Same-Sex Marriage ... 'You Ain't Seen Nut'n Yet'

originally posted by: ketsuko



This is different from gay marriage proponents redefining the word for EVERYONE how?

I just don't get this "redefining the word" argument. How does two gay people getting a marriage license redefine the word marriage for YOU and your spouse? How does a hot 23-year-old shallow slut marrying an old, rich, 84-year-old man for no other reason than money redefine the word marriage for YOU and your spouse? How does a couple of satanists who hate and spit on God getting a marriage license redefine the word marriage for YOU and your spouse? How does a couple of swingers who have no intention of being monogamous getting a marriage license redefine the word marriage for YOU and your spouse? Why are you not screaming at the top of your lungs that these other types of people shouldn't be able to get a marriage license because it devalues YOUR marriage? Because it has zero effect on your marriage, that's why. Only YOU have an effect on your marriage. If your marriage doesn't work out, don't blame it on the slut or the satanists or the swingers or the gays.

In Ireland, they recently approved same sex marriages as well.

However, divorce remains illegal.

In the USA, same sex couples divorce already. And have much the same arguments as other married couples over children, money, and property.

a reply to: FarleyWayne

Now if two people sign a tax form together they will be common law married under Federal law. The flood gates will open wide on this one.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Because now, institutions are not free to define marriage for themselves.

A school cannot say, "This is marriage." A church cannot say, "This is marriage."

The government says, "This is marriage."

And those who do not comply can be punished under force of law.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: kaylaluv

Because now, institutions are not free to define marriage for themselves.

A school cannot say, "This is marriage." A church cannot say, "This is marriage."

The government says, "This is marriage."

And those who do not comply can be punished under force of law.

I don't even understand what that means. Churches have always been and will always be able to discriminate. They can refuse to marry anyone. To say that they can't after this ruling is nothing but fear mongering. When you say school, I guess you mean like a religious college? So I guess you are saying that they might not be able to turn away homosexual married couples? I don't know yet how religious institutions that are open to the general public will have to deal with this. But if you are open to the general public and you get some kind of funding from the government in the form of grants, yeah, you might have to give up those grants in order to continue discriminating.

a reply to: ketsuko

so everyone else can define Marriage how they want, just not when it comes to same-sex?

a reply to: Edumakated
actually I don't see how reevaluating the policy of just automatically handing the children into mom's custody is such a bad idea. I mean sometimes the kids would be much better off with dad holding custody and well, when it comes to this decision finances or tradition should take a back seat to what is deemed better for the children.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: ketsuko

so everyone else can define Marriage how they want, just not when it comes to same-sex?

Everyone is free to define what it means to be married however they wish, churches can even discriminate. Governments are not allowed to discriminate.

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement

originally posted by: yeahsurexxx
I bet the OP is coming out of his closet soon enough.
The first part is always denial...

It's weird. I kinda sense by your hostile response to the op that you are in favor of gay marriage, but then you try to use gay as an insult? So which is it?

Why should i bother whom you choose to marry?
The only reasons ppl hate on this is RELIGION, stupidity and insecurity.

Usually when ppl go all crazy over this it's just showing their insecurity, and the OP is a prime example of this.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: ketsuko

so everyone else can define Marriage how they want, just not when it comes to same-sex?

Precisely! Yet nobody on that side ever sees that part.

The argument is pretty much...

"You can't define marriage? This new law means marriage is redefined!"

All the while, the Christian Right had NO problem forcibly defining marriage by policy. Longstanding policy...but policy

It's one of the two things I will never EVER understand about hard-up Right conservatives

1. How does my neighbors gay marriage redefine my own? Yes I am indeed a fan (happily I might add) of both sides. But the truth is my marriage is hetero. No denying it. So come that Friday when the rule passed down, something really magical happened (didn't happen). My marriage was never redefined! Amazing isn't it? I was married to a woman before. Then the ruling. And BAM! Still married to a woman now. Phew...that was close

2. Why is the cons/right SO obsessed (as pointed out earlier) with how other people live their lives? These Christians who bark these barks all day must have an awful shaky foundation if two guys getting married can knock them from their self-righteous pedestal so easily. And yet, preachers, pastors, and all-around other hetero Christians are involved with rape, sodomy, ACTIVE pedophilia, rampant divorce, disrespect and divorce. Yet we never hear the pulpit screaming nearly as loud about all this. They will be forgiven. But heaven help me if I engage in homosexual acts (I have by the way YIKES!!!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!) then I am doomed...just plain doomed.

Not only doomed BUT dooming everyone else.

Pathetic

a reply to: KyoZero

Someone has painstakingly pulled out all the "sins" listed in the New Testament: The Complete List of Sins (New Testament)

I'll list a few:

1. Abusers of self (yep, that's what you think it is.)
3. Anger
4. Backbiters: Those whospeak evil of those who are absent
8. Bitterness
10. Boasting
17. Complaining
18. Contentious
23. Debate
32. Divisions: Forming splits or schisms in group
45. Fearful: Discouraged, anxious, faithless
50. Foolish talking : Silliness.

... and my personal favorite, given the context ...

60. Hearing the Sayings of Christ, but Not Following Them

(You know, that whole "love one another" "judge not" spiel etc. etc.)

a reply to: KyoZero

Yaas!

Thursday June 25th 2015 Heterosexual Marriage meant something...

Friday June 26th 2015.. D-Day, the end to all Heterosexuals Marriages...

a reply to: Rocker2013

It seems not everyone shares your laissez-faire attitude toward the future of civilization and its oldest institutions.

Maybe you should just leave discussion to those who are concerned. After all...what will be, will be. Right?

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Concerned about what?

a reply to: kaylaluv

Believe it or not, some people look beyond their own lives when considering the effects of redefining marriage. There's a whole society of people out there, and hopefully generations more to come.

If people cared only when things directly affect them, things would get ugly quick. Actually that might explain a thing or two about the last couple decades...

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

What are the effects of 'Redefining Marriage'? no one has given me a good answer yet, there has been posted time and time again throughout history of Marriage being Redefined.. and all of a sudden it effects countless people because Same-Sex couples can get married...

Wait a minute, I thought we were only supposed to care about what affects us directly, and keep our nose out of everyone else's business and let them do what they want to do regardless of how it affects other people ...

... did this suddenly change on the right-wing side?

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Obviously the long term effects on society are unknown. If you can't imagine anything changing (other than who is getting married) then you aren't trying.

My point was that it is not logical for a person to assume there will be no negative consequences simply because it doesn't immediately affect that individual.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yeah, because fundamentally changing the nature of one of humanity's oldest institutions will not affect anyone except gay people. Straight right wingers should shut the hell up.

See the sarcasm?

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

One of Humanity's oldest institutions ... you mean prostitution?

See the sarcasm?

If, however, you're on about protecting "traditional" marriage, what are you doing about the 50% divorce rate in the US?

I mean, it seems like the destruction of a marriage is worse than letting a few more American citizens take part in one ...