Supreme Court Strikes Down Key DOMA Provisions

[Law]

What's the point of straight marriage? Let's assume you have a girlfriend and you spend all day banging her, who has time to get married? It would just be a hassle.

Let's just dismantle the oppressive Christian-Catholic ideas of marriage completely, the world is one big orgy just waiting to happen.

 

[Sicklyboy]

No one calls you bigoted/discriminatory/shallow for opposing polygamy and drawing the line at gay marriage. Why do these labels apply to those who draw the line at straight marriage? How could we deny alternative marriages to one group and not to another?

I made a small revision to my post, check that out real quick.

Didn't I explicitly say in my post, though, that I am not opposing it?

[...]that is not my lifestyle, and is not how I do/have chosen to/feel comfortable/have been raised to lead my life in the society I reside in, and as such, I won't actively do anything to hinder the progress of those trying to achieve it, nor talk down to those who follow that lifestyle.

Shit just ain't my cup of tea, plain and simple.

(One girlfriend is more than enough at one time for me, and I'm not the kind of guy to be rollin with other dudes like that, which is what my opinion is based off of.) In other words, I am decidedly indifferent.

Meaning - that isn't how I roll, but I really don't care. As long as everything works out in the end and one group of people isn't getting fucked over by society or the government more than the other is, I couldn't care less.

I have many, many friends who are gay, both on this forum and outside of it. I am very happy with my girlfriend and would love to marry her, likely in a non-religious institution (though we are both eligible "followers" of the Catholic faith to receive the sacrament of Holy Matrimony). I want for my friends to be able to share in the same union with their chosen partner as I do with mine, heterosexual or homosexual indifferent.

 

[Lacius]

Isn't marriage a religious (and mostly christian ruled) thing? 20,000 years seems like a stretch. 1800 years tops.

It's hard to say when the "institution of marriage" began, since it has taken so many forms over the years; contrary to popular belief, marriage has not always been "one man and one woman," and it has not always been a religious institution. Regardless, marriage appears to predate recorded history, and recorded history and writing happened sometime around 3200 BCE. None of this is really relevant to the gay marriage debate, but I thought I'd share.

No one calls you bigoted/discriminatory/shallow for opposing polygamy and drawing the line at gay marriage. Why do these labels apply to those who draw the line at straight marriage? How could we deny alternative marriages to one group and not to another?

Logistical issues and what is often rampant misogyny aside, I see no reason for polygamy to be illegal either. I'm not sure how this is relevant to what we're talking about though. Neither gay nor straight monogamous marriages are polygamous, by definition.

 

[Law]

Well marriage as we know it in the Christian dominated sense of the word is far more recent. Far, far, more recent than 20,000 years.

 

[UltraHurricane]

No one calls you bigoted/discriminatory/shallow for opposing polygamy and drawing the line at gay marriage. Why do these labels apply to those who draw the line at straight marriage? How could we deny alternative marriages to one group and not to another?

because it's something that has been phased out of our society much like stoning people to death for petty crimes, granted it took quite a while but eventually women realized that maybe they don't want to spend the rest of their lives being wife number #3702942 because more often then not they were likely pressured/forced into these sort of things from deeply-religious communities under relatively misogynistic motivations masking as tradition and it seems highly unlikely that girls would be all that happy in a marriage like that in today's world

unlike same-sex couples, where it's usually just two consenting adults who are romantically involved as any straight couple, they just happen to be the same gender

so yeah, i have no idea where you were going with this

 

[Haloman800]

because it's something that has been phased out of our society much like stoning people to death for petty crimes, granted it took quite a while but eventually women realized that maybe they don't want to spend the rest of their lives being wife number #3702942 because more often then not they were likely pressured/forced into these sort of things from deeply-religious communities under relatively misogynistic motivations masking as tradition and it seems highly unlikely that girls would be all that happy in a marriage like that in today's world

unlike same-sex couples, where it's usually just two consenting adults who are romantically involved as any straight couple, they just happen to be the same gender

so yeah, i have no idea where you were going with this

They're 12 consenting adults, who are you to say what they can and can't do?

 

[Lestworth]

I'm sure in the next 200 years the argument will be, instead of gays, the right to marry your animals.

The fight for righteousness will never end regardless of any bill or law that will or will not pass. Opinions will continue to be mixed into this. Its just how people respond, and attempt to understand.

 

[UltraHurricane]

They're 12 consenting adults, who are you to say what they can and can't do?

well if you want to try and legalize that shit go right ahead, but then again polygamy has a really REALLY bad stigma and history surrounding it (including child wives and the serious strain on welfare once all those wives have babies) when compared to gay marriage, so good luck trying to defend that to modern day feminist groups

 

[the_randomizer]

Aah, yes the government, always thinking they know what's best when the people are just mindless drones to them. Gee, and I thought people could decide for themselves. What people choose to do in their own lives is their business, not the government's. It's bad enough they try to tell us what we can/can't eat, how much gas our cars are supposed to use, how much CO2 we can produce, etc. etc. I do what I want to do, and as far as I'm concerned, the government can screw off. They've no right to tell us what we can or can't do in our personal lives. There are schmucks on both sides of the political spectrum, in fact, it's easily a clown college in disguise.

I didn't want to join in the discussion without thinking beforehand on what I wanted to say. All I can say is the government isn't for the people, the do the things they do for themselves. They tell us what's right or wrong, moral or immoral, acceptable or unacceptable. Frankly, they should stay the hell outta our personal lives.

There, I said my piece. If people want to come down on me for my rant on why I despise the government, so be it.

 

[Haloman800]

well if you want to try and legalize that shit go right ahead, but then again polygamy has a really REALLY bad stigma and history surrounding it (including child wives and the serious strain on welfare once all those wives have babies) when compared to gay marriage, so good luck trying to defend that to modern day feminist groups

No one calls you bigoted/discriminatory/shallow for opposing polygamy and drawing the line at gay marriage. Why do these labels apply to those who draw the line at straight marriage? How could we deny alternative marriages to one group and not to another?

 

[UltraHurricane]

No one calls you bigoted/discriminatory/shallow for opposing polygamy and drawing the line at gay marriage. Why do these labels apply to those who draw the line at straight marriage? How could we deny alternative marriages to one group and not to another?

AND THE AWARD FOR MOST REBUTTALS IGNORED GOES TO...

no seriously, your starting to sound like a broken record at this point

 

[Haloman800]

AND THE AWARD FOR MOST REBUTTALS IGNORED GOES TO...

no seriously, your starting to sound like a broken record at this point

Dodging the question.

 

[Law]

are you trying to play the "oppressed straight christian white male" card?

That doesn't work.

 

[Kouen Hasuki]

Doesn't everyone love these "debates"

On topic, being not that way inclined I am not as bothered as some, however I am generally glad things are moving forward the mentality of "It's Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve" should have died quite some time ago. In my personal opinion.

 

[Haloman800]

are you trying to play the "oppressed straight christian white male" card?

That doesn't work.

I just tried to check my privilege. I really did. I tried and tried, and it just didn't work. I must be doing something wrong, because I'm an American heterosexual white male.

I checked my memories of a childhood being raised by a single mother, and of my rare time spent with a crack addicted father.

I checked all of the holes in the floor of the trailer I grew up in, and I checked all of the cabinets filled with droppings from field mice that always got in, no matter how hard we tried to keep them out.

I checked the back room where my 21 year old step sister sexually assaulted me at the age of 14. I checked the front porch where I was told to suck it up when I confessed to my family.

I checked every time I asked for help with something, and I was told to man up and figure it out for myself. I checked every time my family ran to help an aunt or a niece or a sister at the drop of a hat.

I checked the times I applied for crappy fast food jobs and was denied because of the language barrier between myself and the Hispanic staff.

I checked everywhere. The only thing that came close to a privilege was the fact that I expect myself to do well, despite everything I have to work against. My only privilege is a self image that demands that I work hard, and dig myself out of a family history of lower class serfdom.

Am I missing anything? Was there somewhere I forgot to look?

 

[Nathan Drake]

-snip-

Holy hell. Is any of you able to stay on topic, or does every fiber of your being demand that you go on whatever tangents you can in order to stray away from the actual "issue" that you seem to have no ability to actually defend your point of view on?

For any who care about the history of marriage, it's irrelevant. Whether that word in itself was a religious manifestation, or whether the idea of "marriage" came up at another point in time, it's all semantics. What matters is how marriage is viewed today, and how it's viewed today is not as an explicitly religious practice. It is a legal, binding contract that acts as a union for two people. Ambiguous two people. No defined genders. Seeing as being an atheist, I could get married by the state in an entirely non-religious ceremony, I'm having issues seeing why gay people should suddenly have to see marriage as a taboo for themselves because of intolerance and bigotry from people claiming it's for religion. And even then, separation of church and state. You can wave your Bible around until your damned arm falls off, and it won't change that it can not directly and knowingly affect the laws of this nation.

Oh, by the way, something caught my eye. Pedophilia? Really? That's your go to for a comparison to gay marriage getting legalized? Do you have any idea how fucked up that is? How much that exposes what kind of a hateful, bigoted, and ignorant individual you are? Equating two people of the same gender getting married to kids getting molested fucking sickens me.

And anybody acting like gay marriage is some kind of drug, like it's the marijuana of marriage, the gateway to all kinds of previously taboo marriage practices, you have the most ridiculous argument of all simply because there is no way to back that. That, and it's just stupid. Believe it or not, legalizing gay marriage won't lead to people marrying their dogs. It won't lead to men and women having 60 different spouses. The desperate "we have nothing else so let's go with this" gateway argument is a no man's land of opinion that can not be backed.

 

[Haloman800]

It is a legal, binding contract that acts as a union for two people.

Why would you exclude polygamists? That's very hateful, bigoted, and ignorant of you to oppress consenting adults in what they choose to do.

 

[Nathan Drake]

Why would you exclude polygamists? That's very hateful, bigoted, and ignorant of you to oppress consenting adults in what they choose to do.

Irrelevant. Polygamy isn't gay marriage. Stay on topic or go away.

 

[Haloman800]

What matters is how marriage is viewed today

Many people view marriage as a contract between consenting adults. Why would you so hatefully draw the line at gay marriage and take away the rights of others wishing to marry the ones they love?

 

[Nathan Drake]

Many people view marriage as a contract between consenting adults. Why would you so hatefully draw the line at gay marriage and take away the rights of others wishing to marry the ones they love?

Irrelevant and flame bait. Honestly, I'm just going to report the next one. You've clearly had your run in this thread and are more than done.