Does it make sense though? The arguments people put forth (about drawing some kind of line in the sand) are the same straw man fallacies that were trotted out to try to prevent interracial marriages 50 years ago.
...and Catholics marrying Protestants a generation before that.
As somebody who somewhat dislikes the concept of marriage period, if I was gay I wouldn't even care about this decision. In half of states right now you can be fired for being gay and have no legal recourse... and you can be denied rent because your landlord doesn't like gay people. This is an infinitely larger problem than not being able to marry. It's not like Loving v. Virginia where an interracial couple were thrown in jail.
All this rainbow garbage I'm seeing across the internet thinking this has all been wrapped in a bow when, as far as gays who don't care about marriage are concerned, nothing has changed.
Maybe, maybe not.
As a straight person the option as always been there for you. I'm not a big marriage guy either, but if it wasn't an option for other people in our country but not for me I'd be pretty darn upset. Maybe I wouldn't get married after the fact but it would be nice to be seen as equals.
Does it make sense though? The arguments people put forth (about drawing some kind of line in the sand) are the same straw man fallacies that were trotted out to try to prevent interracial marriages 50 years ago.
Sort of. I mean it's a somewhat easier argue that "marriage is between a man and a woman regardless of race" than it is to say "marriage is between any two human beings". It's easier to take off running with the latter saying "what's next?" versus the former which, while radical, is less of a complete rewrite of what's traditionally considered to be a marriage.
Maybe I wouldn't get married after the fact but it would be nice to be seen as equals.
Yeah, that's the problem. Gays are not yet seen as equals in federal law and can be freely discriminated against unless state legislation prohibits it. Fourteenth amendment does nothing for them.
That's why I made the post... this SCOTUS decision is semantics really and all it effectively does is allow the odd tax benefit for gay couples here and there. They sorta skipped the important step.
Yeah, that's the problem. Gays are not yet seen as equals in federal law and can be freely discriminated against unless state legislation prohibits it. Fourteenth amendment does nothing for them.
That's why I made the post... this SCOTUS decision is semantics really and all it effectively does is allow the odd tax benefit for gay couples here and there. They sorta skipped the important step.
I can't be the only one who is actually for this, am I? I fail to see what the big deal it. It's been dragged through the mud because of correlation to cults and groups that have abused the idea but if a guy loves a handful of women and they love him and like the set up, more power to them. Ditto if the sexes are versed, or same'd. It shouldn't be about control, abuse, power but no marriage should be. Marry a buttload of people, go on!
The problem with polygamy is the benefits that go along with being married. You can't have people marrying multiple partners and collecting multiple tax benefits, social benefits, death benefits etc.
This is true. Given the recency of the SCOTUS decision I assumed we were kinda talking about the US. In Canada it pretty much is wrapped up in a bow so there's not much to talk about.
But this...
I'd rather somebody tell me I couldn't marry a white girl than fire me for being black. That statement sounds ridiculous only because I turned it to race, but in terms of sexual orientation that is equivalent to the discrimination permitted in the grey states above. USA = wtf.
Since I'm not going to raise a stink over this with my FB friends, I'll post my response here.
Ok, you still love them...in your strange, neglectful, exclusionary way.
No, chances are if you are excluding them from the same rights as you I doubt you are still friends.
Yes, judging them is precisely what you are doing.
Yes, you are in fact condemning them to hell if you are indeed a Christian and believe the Bible. Contrary to popular practice, you do not get to pick and choose which parts and parables fit into your lifestyle and personal choices of what a Christian is.
Yes, you will allow people to bully them. You are doing it in this image by disregarding them as persons with equal access to the rights and privileges you currently enjoy.
Of course you're entitled to your own opinion, but when it's so fundamentally flawed, contradictory, and generally dangerous and unhealthy it is very difficult to consider seriously. This was never an attack on faith, this was a push towards progressing our social environment. Do not act as though some backlash from a small, vocal, aggressive segment of supporters is akin to the oppression these individuals have faced, being rendered at best invisible and at worst criminal within as recently as 1969 in Canada.
And besides, this isn't something that homosexuals believe according to their homosexual manual. It is an embrace of love, acceptance, equality, and logic, and is as much or more in accordance with nature and natural law than an opinion or choice.
/rant. Thanks for the cathartic release, CP.
__________________ "It's a great day for hockey."
-'Badger' Bob Johnson (1931-1991)
"I see as much misery out of them moving to justify theirselves as them that set out to do harm." -Dr. Amos "Doc" Cochran
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Yamer For This Useful Post:
The problem with polygamy is the benefits that go along with being married. You can't have people marrying multiple partners and collecting multiple tax benefits, social benefits, death benefits etc.
Sounds likes something a Republican would do.
When society decides something needs to be done and a social shift happens the old timers have a problem. What about interracial relationships? The same crap was said. Slavery. Same crap.
Last edited by calgarybornnraised; 06-29-2015 at 10:11 PM.
Sounds likes something a Republican would do.
When society decides something needs to be done and a social shift happens the old timers have a problem. What about interracial relationships? The same crap was said. Slavery. Same crap.
That's all totally different. I'm talking about actual monetary benefits. In some jurisdictions you would allow certain beneficial claims on a per wife basis. There are over a thousand different benefits allowed to married couples. Altering all of them is impractical as well as impossibly unfair. My personal morality on polygamy is that it's inherently unfair and manipulative. But that practicality of it is why it should remain illegal.
I was never against gay marriage or gays generally, although I used to have the "I don't like seeing them do it in public" attitude. This was in the late 90s when I was 16-20. I distinctly remember when it first came to be discussed publicly, I thought to myself "I don't care, I won't vote for it, but I won't vote against it". By 2004, I had totally changed my mind (it was well before that, but I remember the election being a line in the sand for me), and it became the only time in my life that I voted Liberal in a federal election. I just couldn't believe that the CPCs were against it. From then on I've been a staunch advocate.
That's all totally different. I'm talking about actual monetary benefits. In some jurisdictions you would allow certain beneficial claims on a per wife basis. There are over a thousand different benefits allowed to married couples. Altering all of them is impractical as well as impossibly unfair. My personal morality on polygamy is that it's inherently unfair and manipulative. But that practicality of it is why it should remain illegal.
yeah, I'm totally with you on the first part. It's a logistical nightmare to allow polygamy which is why I would be "against" it. Although, if someone could demonstrate it could work I'd be all ears.
My morality on it is, if you can demonstrate that all parties are consenting adults and are under no duress, then who am I to judge. The problem is, so many of the polygamists have child incest brides and whatnot that it's just a cluster-eff.
I didn't realize how conservative I was until I met my girlfriend who's from Ontario, especially in regards to social issues (was never against gay marriage, but also had the "as long as I don't see it" attitude, which also included PDA's from straight folks too). I'm happy to say I've shaken that and applaud when I see two people kissing, it's a sign of love in a world that is still full of hate, intolerance, and violence. No need to be stuck in the past about these things, and especially in the old-timer crap of our parent and grandparent generations.
I can't say the same about religion though, as I get older I get more and more sick and tired of their crap.
For me personally, I've always wondered why a "same sex marriage" couldn't just find a different term to use and reclaim as their own. I have no problems giving them all the rights and consequences that go with marriage.
If a different term is used, wouldn't it shut up lots of people on both sides? Especially the ones that won't stop about how marriage is a religious concept, yet neglect the idea that marriage popped up in cultures around the planet. Some of them "pagan" (Hate that word, literally means idiot in ancient times IIRC), and some of them not really considered religion at all (Asia). I've also curiously asked whether a same sex couple would be satisfied if they were granted common law marriages (somewhat similar to regular marriages? and also done with hetero couples) with essentially the same benefits of marriage, but I was yelled at and called a homophobe. I've never been happy with that interaction, so never bothered to learn more about why same sex couples wanted "marriage" so badly. I wouldn't mind an answer to this question to be honest... still curious... I haven't heard a logical reason for it, just sorta felt the person I spoke to just wanted it to say they have it too and not for the legal reasons I had heard other talk about it.
For me, I've never really been against it, but I guess the whole marriage debate thing drove me up the wall. Why argue with religious people about the definition of the word, when you can just create a new word and idea similar to it?
I say yes to same sex marriages (But if we could use a term not marriage, that would be even better) because I've heard of the stories of the life long partners who literally could not visit a sick and dying lover because either the family would not allow them and/or they weren't "family" by legal terms. No one should have to go through being denied seeing someone they love very much for the last time.
For me personally, I've always wondered why a "same sex marriage" couldn't just find a different term to use and reclaim as their own. I have no problems giving them all the rights and consequences that go with marriage.
If a different term is used, wouldn't it shut up lots of people on both sides? Especially the ones that won't stop about how marriage is a religious concept, yet neglect the idea that marriage popped up in cultures around the planet. Some of them "pagan" (Hate that word, literally means idiot in ancient times IIRC), and some of them not really considered religion at all (Asia). I've also curiously asked whether a same sex couple would be satisfied if they were granted common law marriages (somewhat similar to regular marriages? and also done with hetero couples) with essentially the same benefits of marriage, but I was yelled at and called a homophobe. I've never been happy with that interaction, so never bothered to learn more about why same sex couples wanted "marriage" so badly. I wouldn't mind an answer to this question to be honest... still curious... I haven't heard a logical reason for it, just sorta felt the person I spoke to just wanted it to say they have it too and not for the legal reasons I had heard other talk about it.
For me, I've never really been against it, but I guess the whole marriage debate thing drove me up the wall. Why argue with religious people about the definition of the word, when you can just create a new word and idea similar to it?
I say yes to same sex marriages (But if we could use a term not marriage, that would be even better) because I've heard of the stories of the life long partners who literally could not visit a sick and dying lover because either the family would not allow them and/or they weren't "family" by legal terms. No one should have to go through being denied seeing someone they love very much for the last time.
You mean Cival Unions? Yeah, that didn't really fly.
Gay people want to be equal, that's what it boils down to. Creating a different isn't equal, religious people and groups don't have a monopoly on the word marriage, it really is that simple.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
For me personally, I've always wondered why a "same sex marriage" couldn't just find a different term to use and reclaim as their own. I have no problems giving them all the rights and consequences that go with marriage.
If a different term is used, wouldn't it shut up lots of people on both sides? Especially the ones that won't stop about how marriage is a religious concept, yet neglect the idea that marriage popped up in cultures around the planet. Some of them "pagan" (Hate that word, literally means idiot in ancient times IIRC), and some of them not really considered religion at all (Asia). I've also curiously asked whether a same sex couple would be satisfied if they were granted common law marriages (somewhat similar to regular marriages? and also done with hetero couples) with essentially the same benefits of marriage, but I was yelled at and called a homophobe. I've never been happy with that interaction, so never bothered to learn more about why same sex couples wanted "marriage" so badly. I wouldn't mind an answer to this question to be honest... still curious... I haven't heard a logical reason for it, just sorta felt the person I spoke to just wanted it to say they have it too and not for the legal reasons I had heard other talk about it.
A good question, and it's almost how I used to think as well. The problem is, it's not just about the legal definitions and implications. At the end of the day the issue is simple; homosexuals want, and deserve, to be treated equally. The whole 'Call it something else, we had the name first" thing only serves to alienate people more, causing more resentment and more issues.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to btimbit For This Useful Post:
Why argue with religious people about the definition of the word, when you can just create a new word and idea similar to it?
There isn't really a coherent "religious people" demographic. Different religions groups have (and have always had) different opinions about what marriage means.
If we are going to pander religious people, which specific group of them should we pander to?
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
