U.S. Supreme Court Considers Gay Marriage

If two men or two women love each other, then they will love each other regardless of marriage rights or any other kind of beliefs that are held by other members of the human race. The debate of marriage is only a representation of the bigger picture. While I understand and live by the concept of subjectivity, people need to realise that if two people love each other, than we should allow them the right to marry. This is not because all people who love each other should marry, it is because recognising gay people and the love they share will promote equality and tolerance. Legally recognising gay marriage will not make more people become homosexual, it will mean that gay people will feel accepted, and that is what is important.

Guldbamsen wrote: Raises the question whether wild animals can be unnatural. Homosexualiy exists almost everywhere in the animal world, and just because we have the power of reflection doesn't take away from the fact that we, not so long ago, were swinging from the trees as well. Natural or it's socalled opposite, at least on a basic human level, will always be dictated by the individual and culture. What may seem natural to Bill, possibly feels absurd to Abdi.

They don't get married though


huahohouahohahaha

ban marriage

It's not about tax (why does everything here have to be whittled down to being about tax?). It is about "next of kin", inheritance and the rights of live-in partners to have the same rights as a spouse with regard to decisions made on medical care and funeral arrangements. In the absence of a legal spouse, next-of-kin in the USA only follows the bloodline. We don't have this problem in the UK as it has no legal status - anyone can be nominated as "next-of-kin" regardless of whether they are a blood relative.

I just don't understand why anyone would deny homosexuals the same right to be miserable as heterosexuals.  Makes no sense to me. 

And as exitthelemming says and not to stereotype at all the divorces will be messy.

More seriously . The argument always seems to come down to marriage being for having children. This always seems disingenuous to me.

Nothing.  Other than the church getting bad publicity.

Drew wrote: rushfan4 wrote: Nothing.  Other than the church getting bad publicity. I think it will be a mess...

I don't.  I assume that there was once a time when churches wouldn't perform interracial marriages or for that matter African American marriages but that came to an end.  At least mostly, although I think I did see a recent case where a pastor refused to perform an interracial marriage. I don't believe that they will have any legal ground to force a church to marry them.  What will eventually happen though is the churches will be branded as bigots and those who continue to attend those churches will be branded as bigots and people will have to decide whether or not they like that branding.  If enough people don't they will either leave the church or force the church to change.  Otherwise, it will be business as usual.  If the church won't marry you, then you will have to find a church or government official that will.

rushfan4 wrote: Drew wrote: rushfan4 wrote: Nothing.  Other than the church getting bad publicity. I think it will be a mess... I don't.  I assume that there was once a time when churches wouldn't perform interracial marriages or for that matter African American marriages but that came to an end.  At least mostly, although I think I did see a recent case where a pastor refused to perform an interracial marriage. I don't believe that they will have any legal ground to force a church to marry them.  What will eventually happen though is the churches will be branded as bigots and those who continue to attend those churches will be branded as bigots and people will have to decide whether or not they like that branding.  If enough people don't they will either leave the church or force the church to change.  Otherwise, it will be business as usual.  If the church won't marry you, then you will have to find a church or government official that will.

I wouldn't be so sure that churches aren't going to get federal pressure to perform gay marriages; there have already been instances in the US where the government tries to force churches and religious groups into acting contrarily to their beliefs.  Personally, I would have to think twice about voting for any gay marriage legalization act that didn't include legal protections for institutions that elected not to perform gay marriages.

The Doctor wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: rushfan4 wrote: Drew wrote: rushfan4 wrote: Nothing.  Other than the church getting bad publicity. I think it will be a mess... I don't.  I assume that there was once a time when churches wouldn't perform interracial marriages or for that matter African American marriages but that came to an end.  At least mostly, although I think I did see a recent case where a pastor refused to perform an interracial marriage. I don't believe that they will have any legal ground to force a church to marry them.  What will eventually happen though is the churches will be branded as bigots and those who continue to attend those churches will be branded as bigots and people will have to decide whether or not they like that branding.  If enough people don't they will either leave the church or force the church to change.  Otherwise, it will be business as usual.  If the church won't marry you, then you will have to find a church or government official that will. I wouldn't be so sure that churches aren't going to get federal pressure to perform gay marriages; there have already been instances in the US where the government tries to force churches and religious groups into acting contrarily to their beliefs.  Personally, I would have to think twice about voting for any gay marriage legalization act that didn't include legal protections for institutions that elected not to perform gay marriages.   Give me one instance where the government has tried to force churches and religious groups to do something in the performance of their religious duties that runs contrary to their religious beliefs.  Yes, the government has made religions adhere to generally applicable laws in the performance of things like their duties as employers, but not in the performance of actual religious duties.

Point taken.  I can't think of any examples off the top of my head.