I'm generally happy for gay marriage; in fact my sister is gay and married, and has a daughter, and our whole family has been very happy with it, and we visit each other all the time. But I just think it's anti-climatic, compared to how much greater the progress would have been, if we'd gotten the government out of the business of defining marriage entirely.
Can't wait to look back on this in 40 years the same way we look back on the African American Civil Rights Movement, and all of the racists back then.
Met the ghost of Stephen Foster at the Hotel Paradise
This is what I told him as I gazed into his eyes
Ships are made for sinking, whisky made for drinking
If we were made of cellophane we'd all get stinking drunk much faster...
That is the whole point as to why this is before the supreme court. You are saying we are doing it wrong, not at all we live in a society that defines it's laws by trial and courts of law. this is the only path to ensure all people have the same freedoms. Do you think that the black civil rights movement only helped Black people? By taking the stance they paved the way for equality of all races in America, it is now illegal to discriminate against Asians, Native Americans, Semitics, Hindi, and anyone else. All thanks to the Black Civil rights movement.
Some people are just gay. The sooner you come to except that the happier we'll all be.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.
Most of the time by the way it was because the person killed someone else. Homosexuality was frowned upon, and if you where gay moving to the city was your best choice anyway.
As for the Romans and the Greeks, they had a different view of sexuality. But then the pagans of the ancient world almost universally revered the Gay men as touched by a goddess.
A lot of federal US laws are based on opposite-sex marriage which prevents so many rights to gay US citizens and even prospective US residents. As it stands, there are tens of thousands of same-sex relationships being prevented from even physically existing in the US, and it is absolutely appalling. While straight US citizens can bring their partners into the US and live their lives with them, immigration laws are based on the notion of a man/woman marriage, so DOMA is literally preventing people from being together. The right to be with the one you love is such a basic and fundamental right, and cases like this is why DOMA has to be, and imo will be, overturned.
About damn time.
just think of all the extra women straight men will have, and how many more happy marriages* there will be without someone who is gay but afraid of society / in the closet, who gets married to a woman and has a terrible life full of misery?
Still I cry, tears like pouring rain, Innocent is my lurid pain.
I just feel sorry that the U.S. tends to lag so far behind when it comes to these issues. Don't Ask, Don't Tell gets struck down in the last year or so, whereas the equivalent was struct down around 20 years ago in places like Australia or Canada. And now it's 12 years behind on same-sex marriage, at the very least. But I guess that's what happens with such a high population of fundamentalists.
Originally Posted by 2nd Circuit
Getting married has become a secular colloquialism for a civil union just as much as it has been used to define Catholicism's union between a man and a woman (and even then, not all Christian sects hew to that definition, nor even do all Catholic churches). Changing the definition of a word is what you do in English as that word is used in wider context than what it was brought in for. For example, 'dude' used to refer to an elephant's penis. Now it's a very informal term of familiarity often used toward a male. 'Faggot' used to refer to a bundle of sticks. Now the most common use is as a pejorative toward homosexual men or people you frag in online shooters on X-Box. Words evolve, and in some cases, society evolves beyond frustratingly Neolithic standards set forth by a section of a holy scripture written by a man who was considered unnecessarily extremist even during his day.
If changing the definition of a word that the Roman Catholic church does not and never will have a total monopoly on is what it takes, that's what it takes and this is far from the first word to get an extra definition tacked on or expanded.
The sheer fact that we have people being so asinine as to split hairs over the exact definition of content is a sign that there isn't any worth discussing for non-raiders.
Ridiculous. When two men or two women are capable of breeding (barring defects) I will agree it is a natural and legitimate relationship.