Gay Marriage Legal in the US
Discussion
JonRB said:
Same old tired clichés coming out, and from the same people too.
Two people who love each other and who happen to have the same chromosomes (or outy bits, or inny bits, or however you want to define gender) want the same right to marry as people who have different ones. They (collectively) make the entirely reasonable request to not be discriminated against in this matter, and most sane and right-minded people agree that this is a reasonable thing to want.
Then the swivel-eyed loons say that if we allow this, then *obviously* we need to also allow incest, polygamy and bestiality. Because, you know, "if we allow those damn gays their depraved unnatural act then we might as well allow all depraved unnatural acts". Which kind of sums up the anti brigade all over.
All the same-sex couples are asking is to be allowed to solemnise their love in the same contractual way as hetero couples. As in, be given the same rights as them. They're not asking for anything extra. Polygamy, bestiality and incest are illegal for everyone - no discrimination.
Marriage has, until now, discriminated people based on their gender. Now it doesn't. Yay equality.
Jon, there's some folk that get it.......and sadly, there are some who just don't get what equality means. I really feel for any LGBT kids growing up in such environments, where their own parents hold such vile bigoted views.Two people who love each other and who happen to have the same chromosomes (or outy bits, or inny bits, or however you want to define gender) want the same right to marry as people who have different ones. They (collectively) make the entirely reasonable request to not be discriminated against in this matter, and most sane and right-minded people agree that this is a reasonable thing to want.
Then the swivel-eyed loons say that if we allow this, then *obviously* we need to also allow incest, polygamy and bestiality. Because, you know, "if we allow those damn gays their depraved unnatural act then we might as well allow all depraved unnatural acts". Which kind of sums up the anti brigade all over.
All the same-sex couples are asking is to be allowed to solemnise their love in the same contractual way as hetero couples. As in, be given the same rights as them. They're not asking for anything extra. Polygamy, bestiality and incest are illegal for everyone - no discrimination.
Marriage has, until now, discriminated people based on their gender. Now it doesn't. Yay equality.
Zod said:
Breadvan72 said:
Derek, have you read "Uncertain Unions" and "Broken Lives" by Laurence Stone? He was my history granddad, as he was my tutor's tutor.
Norman Stone's father?Derek, treat yourself to membership of the London Library. Open stacks, millions of books, generous borrowing arrangements.
I wonder what happens when the religious types get to meet their Sky Fairy and he says...
"FFS.... I sent enough of my Gay, Lesbian... etc etc children down there. And you treated them like utter s
ts. You evil little tt"
or... will he/ she say
"Thank Feck for that... every single Gay, Lesbian...etc etc.. child I send down.. I send them to test you. And you passed"
Which one is most probable.
But given there is no evidence for God ever existing..... try this.. " Don't be a bigoted, racist, homophobic evil t**t"
If you cannot see everyone as your equal in religion, ability to marry who they love etc etc - you are one of the above. ( even if you truly believe you are not )
"FFS.... I sent enough of my Gay, Lesbian... etc etc children down there. And you treated them like utter s
ts. You evil little tt"or... will he/ she say
"Thank Feck for that... every single Gay, Lesbian...etc etc.. child I send down.. I send them to test you. And you passed"
Which one is most probable.
But given there is no evidence for God ever existing..... try this.. " Don't be a bigoted, racist, homophobic evil t**t"
If you cannot see everyone as your equal in religion, ability to marry who they love etc etc - you are one of the above. ( even if you truly believe you are not )
Mr GrimNasty said:
It's sad that there is so much wrong-headed thinking and accusations of hate and discrimination where there was none.
Oh this should be good. Please do enlighten us as to how it is not discrimination when you deny one person (or couple) the same rights as another based on a factor such as skin colour or genitalia? AreOut said:
Troubleatmill said:
There is hope for mankind yet.
Another country has decide that two people who love each other can marry.
but why not more? If there is a consent why is a man not allowed to marry 50 women or vice versa?Another country has decide that two people who love each other can marry.
JonRB said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
It's sad that there is so much wrong-headed thinking and accusations of hate and discrimination where there was none.
Oh this should be good. Please do enlighten us as to how it is not discrimination when you deny one person (or couple) the same rights as another based on a factor such as skin colour or genitalia? 
ali_kat said:
AreOut said:
Troubleatmill said:
There is hope for mankind yet.
Another country has decide that two people who love each other can marry.
but why not more? If there is a consent why is a man not allowed to marry 50 women or vice versa?Another country has decide that two people who love each other can marry.
Zod said:
ali_kat said:
AreOut said:
Troubleatmill said:
There is hope for mankind yet.
Another country has decide that two people who love each other can marry.
but why not more? If there is a consent why is a man not allowed to marry 50 women or vice versa?Another country has decide that two people who love each other can marry.
JonRB said:
Same old tired clichés coming out, and from the same people too.
Two people who love each other and who happen to have the same chromosomes (or outy bits, or inny bits, or however you want to define gender) want the same right to marry as people who have different ones. They (collectively) make the entirely reasonable request to not be discriminated against in this matter, and most sane and right-minded people agree that this is a reasonable thing to want.
Then the swivel-eyed loons say that if we allow this, then *obviously* we need to also allow incest, polygamy and bestiality. Because, you know, "if we allow those damn gays their depraved unnatural act then we might as well allow all depraved unnatural acts". Which kind of sums up the anti brigade all over.
All the same-sex couples are asking is to be allowed to solemnise their love in the same contractual way as hetero couples. As in, be given the same rights as them. They're not asking for anything extra. Polygamy, bestiality and incest are illegal for everyone - no discrimination.
Marriage has, until now, discriminated people based on their gender. Now it doesn't. Yay equality.
Well put, why should the gays get away with it if us breeders have to suffer I always say Two people who love each other and who happen to have the same chromosomes (or outy bits, or inny bits, or however you want to define gender) want the same right to marry as people who have different ones. They (collectively) make the entirely reasonable request to not be discriminated against in this matter, and most sane and right-minded people agree that this is a reasonable thing to want.
Then the swivel-eyed loons say that if we allow this, then *obviously* we need to also allow incest, polygamy and bestiality. Because, you know, "if we allow those damn gays their depraved unnatural act then we might as well allow all depraved unnatural acts". Which kind of sums up the anti brigade all over.
All the same-sex couples are asking is to be allowed to solemnise their love in the same contractual way as hetero couples. As in, be given the same rights as them. They're not asking for anything extra. Polygamy, bestiality and incest are illegal for everyone - no discrimination.
Marriage has, until now, discriminated people based on their gender. Now it doesn't. Yay equality.
It will have upset a lot of the god fearing middle America, which is a good thing, they tend to be the most prejudiced against anyone who isn't them.
Seems to me the thing to do is to completely separate the legal part from the ceremonial.
Go to an office, fill in the forms, and you are legally married, with all of the associated changes in legal status that entails. There is no restriction on the gender of the people who can do this, as long as they are over the age of consent.
After that, doesn't even have to be on the same day, you can have whatever ceremony you want, whether that's at a church, a hotel, on a beach, whatever. It wouldn't need to be specially approved for weddings, as it does now, because it has no bearing on the legal marriage, which has already happened. Done.
Go to an office, fill in the forms, and you are legally married, with all of the associated changes in legal status that entails. There is no restriction on the gender of the people who can do this, as long as they are over the age of consent.
After that, doesn't even have to be on the same day, you can have whatever ceremony you want, whether that's at a church, a hotel, on a beach, whatever. It wouldn't need to be specially approved for weddings, as it does now, because it has no bearing on the legal marriage, which has already happened. Done.
Dick Turpin said:
Seems to me the thing to do is to completely separate the legal part from the ceremonial.
Go to an office, fill in the forms, and you are legally married, with all of the associated changes in legal status that entails. There is no restriction on the gender of the people who can do this, as long as they are over the age of consent.
After that, doesn't even have to be on the same day, you can have whatever ceremony you want, whether that's at a church, a hotel, on a beach, whatever. It wouldn't need to be specially approved for weddings, as it does now, because it has no bearing on the legal marriage, which has already happened. Done.
This is already the case, in the UK anyway. When the vicar says "I now pronounce you Man and Wife" it has no legal weight whatsoever. It's not until you go out back to the Vestry and sign the legal paperwork that you're legally married. That's why you can skip the whole religious bit altogether and go to a Registry Office and just sign the legal bit. In the eyes of the Law and the State (in the UK), that's what defines a marriage. The religious stuff is just window dressing, pomp and ceremony. And, of course, for those who believe in such tosh then it is also getting married in the eyes of their God too - but they're welcome to that and can do as they wish there. In fact in the UK they have specific legal protection to carry on being discriminatory. Go to an office, fill in the forms, and you are legally married, with all of the associated changes in legal status that entails. There is no restriction on the gender of the people who can do this, as long as they are over the age of consent.
After that, doesn't even have to be on the same day, you can have whatever ceremony you want, whether that's at a church, a hotel, on a beach, whatever. It wouldn't need to be specially approved for weddings, as it does now, because it has no bearing on the legal marriage, which has already happened. Done.
I'm not sure what the legal status is between church and state in the USA though. But certainly in the UK, being married has everything to do with signing the Registry and nothing to do with some bloke in a dress pronouncing you married.
Edited by JonRB on Wednesday 1st July 16:59
Authorising non registry offices for civil weddings was a liberalisation, and we should not go backwards on that. Formerly you had to use a registry office if did not want a church wedding, and the offices were grotty and poky. They are better now, but you can also use a pleasant non religious venue other than a registry office.
Breadvan72 said:
Authorising non registry offices for civil weddings was a liberalisation, and we should not go backwards on that. Formerly you had to use a registry office if you did not want a church wedding, and the offices were grotty and poky. They are better now, but you can also use a pleasant non religious venue.
Indeed. I got married in the Jimmy Brown Centre above the pit garages at Silverstone Race Circuit (back when those were the main pits - the circuit has changed now of course), had my wedding photos on the podium, and my new wife and I had a couple of parade laps around the circuit (much to the bemusement of the spectators). 
JonRB said:
Indeed. I got married in the Jimmy Brown Centre above the pit garages at Silverstone Race Circuit (back when those were the main pits - the circuit has changed now of course), had my wedding photos on the podium, and my new wife and I had a couple of parade laps around the circuit (much to the bemusement of the spectators).
What year was that?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff