SCOTUS protects marriage equality

[gfm7175]

Can anyone tell me why some people get so upset about same sex couples marrying?

A same sex couple cannot marry, by definition. They CAN, however, enter into a civil union.

I'm not upset about people choosing to enter into a civil union (even if it's not something that I would recommend).

I AM, however, upset about people commandeering the word 'marriage' to the point of rendering it completely irrelevant (due to the removal of the (in principle) possibility of procreation from the institution).

It has absolutely no effect on your marriage. It also has no effect on your life.

It's not only about me. It greatly affects society as a whole because it renders the institution of marriage completely irrelevant.

If 2 people love each other, why the fuck do you care that they get married?

If 2 people love each other, and there's no (in principle) possibility for procreation between those 2 people, then why the fuck is marriage necessary? What's the point of it?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

 

[IBDaMann]

Its funny, when the haters and bigots are no longer allowed to go out beating up queers, they claim they are fighting for sumpremacy.

What's funny is when the haters and bigots are thwarted in their quest for LGBTTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+-supremacy, that they resume pouting like fucking cry-babies.

What's funny is when the haters and the bigots insist on conflating the words "marriage" with "civil union" and think that no one will notice.

Yes, they ARE being denied something (or were).

Correct: Supremacy. "Rules for thee but not for me!"

They could not [enter a civil union with] the person they loved.

FTFY. Sure they could. What are you talking about?

Our gov't has no need to regulate personal relationships for people.

Correct. We the People retain all the power to call whatever We want whatever we want. Haters and bigots have the inalienable 1st Amendment right to conflate every word they have ever heard.

 

[Into the Night]

At one time there was no other definition. But that has changed.

Nothing has changed. Don't try to play word games. Don't try to claim sexual deviancy as "normal".

Same sex couples can, indeed, get married. (other than in a few backward states)

Not possible.

Go learn English.

 

[Into the Night]

That was true in the past. But it is no longer true.

The meaning of the word 'marriage' hasn't changed.

Same sex marriages are recognized by the US gov't and the majority of the states.

Not possible.

Why do you want to ignore English?
Why do you want to try to justify sexual deviancy as "normal"?

 

[Into the Night]

I try to respect people's religious beliefs.

BULLSHIT!

But our government is required to be secular.

BULLSHIT!

 

[Into the Night]

No they cannot. That holds true for 2 gay men or 2 straight men.

Why do you try to justify sexual deviancy as "normal"?

 

[Into the Night]

"marriage" is a word coopted by religion but it was a word created in civic society and NOT tied to any religions but religions can no more claim it for all use then the Boys Club of America could. Groups do not get to claim words and then apply their own exclusive definition to them.

It is not 'co-opted' by religion.
The meaning of 'marriage' hasn't changed.

It means a union between a man and a woman. It has no other definition.

 

[Into the Night]

Nobody believes a requirement to have kids is a requirement otherwise they would focus and ban men and women who are known to be infertile from marrying, even if they heterosexual, and they do not want to do that and have never tried, thus proving what they say is bullshit and they do not believe it.

It is not. Marriage only means a union between a man and a woman. It has no other meaning.

 

[Into the Night]

Marriage isn't about procreating, but rather the (in principle) potential to procreate.

Right. It is about the (in principle) potential to procreate.

Irrelevant.

True. So?

Why would you even think that?

Marriage is not procreation. It is possible to procreate outside the bonds of marriage. Of course, that sort of thing causes all sorts of pain and is certainly unfair to the child so born, and to the woman who bears it.

This is nothing more than Democrats denouncing the family unit for their own selfish sexual deviancies.

 

[WinterBorn]

Best reply yet!!

 

[CBHype]

Supreme Court rejects challenge to landmark same-sex marriage decision

Kim Davis asked the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges appealing damages she owed a gay couple after she denied them a marriage license.

www.usatoday.com

Supreme Court rejects challenge to landmark same-sex marriage decision​

The high court rejected an appeal from Kim Davis, the former county clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses. Davis asked the court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges.​

Those of you who hate love can go have a good cry.

SCOTUS protects marriage equality​

What absolute tripe !!! SCOTUS is WRONG

IT AIN'T EQUAL

There is no such thing as gay marriage. At most it is a legal union.

 

[QP!]

There is still no other definition.

No it hasn't.

A man and a man cannot marry.
A woman and a woman cannot marry.
A civil union is not a marriage, regardless of whether or not one "identifies as" a marriage.

And yet you are wrong and lost because you are wrong.

Your attempt to say you alone will define the word marriage has failed because you were wrong, and oh, stupid.

Society defines words, not individuals, and not groups like churches. Having kids was NOT the original intent of the word but was one part amongst many to help families with or without children to deal with various property rights and other issues.

Any way you lost. Sucks to be you.

 

[gfm7175]

And yet you are wrong and lost because you are wrong.

Your attempt to say you alone will define the word marriage has failed because you were wrong, and oh, stupid.

Continued bogus position assignment.
Continued repetition.

Society defines words, not individuals,

Doesn't society consist of individuals?

and not groups like churches.

Doesn't society consist of groups like churches?

Having kids was NOT the original intent of the word

By removing the potential for procreation from the institution of marriage, marriage becomes largely irrelevant because it has thus been reduced to a matter of contractual hedonism rather than an ideally-solid foundation for building a family unit.

but was one part amongst many to help families with or without children to deal with various property rights and other issues.

Marriage isn't about property rights.

Any way you lost. Sucks to be you.

 

[gfm7175]

There is no such thing as gay marriage. At most it is a legal union.

Correct. All sorts of meaningless words and distractions will be thrown around during a discussion about a topic such as this one, and that includes terms and distractions such as: "gay marriage", "gay person", "lesbian person", "you hate the gheyz", "you're a bigot", "you're a homophobe", "but... but some people are infertile", etc... Such terms and distractions are meant to divert away from the heart of the matter, which is the (in principle) potential for procreation.

A man and a man cannot procreate (regardless of whether or not a man "is gay" or "was born gay" or "can't control his urges" or whatever else). A woman and a woman cannot procreate (regardless of whether or not a woman "is lesbian" or "was born lesbian" or "can't control her urges" or whatever else). Only a man and a woman can procreate.

The bolded words are biological truths. To deny them is to deny biology. To deny them is to deny science.

The union between a man and a woman is completely different than the union between a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) for this very reason. Because of this core difference, the union between a man and a woman should NOT share the same name with the union between a man and a man (or a woman and a woman).

Man/woman union = marriage
Man/man or woman/woman union = [something else] (a civil union?) (a legal union?) (a wannabe-marriage?)

 

[QP!]

Continued bogus position assignment.
Continued repetition.

Doesn't society consist of individuals?

Doesn't society consist of groups like churches?

By removing the potential for procreation from the institution of marriage, marriage becomes largely irrelevant because it has thus been reduced to a matter of contractual hedonism rather than an ideally-solid foundation for building a family unit.

Marriage isn't about property rights.

Well if society contains individuals who get to set word definitions then i hereby set marriage to include all lgbtq+.

Boom you just checkmate yourself with your own logic.

You now get to control for you, your definition and I others get to control ours and by your stated position we are individuals with the right to do so for society.

 

[gfm7175]

Well if society contains individuals who get to set word definitions then i hereby set marriage to include all lgbtq+.

So now you're society?
You're now twisting yourself into paradoxes.

Boom you just checkmate yourself with your own logic.

You've literally just twisted yourself into paradoxes.

You now get to control for you, your definition and I others get to control ours and by your stated position we are individuals with the right to do so for society.

??? Try English next time.

 

[QP!]

So now you're society?
You're now twisting yourself into paradoxes.

You've literally just twisted yourself into paradoxes.

??? Try English next time.

You are the one who claimed it was individuals who got to define words after if said it was society and not individuals like you.

So try and keep up short bus.

 

[gfm7175]

You are the one who claimed it was individuals who got to define words after if said it was society and not individuals like you.

So try and keep up short bus.

You should take your own advice.