High stakes as Supreme Court considers same-sex marriage case

[Marisa]

They shouldn't be allowed to marry. Anymore than a man can marry a toaster. He can love his toaster, but it isn't a marriage.

Who's harmed when two dudes or two chicks marry? Who's harmed if someone marries a toaster? What rights do you lose when any of those situations occur?

What constitutes a marriage is completely dependent upon the individuals entering into a contract to share their lives. We are all ecstatic at the notion that you will get to define that word for yourself, and that the only other person you need to consider is your spouse. Most of us don't give a flying fart in space whether that spouse has the same parts you do, or not.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I can't believe our country is ignoring thousands of years of family law and throwing itself off a cliff.

This is a vote to expand the privacy of the individual. You're not being asked to retract your concept of family.

 

[Jainarayan]

Look around the world and history.

I do, and gay marriage is the least of its problems. Dictating how other people should live their lives when it's no one else's concern is a super-duper big problem, if you know what I mean.

 

[Akivah]

Commited relationships deserve both social and legal recognition. It is really simple as that.

They already have it, their legal arrangements just shouldn't be called a marriage. It's that simple.

 

[Akivah]

I hope you realize how insulting your comparison of genuine love to "loving a toaster" is. Just because your ancient religious beliefs are against homosexuality doesn't mean that homosexuals shouldn't have the right to marry those they love. Maybe we should consider outlawing archaic myths instead of loving relationships between consenting adults.

I'm not the person in this thread that first mentioned loving a toaster.

Homosexuals do have the right to be with the person they love. There is no reason to change the definition of marriage to accommodate their beliefs.

 

[Revoltingest]

They already have it, their legal arrangements just shouldn't be called a marriage. It's that simple.

Not so simple. Marriage has more complexities than the alternative, eg, dower rights, hospital visitation rights.

 

[metis]

We should remember that here in the States, since we're officially a secular society, "marriage" is a legal term. Because that's its nature here, and because it deals with the issue of legal rights, gay marriages should be recognized, imo, unless it can be objectively established that it causes harm.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm not the person in this thread that first mentioned loving a toaster.

Homosexuals do have the right to be with the person they love. There is no reason to change the definition of marriage to accommodate their beliefs.

Ancient myths don't have a monopoly on the definition of marriage. If you want to believe in one specific definition based on your own beliefs, that's fine, but don't try to take away people's rights because their freedoms don't suit your fancy.

 

[LuisDantas]

They already have it, their legal arrangements just shouldn't be called a marriage. It's that simple.

I can't support or approve of such destructive discrimination. Nor should anyone, really.

Marriages have a role to fulfill. They are supposed to support legitimacy, recognition, families and rights.

There is no excuse for denying same sex marriages their recognition.

 

[Marisa]

They already have it, their legal arrangements just shouldn't be called a marriage. It's that simple.

Religion doesn't own marriage. It's been around much longer than any specific rite built around the concept. You just need to get over that fact.

 

[Marisa]

I'm not the person in this thread that first mentioned loving a toaster.

Homosexuals do have the right to be with the person they love. There is no reason to change the definition of marriage to accommodate their beliefs.

The toaster comment was mine, and the point of it was that it's none of your damn business what consenting adults do or how they structure their lives. Marriage is a word that has been continuously redefined just among the Abrahmic tradition. Take a peek through any Abrahamic text and look at all the ways this union is described: one man and one woman, one man and as many women as he can convince to marry him, one man and his female slaves, for instance.

Polyandry, which is still practiced in some places, is the union of one WOMAN and many men. And I'm sure you get that polygamy is very much still a "thang".

You never did answer how you are harmed by anyone's marriage but your own. My guess is you aren't.

 

[Akivah]

The toaster comment was mine, and the point of it was that it's none of your damn business what consenting adults do or how they structure their lives. Marriage is a word that has been continuously redefined just among the Abrahmic tradition. Take a peek through any Abrahamic text and look at all the ways this union is described: one man and one woman, one man and as many women as he can convince to marry him, one man and his female slaves, for instance.

Polyandry, which is still practiced in some places, is the union of one WOMAN and many men. And I'm sure you get that polygamy is very much still a "thang".

You never did answer how you are harmed by anyone's marriage but your own. My guess is you aren't.

Whether a person is harmed by a law is not a criteria for that person to opinion about that law, so try something else.

And marriage throughout history, including non-Abrahamic cultures, has always been dominated by marriage being defined as the union of one man and one woman.

Are you saying that you support defining marriage as for a union of more than two people?

 

[Akivah]

I can't support or approve of such destructive discrimination. Nor should anyone, really.

Marriages have a role to fulfill. They are supposed to support legitimacy, recognition, families and rights.

There is no excuse for denying same sex marriages their recognition.

They can be together, it's just not a marriage.

 

[metis]

Some marriages in some cultures recognize polygamy (including earlier Judaism; see POLYGAMY - JewishEncyclopedia.com ), and at least one know case there's actually an example of group marriage, namely the Nayers in India (the Brits put a stop to that).

 

[columbus]

Whether a person is harmed by a law is not a criteria for that person to opinion about that law, so try something else.

Yes it is.
When a law causes harm it is morally required to express the opinion that it must be changed. Medieval laws that restrict marriage to breeding pairs cause harm, so the only moral thing to do is oppose them.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Homosexuals do have the right to be with the person they love. There is no reason to change the definition of marriage to accommodate their beliefs.

If you want to redefine marriage to suit your religious beliefs, go right ahead. But get your own term to describe it first.
How about "religious union"? You could have a religious union whether my state recognizes it or not. Google "Warren Jeffs" for some hardcore Biblical marriage beliefs.
Tom

 

[Marisa]

Whether a person is harmed by a law is not a criteria for that person to opinion about that law, so try something else.

And marriage throughout history, including non-Abrahamic cultures, has always been dominated by marriage being defined as the union of one man and one woman.

Are you saying that you support defining marriage as for a union of more than two people?

Opine was the word you were reaching for. I already said you're free to think gays are as icky as you want to, but you aren't free to legislate them into second class citizenry. So why don't you try again?

You're wrong with regard to history of marriage in the world. That happens when you limit your field of reference to that which validates your chosen perspective.

And what on earth would lead you to believe that I support "defining" marriage in any particular perspective, given all the comments I've made in this conversation?

 

[viole]

I'm not the person in this thread that first mentioned loving a toaster.

Homosexuals do have the right to be with the person they love. There is no reason to change the definition of marriage to accommodate their beliefs.

And there is no reason not to change it to accomodate your beliefs.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shad]

I can't believe our country is ignoring thousands of years of family law and throwing itself off a cliff.

Yah I know right! Those pesky revolutionaries how dare they go against over 8 centuries of rule by a monarchy as England and over a century as colonies for something as silly as representational government. You know tradition matters more than the present! I await your involvement in the "Return to the UK movement" since tradition should trump modernization and moderation.

/sarcasm

 

[Nakosis]

I'm not the person in this thread that first mentioned loving a toaster.

Homosexuals do have the right to be with the person they love. There is no reason to change the definition of marriage to accommodate their beliefs.

Why does it matter really? We redefine words as their cultural use changes. Where's the problem?

What's the harm in allowing homosexuals to say their married? Unless you just don't want them to be accepted as normal.