Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To be clear, I believe gay marriage is a joke and was an issue not worthy of the time or attention of any president. But I acknowledge it's the law of the land. It's not worthy of our time or attention. It's over. I don't want to hear about it.
Man do you not understand that cultural things like traditional marriage and the family were developed over 1,000s of years of trial and error and by the input of the wisest leaders and minds over time? Sometimes discarding tradition with a scientific basis is justified but just discarding things for the sake of progressivism based on politics is silly.
Are you sure that traditional marriage and family have been developed by "trial and error" and the "input of the wisest leaders and minds?" What if it was just something that some Stone Age caveman decided, and it ultimately came to be accepted because of religious teachings that were never criticized or questioned? Has traditional marriage ever been defended from a secular, rational foundation? Maybe traditional marriage did emerge out of a trial and error process, and is the best choice. But since we don't really know when "traditional marriage" ever came about, we can't say for sure what the people were thinking when they came up with it. Maybe the people who came up with the idea of marriage were just superstitious, closed-minded, oppressive people much like the people in the Middle East today who are committing atrocities and oppressing women, people who fear sex and pleasure and want to regulate it, and we're just following in their footsteps blindly without questioning it. Look at how celebrities live. Marriage to them is just really a piece of paper, and there's a lot of extramarital affairs and lots of divorces. In my opinion, the only reason why everyone doesn't live like them is because we don't have the material resources to do so. If marriage didn't exist, would the lives of celebrities and other rich and famous people really be that much worse? Not really, they're already pretty much living the lives that I am thinking of when I suggest that marriage should be abolished, or all restrictions on it removed. Why shouldn't everyone be able to live that life, instead of just the rich and famous?
Are you sure that traditional marriage and family have been developed by "trial and error" and the "input of the wisest leaders and minds?" What if it was just something that some Stone Age caveman decided, and it ultimately came to be accepted because of religious teachings that were never criticized or questioned? Has traditional marriage ever been defended from a secular, rational foundation? Maybe traditional marriage did emerge out of a trial and error process, and is the best choice. But since we don't really know when "traditional marriage" ever came about, we can't say for sure what the people were thinking when they came up with it. Maybe the people who came up with the idea of marriage were just superstitious, closed-minded, oppressive people much like the people in the Middle East today who are committing atrocities and oppressing women, people who fear sex and pleasure and want to regulate it, and we're just following in their footsteps blindly without questioning it. Look at how celebrities live. Marriage to them is just really a piece of paper, and there's a lot of extramarital affairs and lots of divorces. In my opinion, the only reason why everyone doesn't live like them is because we don't have the material resources to do so. If marriage didn't exist, would the lives of celebrities and other rich and famous people really be that much worse? Not really, they're already pretty much living the lives that I am thinking of when I suggest that marriage should be abolished, or all restrictions on it removed. Why shouldn't everyone be able to live that life, instead of just the rich and famous?
Men in the Middle East who oppress women have multiple wives. They believe in exactly what you do: polygamy.
Men in the Middle East who oppress women have multiple wives. They believe in exactly what you do: polygamy.
But why is that oppression? If you want to make the argument that polygamy, in and of itself is oppressive, I'd be glad to hear it. Just because a lot of the practices in the Middle East are oppressive to women doesn't mean that all of them are. To me, polygamy logically follows from biology, and is thus natural (men produce enough sperm to reproduce with multiple women).
The question isn't in regards to you being morally against it due to religious background or culture. Where do you stand on the issue from a political perspective? How do you feel about individuals who have relationship with the same sex in the military?
Plain and simple answer on my point it's their own life let them live their life and be viewed/protected as equals of an opposite sex relationship
Live and let live.
They should have the legal right to marriage just like straights do. MARRIAGE, not a civil union since marriage is a legal contract.
And yes, I know people get married in churches but we are talking about legal marriage not religious marriage.
Also should add a private business is a private business. They don't want to serve or hire individuals in the LGBT community either there loss or win however you look at. I feel States should provide a open health insurance market shifting it from businesses to the State to ensure individuals have access to healthcare.
No. That would be socialized medicine. That's what Hillary Clinton tried to pull on America when her husband was President.
I've seen a few people touch on this but personally, I don't really care about same-sex marriage, but politically I think it is going to wind up holding LGBT members hostage for a long time to come.
The fact that it was legalized by the Supreme Court for everybody is always going to be in the back of people's minds. You can never really say the country came around to supporting it and you can't say you care about democracy if you agree with the Supreme Court simply legalizing it. We have a process for passing or repealing laws that we don't like or agree with; simply getting a bare majority on the Supreme Court to make a declaration of law isn't the right way, especially over a controversial social issue.
With Proposition 8 in CA, it passed, but the state government didn't like the law so they didn't defend it when challenged. Then they got a gay judge to overturn it, and because the backers of the proposition had no standing to appeal his ruling, the law was overturned...even though millions of people voted for it.
With DOMA, Atty General Eric Holder made a point of saying he was not going to defend it in court. So he went and conceded every argument to the couple who was suing the federal government, the judge ruled in their favor, then the government appealed the ruling so that it would go to the Supreme Court in order for them to strike it down. So now, same-sex marriage is a right, and even though most states had voted to define marriage as a man and woman, in the end, nobody's vote mattered.
You don't have to feel strongly about SSM either way to realize that's not how it's supposed to work. Courts are not there to break a tie or do an end-run around the legislative process because you don't have the numbers in Congress or the right person in the White House.
But that's why I say I think the LGBT community is going to be held hostage by it. SCOTUS decisions can always be overturned, either by a subsequent decision or constitutional amendment. I know it might seem like SCOTUS weighing in took the issue off the table, but I think all it really did was entrench both sides.
It's the same with Roe v Wade. Theoretically it solved the issue of abortion. In reality, it's been over forty years and we still debate abortion and politicians still argue over pro-life vs. pro-choice.
I'm fine with gay marriage -- I have gay friends and a relative.
I think it may have helped if perhaps they had called it "civil unions" at first instead of marriage for a couple of years, so that frightened people could see that the world didn't fall apart, and then change it to marriage.
It seems like the word "marriage" is what bothers religious people.
Last edited by mountainrose; 11-12-2016 at 05:35 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
