treatment on the basis of historical inequality. Their agenda is not the call for respect but a simple grab for power. Also this ruling does not nationally legalise gay marriage in America. It grants equal status to gay couples to those states that recognize gay marriage as an example government benefits.

Basically what I was trying to say about the ruling.

And yes, this is usually how it goes. History repeats itself infinitely.

[beebskadoo]

Let this society progress itself into disaster-look at history and the fall of empires. Progressive? Feminism has mutated into institutionalized misandry. Respect for minorities had become the tyranny of minorities who demand preferential treatment on the basis of historical inequality. Their agenda is not the call for respect but a simple grab for power. Also this ruling does not nationally legalise gay marriage in America. It grants equal status to gay couples to those states that recognize gay marriage as an example government benefits.

I am certainly not grabbing any sort of power when I demand the same respect as Straight Christians. See where society needs to advance is past prejudice and discrimination, and yeah we have a bit to go but hopefully we can get there someday.

[calarahil]

I am certainly not grabbing any sort of power when I demand the same respect as Straight Christians. See where society needs to advance is past prejudice and discrimination, and yeah we have a bit to go but hopefully we can get there someday.

We are getting there respect wise. I don't think you'll ever get to the point where you'll have religious institutions all in favor of inter gender relationships. But I do think a more respectful society is a happier society

[Calavera]

It's been legal in the Netherlands since 2001, we were the first Country to acknowledge gay marriage - it's never really been a problem for those who don't get obsessed with it.

It's like some people being able to hear noise and some not - those who listen for it can get annoyed by it and protest, but those who don't care, who let them live their life, will not be affected by it ONE BIT.

 

I see a lot of Americans (and other people on this planet) bringing up the argument that it's disgusting and not meant to be that way, but it truly won't affect you unless you go looking for it.

[bluepoodleguy]

I am certainly not grabbing any sort of power when I demand the same respect as Straight Christians. See where society needs to advance is past prejudice and discrimination, and yeah we have a bit to go but hopefully we can get there someday.

Protest all you want natural law is natural law and as for straight Christians getting respect nonsense.As to progress there is no effective alternative to natural law. Historical precedent shows natural law is not the sole preserve of Judeo-Christian theology. From the founder of Buddhism

 

"A life of chastity ... is the road that leadeth to Nirvana.  GAUTAMA BUDDHA, Iti-Vuttaka"

 

"It is because of their corrupt thoughts

That creatures go to Misery."    GAUTAMA BUDDHA, Iti-Vuttaka

 

"The most dangerous thief is unwholesome thought.  GAUTAMA BUDDHA, The Gospel of Buddha"

 

The fall of man?

"Gautama Buddha described the degraded state of the world at the time of the coming of Metteyya, these conditions have been fulfilled today.

Thus, brethren, from goods not being bestowed on the destitute, poverty grew great ..stealing... violence... murder...lying...evil speaking...adultery...abusive and idle talk...covetousness and ill-will...false opinions... incest, wanton greed and perverted lust...till finally lack of filial and religious piety and lack of regard for the head of the clan grew great. From these things growing, the life-span of those beings and the comliness of them wasted.

Among such humans, the ten moral courses on conduct will disappear, the ten immoral courses of action will flourish excessively, there will be no word for moral among such humans - far less any moral agent. Among such humans, brethren, they who lack filial and religious piety, and show no respect for the head clan - It is they whom homage and praise will be given to the filial-minded, to the pious and to them who respect the heads of their clans...

The world will fall into promiscuity, like goats and sheep, fowls and swine, dogs and jackals. Among such humans, brethren, keen mutual enmity will become the rule, keen ill-will, keen animosity, passionate thoughts even of killing, in a mother towards her child. In a child towards mother, in a father towards his child and a child towards his father, in brother to brother, in brother to sister, in sister to brother... " Buddhism as a spiritual teaching is profoundly distinct from moralistic monotheism yet this way of teaching which is based on understanding of the transcendental nature of reality parallels historical western spiritual beliefs. Note the similarities in philosophies that state man must rise above his nature to achieve his highest good.

    These times, these customs. As has been noted before history is cyclical and I guess I'll just have to wait for a new dawn.

 

 

[eshbop]

I'm not fine with calling it marriage though. That delves into the religious side of things, and while I know other religions have their own versions of marriage, where it came from, etc, the US has enough "Christian" tones to it's laws, culture, and other things that it's usually us

that decide these things either by vote or by president (I believe 90+% have been Christian, with a couple of Jewish people). 

See this is the problem. Marriage was never a religious idea, it was around long before the popup of the monotheistic religions, but it's been bastardized and shaped into this sacred sacrament. Why don't we just illegalise divorce and remarriage as well?. The original articulation of the Christian principles of marriage stem from the Old Testament, so why is polygamy now out of the question considering it was the one of the most common arrangements of marriage in the Old Testament? Do we still view wives as being the property of the husband, as they did back then? By your standard, should they make it illegal for atheists to get married?

 

You can't trumpet the horn of marriage being a religious thing when it is obviously so far removed from what it was and follows and holds little of the same meanings. The status of Christmas today could be used as an analogy.

[LinusTech]

Read through this thread and a big gold star to everyone who has kept it from getting derailed and avoided having it turn into a flame war.

 

Stuff like this makes me so proud of this community. Anywhere else this would have been a poop show...

[Vitalius]

It's been legal in the Netherlands since 2001, we were the first Country to acknowledge gay marriage - it's never really been a problem for those who don't get obsessed with it.

It's like some people being able to hear noise and some not - those who listen for it can get annoyed by it and protest, but those who don't care, who let them live their life, will not be affected by it ONE BIT.

 

I see a lot of Americans (and other people on this planet) bringing up the argument that it's disgusting and not meant to be that way, but it truly won't affect you unless you go looking for it.

It affects our society and we are a part of that. By indirect consequence, it affects us.

That which is private most certainly changes the public. Regardless of what people say about it. It may not be noticeable as it's not so obvious, but it's there. All society is is a big culmination of private lives interacting in a public place.

See this is the problem. Marriage was never a religious idea, it was around long before the popup of the monotheistic religions, but it's been bastardized and shaped into this sacred sacrament. Why don't we just illegalise divorce and remarriage as well?. The original articulation of the Christian principles of marriage stem from the Old Testament, so why is polygamy now out of the question considering it was the one of the most common arrangements of marriage in the Old Testament? Do we still view wives as being the property of the husband, as they did back then? By your standard, should they make it illegal for atheists to get married?

 

You can't trumpet the horn of marriage being a religious thing when it is obviously so far removed from what it was and follows and holds little of the same meanings. The status of Christmas today could be used as an analogy.

I believe that's irrelevant. I feel the questions involving the Old Testament and such are a bit of a straw man (where you attack something I am not talking about in a debate). 

Regardless of where marriage really came from, Christianity has made it a major part of it's theology and because of Christianity's major influence in the world's direction up to this point, marriage is often associated with it and other religions like it. I'm not saying that people who get married are automatically religious, or anything like that, but any time marriage is mentioned, things like this come up for this reason. 

You can thank the Catholic Church for that, and specifically the Pope during the 1000-1400's. He was quite powerful then (higher than Kings). 

To be perfectly honest, I simply don't understand why some people advocating this stuff demand it be marriage. Why not just stick with domestic partnership? It's far more akin to what is actually gained by the legal aspect of the contract (essentially what it is). 

It's almost like it's less about unequality and more about getting at religious people in general. At least with what I've seen from some same sex marriage activists. 

Simply put though, the reason I'd prefer it not be called marriage is because, in many respects (though not all), that is associated with religion, and thereby, Christians. Christians are obviously against homosexuality (as it is considered sin), and so that's not exactly good in our eyes. 

I'm tip toeing in this, obviously, but you get the idea. 

[Vitalius]

Read through this thread and a big gold star to everyone who has kept it from getting derailed and avoided having it turn into a flame war.

 

Stuff like this makes me so proud of this community. Anywhere else this would have been a poop show...

:)

I feel like this is just about the only place a conversation like this could take place as it has. 

[Whiskers]

Simply put though, the reason I'd prefer it not be called marriage is because, in many respects (though not all), that is associated with religion, and thereby, Christians. Christians are obviously against homosexuality (as it is considered sin), and so that's not exactly good in our eyes.

Not all Christians think this way. Far from it.

I believe that everyone should be entitled to marry whomever they wish. Otherwise it's unequal.

The idea of marriage is heavily ingrained into our heads from the moment we are born. Television, radio, theatre, literature, art, news, friends, family and others continuously shove it down our throats, really. There is an expectation that when you find someone you love you should marry them.

When I find someone I love, I want to marry him. I do not want to draw unnecessary attention to my sexuality by having a 'civil' or 'domestic partnership'. They both sound so clinical and emotionless, like being given a number rather than a name at birth. Should anyone enquire about my personal life I would want to tell them quite simply 'I'm happily married'.

I don't want to be treated differently. I am a man like any other who happens to be attracted to other men. That shouldn't matter whatsoever, and forbidding us the right to marry is nothing more than segregation, no-matter the reasoning or history behind it.

[beebskadoo]

Read through this thread and a big gold star to everyone who has kept it from getting derailed and avoided having it turn into a flame war.

 

Stuff like this makes me so proud of this community. Anywhere else this would have been a poop show...

Why thank you for providing such a great platform to share beliefs in a more positive way. 

[beebskadoo]

Marriage is defined loosely as a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws(wikipedia) This is the Legal definition of marriage not the religious one. It is the legal definition that I have the rite to. I hold NO religious beliefs and our government doesn't enforce the Religious definition of marriage. So why is it that religious groups are arguing against the Legal definition with something that isn't the same definition. The FDA (food and drug admin.) isn't governed by Jewish Kashrut laws or the Hindu concept of the sacred bull. You don't see those religious groups arguing with the FDA about the way the FDA allows things that are contrary to their beliefs so why argue against the legal definition of marriage?

[Vitalius]

Marriage is defined loosely as a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws(wikipedia) This is the Legal definition of marriage not the religious one. It is the legal definition that I have the rite to. I hold NO religious beliefs and our government doesn't enforce the Religious definition of marriage. So why is it that religious groups are arguing against the Legal definition with something that isn't the same definition. The FDA (food and drug admin.) isn't governed by Jewish Kashrut laws or the Hindu concept of the sacred bull. You don't see those religious groups arguing with the FDA about the way the FDA allows things that are contrary to their beliefs so why argue against the legal definition of marriage?

You make a good point, but that's not what we (people against same sex marriage for religious/moral reasons) are focused on at all. I did bring that up earlier, but my point in doing so was to show that, as far as the law is concerned, everyone, on an individual basis, has the same rights and these rights are effectively equal in that love and the like isn't considered in the law. Both homo and heterosexual men and women can effectively marry the same people. Whether they love them or not is of no consequence because I'm more than certain many people have been married, legally, and not been in love.

If we consider them as couples (a single entity) versus two individuals (two different entities), then a homosexual couple and a heterosexual one don't have the same rights. But then I don't think we can say "I want to be entitled to marry whoever I want." because that's an individual statement about yourself, as Whiskers said (though I paraphrased a bit). 

"So why is it that religious groups are arguing against the Legal definition with something that isn't the same definition?" I would say because religious people would rather have the government enforce the religious definition alongside the legal one, and, for the most part, religious people are the ones with the greatest numbers (and almost effectively, power) in the US.

 

[beebskadoo]

You make a good point, but that's not what we (people against same sex marriage for religious/moral reasons) are focused on at all. I did bring that up earlier, but my point in doing so was to show that, as far as the law is concerned, everyone, on an individual basis, has the same rights and these rights are effectively equal in that love and the like isn't considered in the law. Both homo and heterosexual men and women can effectively marry the same people. Whether they love them or not is of no consequence because I'm more than certain many people have been married, legally, and not been in love.

If we consider them as couples (a single entity) versus two individuals (two different entities), then a homosexual couple and a heterosexual one don't have the same rights. But then I don't think we can say "I want to be entitled to marry whoever I want." because that's an individual statement about yourself, as Whiskers said (though I paraphrased a bit). 

"So why is it that religious groups are arguing against the Legal definition with something that isn't the same definition?" I would say because religious people would rather have the government enforce the religious definition alongside the legal one, and, for the most part, religious people are the ones with the greatest numbers (and almost effectively, power) in the US.

 

You make a good point, but that's not what we (people against same sex marriage for religious/moral reasons) are focused on at all. Well the vast majority is focused on the fact that they believe it's a sin and allowing such things in our government would evoke the wrath of their supposed god. THAT IS what most religious individuals and religious bodies against Gay marriage state is what they believe and why they oppose it. Just because you believe the contrary doesn't mean that it is true, and in MY experience and the experience of pretty much everyone else say the opposite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Ohio These are the supposed Equal rights you speak of. I have signed petitions and been to Gay pride events where religious groups have protested and have argued with them and many folks on the web and i can certainly say all of them were using The Bible's teaching as reasoning for opposition. 

[Vitalius]

I'm not worried about the "wrath of God". That was satisfied by Jesus' sacrifice. Not the point though.

I oppose it for my own reasons. Though they aren't too dissimilar to the one you mentioned.

I read the wiki link. I see exactly what I said. You have just as much right to marry the same people I do. Women. We have the same rights, effectively. Love irrelevant. If we can both do the exact same things, (marry women in this case), we have the same rights. I can't marry a man no more than you can. My desire to, once again, irrelevant.

That's the individual take on it. The couple one is different. But any argument I've heard that the rights are unequal is an individuals argument. 

[beebskadoo]

I'm not worried about the "wrath of God". That was satisfied by Jesus' sacrifice. Not the point though.

I oppose it for my own reasons. Though they aren't too dissimilar to the one you mentioned.

I read the wiki link. I see exactly what I said. You have just as much right to marry the same people I do. Women. We have the same rights, effectively. Love irrelevant. If we can both do the exact same things, (marry women in this case), we have the same rights. I can't marry a man no more than you can. My desire to, once again, irrelevant.

That's the individual take on it. The couple one is different. But any argument I've heard that the rights are unequal is an individuals argument. 

Would you like to point me to some sort of media you use or have created (preferably video, i don't have a lot of time to read) so i can actually better understand your stance on this? 

[Vitalius]

Would you like to point me to some sort of media you use or have created (preferably video, i don't have a lot of time to read) so i can actually better understand your stance on this? 

Simple answer:

I'm for the tax, and care aspects of marriage to apply to homosexual couples and for homosexuals in general being protected from discrimination (you being fired for being gay) because I believe that is wrong.

I'm against same sex marriage and homosexuality in general because I believe it is wrong.

 

[beebskadoo]

I'm not worried about the "wrath of God". That was satisfied by Jesus' sacrifice. Not the point though.

I oppose it for my own reasons. Though they aren't too dissimilar to the one you mentioned.

I read the wiki link. I see exactly what I said. You have just as much right to marry the same people I do. Women. We have the same rights, effectively. Love irrelevant. If we can both do the exact same things, (marry women in this case), we have the same rights. I can't marry a man no more than you can. My desire to, once again, irrelevant.

That's the individual take on it. The couple one is different. But any argument I've heard that the rights are unequal is an individuals argument. 

See, though the legal definition doesn't include love i believe that government shouldn't be involved in making these sorts of decisions when it comes to marriage. But there are a group of people that have benefits that i cannot attain. I am GAY, I am in no way attracted to women or to the thought of marriage to a omen. It's sort of like giving tax breaks to mothers who have had children while married but not to those who have children outside of marriage. This isn't a thing(to my knowledge) 

[beebskadoo]

Simple answer:

I'm for the tax, and care aspects of marriage to apply to homosexual couples and for homosexuals in general being protected from discrimination (you being fired for being gay) because I believe that is wrong.

I'm against same sex marriage and homosexuality in general because I believe it is wrong.

 

So you believe it should be called something other than marriage, what about something called  'Rainbow-sparkly fabulous union?' that has the same rights but called something different?

[Vitalius]

So you believe it should be called something other than marriage, what about something called  'Rainbow-sparkly fabulous union?' that has the same rights but called something different?

Essentially, yes. For us, saying marriage ties it to God (in the sense of, it's "ok"). I doubt it does for others, at least directly, but eh. Not the point.

[beebskadoo]

Essentially, yes. For us, saying marriage ties it to God (in the sense of, it's "ok"). I doubt it does for others, at least directly, but eh. Not the point.

Ok, But the modern definition is completely different than the biblical one. Because a Father isn't being payed in order for his virgin daughter to be wed...