One Solution To The Gay Marriage Issue

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
Doesn't matter what the opinions was. It redefined marriage and opens up endless varieties of all marriage combinations. Muddles everything
Not really at all though. It very specifically stated marriage was a union between two people and should be recognized regardless of gender. So I'm not sure how that muddles everything when it comes to polygamous marriages. Seems to do quite the opposite actually.
 

tourists24

Well-Known Member
Not really at all though. It very specifically stated marriage was a union between two people and should be recognized regardless of gender. So I'm not sure how that muddles everything when it comes to polygamous marriages. Seems to do quite the opposite actually.
Really? 2 people? How is that the constitutional definition? Where does that magical number come from? A court changes the definition but only for one group? How is that equality under the law?
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
Really? 2 people? How is that the constitutional definition? Where does that magical number come from? A court changes the definition but only for one group? How is that equality under the law?
I totally agree with where you're going. The decision was a major blow for people who want to marry 6 people, or their cats, or probably more applicable in the near future... their computer. What can you do though? For now we'll just have to celebrate this one small step for marriage equality :laugh:.
 

tourists24

Well-Known Member
I totally agree with where you're going. The decision was a major blow for people who want to marry 6 people, or their cats, or probably more applicable in the near future... their computer. What can you do though? For now we'll just have to celebrate this one small step for marriage equality :laugh:.
Guess I'm still missing the equality part. And you can't explain where that magic number comes from. And why the definition only changes for one group of people and not everyone else. So much for true equality under the law.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
Guess I'm still missing the equality part. And you can't explain where that magic number comes from. And why the definition only changes for one group of people and not everyone else. So much for true equality under the law.
It's not complicated. I'm agreeing with you. Polygamy should be legal.
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/scotus-same-sex-marriage-gay-culture.html?_r=0

The more victories that accumulate for gay rights, the faster some gay institutions, rituals and markers are fading out. And so just as the gay marriage movement peaks, so does a debate about whether gay identity is dimming, overtaken by its own success.
“What do gay men have in common when they don’t have oppression?” asked Andrew Sullivan, one of the intellectual architects of the marriage movement. “I don’t know the answer to that yet.”
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/scotus-same-sex-marriage-gay-culture.html?_r=0

The more victories that accumulate for gay rights, the faster some gay institutions, rituals and markers are fading out. And so just as the gay marriage movement peaks, so does a debate about whether gay identity is dimming, overtaken by its own success.
“What do gay men have in common when they don’t have oppression?” asked Andrew Sullivan, one of the intellectual architects of the marriage movement. “I don’t know the answer to that yet.”
So gay folks should be grateful for oppression? That's just stupid.
 
Top