How do you feel about the supreme courts ruling regarding gay marriage
States can no longer place a ban on gay marriage.
HAPPY | 49 | |
Mad | 8 | |
Don't care | 23 | |
Other (comment) | 6 |
Ask Your Question today
States can no longer place a ban on gay marriage.
HAPPY | 49 | |
Mad | 8 | |
Don't care | 23 | |
Other (comment) | 6 |
Marriage should not be regulated by the government. Whatever 2 or more willing adults wanna do is their business.
I agree with you. But I think there should be some form of legal recognition to define the rights of each party should the arrangement go belly up.
Civil unions is the best way of dealing with this.
Those types of laws are set by the States, not the federal government. Most states do not recognize common law marriages. The few that do, it has more to do with presenting yourself as married then a specific time limit. This is why people in Utah can be prosecuted for polygamy even though they do not all get marriage licenses. Simply presenting yourself as married in Utah constitutes a legal marriage. But as I said this is the exception in the US, not the rule. What you are describing is a Hollywood myth. There is a link I am posting with very basic info, but there is a lot more available if you care to look.
http://www.unmarried.org/common-law-marriage-fact-sheet/
I'm fuckin DELIGHTED. Fuck all of the religion and semantics. I'm pretty damned happy this got through.
Who the fuck cares? Let them have marriage because straight people had enough of that bullshit. Marriage is nothing but a contract that allows the government to financially exploit people, especially men.
This is the part where I get hated on for a not so PC view on the matter.
I'm iffy on it but I get it. I'm not against gays or anything, I can just understand from a religious standpoint (even though I'm not religious) why people may be upset by it.
Marriage is originally their cerimony, right? (If I'm wrong, correct me) The cerimony is part of their religion. The religion does not condone the cerimony happening between two people of the same sex, yet law is allowing "their" religious cerimony to no longer be within the rules of their religion.
Before you blast me on what I said there, overall, I think most people who aren't part of the religion with weddings should really take part of it. It takes away from what they made to be special to their religion for people to just want a special day without a care about the religion of which the cerimony they are enjoying created. Even the white dress has pretty much lost its meaning now.
That said, there are legal aspects of marriage, so closing it off from ANYONE would be wrong and unfair due to the legal benefits and so on. So I can see both sides. I can see that marriage has legal aspects to it and therefor every person that has to run under the law should be entitled to such opportunities, yet at the same time the cerimony of a group is being taken away from their religion when they are responsible for it and it was a part of religion for people who aren't part of that religion or don't follow the religion's rules and just want a big day while disregarding what the cerimony is actually a part of.
I think a new cerimony should be made. One where the legal aspects of marriage would be the same. A cerimony made outside of religion and therefor they can have their special day and not take a cerimony made by a group and change the rules of it. That way people can have their big day and legal benefits while the religious can enjoy their cerimony. Everyone wins.
But honestly, now that I think about it, even as a non-religious person so this would apply to me too...It takes a lot of nerve to take someone elses cerimony with certain rules to it and say "No, even though I do not subscribe to the beliefs of the group in which this cerimony is for, I'm still doing it despite your feelings on the cerimony! I want my big day!"...It is kind of selfish but again, at the same time, there isn't an alternative so I can see both sides.
I think both sides have a point.
So to close this off. It's not as simple as me thinking "gays shouldn't get married", I think that most people who don't meet the rules of the cerimony shouldn't get married.
I'm done. Attack me with the fiery hell of your fingertips, people! :P
Christians didn't invent marriage, just claimed as they do many other things. So, this is all irrelevant.
Who created it then? Not being oppositional here, I genuinly would like to know. Was the cerimony the same as it was when religion took it on?
I made an account solely so I could say this...
CEREMONY! IT'S CEREMONY!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SPELL IT CEREMONY!!!!!
We can't be sure, but the first recorded evidence of marriage contracts dates to 4,000 years ago, and as far as we know the church had no reign over marriage until the 5th century. Disregarding that, marriage is an obvious concept that would come about, the only thing Christians would be claiming is the word, I guess? They definitely didn't invent the word.
The Jews married before the Christians. Probably a lot of groups before that. Though marriage was originally more of a property exchange than a promise of love.
This is why I think marriages should be kept at church level and only have civil unions recognised by the government.
It is like this already, you have a ceremony at a church (religious recognition of a marriage) and have it recognised by the country/state by a civil union.
If it's truly "marriage equality" then why can't I marry my cousin or marry both of my cousins? :'(
To each his own now shut up. I don't wanna hear about it. I'm straight. I don't shove who I am down your throat now stop shoving who you are down mine.
Im gay, i just say, hey. if you love someone, who needs a piece of paper to tell you?
The good effect of this decision is that maybe mass media will stop its obsession with this topic and go to some more critical problems like economy.