Philosophy Now Forum

Melchior wrote:

Skip wrote:

Melchior wrote:You can't have 'one-way' freedoms.

Sure you can! Straights can get married, gays can't. Whites can walk on any street; blacks can't. Christians can put up their symbols; Muslims can't. Militarists can raise flags and memorials all over the place; pacifists can't.
Any change to that privilege, you bawl like babies that had to share their candy.

Anyone can get married. That is a red herring. The thing about marriage is that it is between members of the opposite sex.

No...the thing about marriage is it makes a union legal. Anyone can get married spiritually.

artisticsolution wrote:No...the thing about marriage is it makes a union legal. Anyone can get married spiritually.

Marriage creates 'kinship', and is millennia old. Throughout history, most marriages have been arranged by families, and usually between cousins. The notion of one man and one woman stems from the desire for poor folk to keep the lords and powerful men from having many wives, leaving none for them. Homosexuality doesn't enter into it, at all. The whole argument for homosexual marriage is a fraud and a farce, and has nothing to do with the purpose of marriage.

Melchior wrote:. Homosexuality doesn't enter into it, at all. The whole argument for homosexual marriage is a fraud and a farce, and has nothing to do with the purpose of marriage.

Not anymore. What part of the Supreme Court decision did you not understand?

artisticsolution wrote:

Melchior wrote:. Homosexuality doesn't enter into it, at all. The whole argument for homosexual marriage is a fraud and a farce, and has nothing to do with the purpose of marriage.

Not anymore. What part of the Supreme Court decision did you not understand?

None of it. It's completely incoherent and wrong. Got that? It's like calling shooting people on the beach, 'tennis'.

Shooting people on beaches is not as fashionable as shooting people in churches, movie theatres, or schools. However it remains part of an honourable American sporting tradition nevertheless and an integral aspect of the American cultural tradition.

Melchior wrote:

Skip wrote:

Melchior wrote:You can't have 'one-way' freedoms.

Sure you can! Straights can get married, gays can't. Whites can walk on any street; blacks can't. Christians can put up their symbols; Muslims can't. Militarists can raise flags and memorials all over the place; pacifists can't.
Any change to that privilege, you bawl like babies that had to share their candy.

Anyone can get married. That is a red herring. The thing about marriage is that it is between members of the opposite sex.

Who said? Those that further the religious farce? When it became part of the law, long ago, to deal with fairness between team members of a relationship, is when it became a pertinent topic for revision. Yes, as soon as it was created. It's always pissed me off that there is supposed to be a division between church and state, yet the government has used church oh so often to control, to mimic, much to their hypocrisy.

Melchior wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:No...the thing about marriage is it makes a union legal. Anyone can get married spiritually.

Marriage creates 'kinship', and is millennia old. Throughout history, most marriages have been arranged by families, and usually between cousins. The notion of one man and one woman stems from the desire for poor folk to keep the lords and powerful men from having many wives, leaving none for them. Homosexuality doesn't enter into it, at all. The whole argument for homosexual marriage is a fraud and a farce, and has nothing to do with the purpose of marriage.

You are confused as to the difference between church and state. Understandable, given the circumstances! Yet your stance is still incorrect. The law was created to protect against unfairness, and that is what this new law is doing.

Melchior wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:

Melchior wrote:. Homosexuality doesn't enter into it, at all. The whole argument for homosexual marriage is a fraud and a farce, and has nothing to do with the purpose of marriage.

Not anymore. What part of the Supreme Court decision did you not understand?

None of it. It's completely incoherent and wrong. Got that? It's like calling shooting people on the beach, 'tennis'.

Word usage has got you confused, and so you're missing the point. The word doesn't matter, as it was adulterated years ago when the state used it in the same way as the church, which is not the case with todays newest development of gay marriages. You are unfortunately a little behind the power curve. But that's what you grew up with, it's to be expected!

Obvious Leo wrote:Shooting people on beaches is not as fashionable as shooting people in churches, movie theatres, or schools. However it remains part of an honourable American sporting tradition nevertheless and an integral aspect of the American cultural tradition.

"Obvious idiot," is more like it!

Hail Rome!

a friend of mine who has been living with her girlfriend for a while and they had no plans for marriage

the court decision has not changed it - they still have no plans for marriage

but now they have been experiencing something that until now was reserved for straight people - pressure from family to 'tie the knot' - from both families

Obvious Leo wrote:Shooting people on beaches is not as fashionable as shooting people in churches, movie theatres, or schools. However it remains part of an honourable American sporting tradition nevertheless and an integral aspect of the American cultural tradition.

You forgot McDonalds.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: You forgot McDonalds.

McDonalds was deliberately overlooked on aesthetic and possibly even moral grounds. A strong case could be made that running riot with a military assault rifle in a McDonalds fast food outlet might actually be in the long-term public interest.

Obvious Leo wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: You forgot McDonalds.

McDonalds was deliberately overlooked on aesthetic and possibly even moral grounds. A strong case could be made that running riot with a military assault rifle in a McDonalds fast food outlet might actually be in the long-term public interest.

I shouldn't but I can't help myself.

van Keister wrote:Hail Rome!

Exactly. It took less than a generation destroy what took society tens of thousands of years to evolve. The long-term repercussions will be will be interesting to watch.

(Anyone who says this or that country hasn't fallen apart as the result hasn't the brains of a gnat.)