-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
37 Republicans voted against Respect for Marriage Act in the Senate
- Thread starter Deleted member 586536
- Start date
- Views 7,593
- Replies 112
- Likes 2
Im wondering why you aren't calling him the usual "Rightwing fuckhead"That's really sad to hear man, I'm so sorry.
About to sign.
It is now law.
Post automatically merged:
It is now law.
Last edited by KingVamp,
I don't accept the word change....If the world changes and accepts the word marriage for a human and a dog like the evolution you "like", the world cannot change by calling a dog a cat, call it something else, that's so easy to do! Don't force people call something for another, that is true respect!
So you're just hung up on semantics, got it. Opening up "marriage" to include everyone is a good thing. But calling it something different when it isn't different... that's just needless. Two people in love getting married is marriage, no matter how you look at it. YOU are still free to think it's between a man and a woman, and that's fine. But keep that antiquated 1950's thinking out of other people's lives, because we're tired of hearing the same useless rhetoric from simple-minded people.
That's simply not true. Hate crimes of any kind are considered by the law, religious as well. You say that in the past gay people only had to find a pastor to marry, wtf, in the past and I'm talking only 50-60 years ago gay people were prosecuted and executed for being who they were, not only they couldn't marry, they couldn't express in any form their sexuality both publicly and privately (this one maybe constantly hiding which converts it more in a clandestine activity rather than private). Is it that crazy that religious, and I'm referring mostly to catholics or christians in general, that live under the privilege of being a majority in occidental society, don't feel the need of saying out loud that their right to be who they are must be protected? Maybe they don't feel this need because there is no need. Now think about islam and muslims in general living in occidental society, they are religious right? Would you still say they must be protected in their right of professing their religion or you would't give a f? By the way you think it would be the second I suppose.
It's not thinking about the 1950, it's thinking about the world....
And we're tired of hearing your same useless trying to change laws to change the world from simple-minded people as the world isn't "theirs", "yours" or "mine". When you think making a good change, you create a disturbance without knowing, juste like a programmer thinking to improve a program but making a secondary problem on a Os system. In order not to make a disturbance, you must listen and understand semantics, like a programmer in an os because else it won't work "properly".
Anyway beware, it's just in your country, if you go to some other country thinking your law is standardized (because it's not) , you'll get jailed or worst. If you say the world "marriage" talking about a gays relation in some countries (around half of the world), you might get punched it the face or people will laugh and stare at you, and won't understand why, and that's the reason why it makes you so stupid, so it was just to help you
Last edited by mrmagicm,
Find me the 'disturbance' where someone getting married hurts you. I'll wait. Any country worth-a-damn to live in, supports it. And the countries that don't support it aren't worthy of my time.It's not thinking about the 1950, it's thinking about the world....
And we're tired of hearing your same useless trying to change laws to change the world from simple-minded people as the world isn't "theirs", "yours" or "mine". When you think making a good change, you create a disturbance without knowing, juste like a programmer thinking to improve a program but making a secondary problem on a Os system. In order not to make a disturbance, you must listen and understand semantics, like a programmer in an os because else it won't work "properly".
Anyway beware, it's just in your country, if you go to some other country thinking your law is standardized (because it's not) , you'll get jailed or worst. If you say the world marriage talking about a gays relation in some countries (around half of the world), you might get punched it the face, and won't understand why, and that's the reason why it makes you so stupid, so it was just to help you
Indeed, stay in "your" world
You cannot go to Singapore, Skri lanka, Tunisia or Morocco,China, Qatar where many tourists go.... (Even if in Qatar if at the moment they are more tolerant because of the world cup of the sport you don't follow but that is important for 95% of other countries). So funny...North americans, because of this, you look arrogant, you claim the cause of a small percentage of a group that represents max 6 Millions, but don't respect the semantic of half of the world
Last edited by mrmagicm,
Semantics is not trivial. I would argue that semantics is the very root of every disagreement. This is why I am very much opposed to this law. The term individual used in the final draft is a very broad term that does not specify age, consent, nor species. I argue that if states could not be trusted to recognize the legal contract of exclusive intimate partnership between two consenting adult human beings, regardless of sex, then they also oughtn't be trusted to preserve a definition for the term "individual" that would not allow for the mockery of the legal marriage contract. My point, however, is likely already rendered moot due to the relatively common practice of divorce, which nullifies the legal marriage contract. This then weakens the commitment of marriage to a mere gesture of capricious fancy, rendering it no different than any extramarital affair. Overall, this law only achieves affirmation of the cultural habit and practice of disrespecting marriage rather than affirming respect for marriage, contrary to the law's title.
The sentiment in favor of absolute definitions and meaning is much older than 1950's era thinking. In fact, the sentiment opposed to absolute definitions and meaning, including opposition toward epistemological certainty, also known as postmodernism, began gaining traction during the 1950's. Also, you're committing what is called chronological snobbery by implying that contemporary thought is inherently better than past thought by virtue of whether such thought agrees with current cultural, social, and political trends. This is a very poor objective measure to evaluate the correctness of any idea or concept as it is susceptible to the fluidity of popular trends.
Marriage in history was not meant to be about love but as legal a contract.
person 1 legally stated to provides in funding and other needs till death do one of both part in exchange for the exclusive right of DNA donor to person 2.
But since the marriage.
Since no one is using marriage that way today, why the fuck is this discussion going about changing the meaning of this word?
the meaning of this word isn't a mere contract to exclusive rights, nor is it a lifetime gaurantee to money if the excusive rights are valid.
We use it today to set a mark, to state to the rest of the world we love each other! we use it today for our love that we see a future and can't beleve it ever stops.
It's a promise, not a contract.
and yes it still costs money to part before life ends one, but the payment is far below the original idea (for one should not suffer the rest of it's life for one small failure he could't foresee).
maybe if you preserved it in about 4000BC i'd beleve it was for preservation of the meaning of the word, but preserving it now doesn't make sence for it isn't a word that has a solid history.
The only reason to preserve this word now is because you are afraid, possibly because you don't know if you would've said yes to the other gender if you had the rights to say yes to one of your own gender.
person 1 legally stated to provides in funding and other needs till death do one of both part in exchange for the exclusive right of DNA donor to person 2.
But since the marriage.
Since no one is using marriage that way today, why the fuck is this discussion going about changing the meaning of this word?
the meaning of this word isn't a mere contract to exclusive rights, nor is it a lifetime gaurantee to money if the excusive rights are valid.
We use it today to set a mark, to state to the rest of the world we love each other! we use it today for our love that we see a future and can't beleve it ever stops.
It's a promise, not a contract.
and yes it still costs money to part before life ends one, but the payment is far below the original idea (for one should not suffer the rest of it's life for one small failure he could't foresee).
maybe if you preserved it in about 4000BC i'd beleve it was for preservation of the meaning of the word, but preserving it now doesn't make sence for it isn't a word that has a solid history.
The only reason to preserve this word now is because you are afraid, possibly because you don't know if you would've said yes to the other gender if you had the rights to say yes to one of your own gender.
Last edited by JaapDaniels,
People don't believe things can change over time, and that's just sad.
Last time someone said that to me in 5th grade he went to jail for weed
Same-sex marriage long predates the current issues. Equally, marriage has gone through countless changes over the course of human history. Marriage has been political, when those marrying are more of a figure head for their kingdoms. Marriage has been used a bartering tool. Marriage has been a means of keeping slaves. Marriage has been a means of keeping a family lineage, including brothers marrying their bother’s widow(s.) Same-sex marriage has a long history, including Native Americans that used to recognize same-sex marriages long before settlers arrived. Some religious organizations used to preform “unofficial” marriages that were recognized by their religion but not by the states. There’s also the massive list of different marriages in the Bible and other religious texts. Marriage has never just been 1 man and 1 woman, that’s just the most common persecution in recent history. That being said, your opinion on the matter doesn’t change the fact that same-sex marriages are going to happen and going to keep getting recognized.
I think it would be studious to qualify the context of each form mentioned in the Bible. One may easily infer that you mean that Scripture affirms rather than condemns acts such as αρσενοκοίτης which is a compound found in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1Tim. 1:10 formed from ἄρσενος κοίτην found in Lev. 20:13 of the Septuagint.
Same thing to you: Didn't say the unions would not happen, said the word for this would never be recognized. Been recognized in your country and the world, again, is not the same. I'm in reality, your opinion on the matter doesn’t change the fact that same-sex marriages are never going to be recognized for real by more than half of humanity, it will be only in your mind, that's the problem, without even counting those in your country that makes you think they think like you, just making you realize like it was gravity.
Last edited by mrmagicm,
Homophobia is just another hate trend that will lose popularity over time. Just because some backwater countries want to cling to their bullshit, doesn’t mean it will always be respected. Sorry not sorry but same-sex marriage is here and only going to continue to become more respected as time goes on. Your shit will die with time.
so you believe a fictional series of books rather than in people's right to congregate under a unity recognizing their love.
dude i hope nobody introduces you to harry potter.
Similar threads
