Louisiana won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

[PaulATMOS]

Actually the word marriage CAN be used. The SCOTUS just said so. That's how we roll here in the USA, so you are the one who needs to face it. 

 

And so you know, I couldn't care less about the Islamic or any other religion. Religion is simply a tool used to control the weak-minded among us.  

No, you just can't change the meaning of words to suit your own personal agenda. Marriage is not the joining of two same sex couples. You can use another word or make up an entirely new word, if that's what is required.

[Dot Matrix]

No, you just can't change the meaning of words to suit your own personal agenda. Marriage is not the joining of two same sex couples. You can use another word or make up an entirely new word, if that's what is required.

Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.

 

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

[T3X4S]

freqnasty - I think you are trying to read your definition into it.

Here is this - just top definition from google - I realize it may not mean a whole hell of a lot to many but....



 

[PaulATMOS]

So tell me, who is the Mr and who the Mrs, who is the bride and who is the groom? When they came up with the word marriage, it was not for couples of the same sex.

[Dot Matrix]

So tell me, who is the Mr and who the Mrs, who is the bride and who is the groom? When they came up with the word marriage, it was not for couples of the same sex.

Spouses don't have to be gendered.

[spenser.d]

So tell me, who is the Mr and who the Mrs, who is the bride and who is the groom? When they came up with the word marriage, it was not for couples of the same sex.

There doesn't need to be a Mr and Mrs. Also, were you there when "they" defined it?

[TMYW]

No, you just can't change the meaning of words to suit your own personal agenda. Marriage is not the joining of two same sex couples. You can use another word or make up an entirely new word, if that's what is required.

This shows how na

[PaulATMOS]

There doesn't need to be a Mr and Mrs. Also, were you there when "they" defined it?

I don't need to be there to understand history.

[mudslag]

No, you just can't change the meaning of words to suit your own personal agenda. Marriage is not the joining of two same sex couples. You can use another word or make up an entirely new word, if that's what is required.

 

 

 

 

Yes actually you can. 

[TMYW]

So tell me, who is the Mr and who the Mrs, who is the bride and who is the groom? When they came up with the word marriage, it was not for couples of the same sex.

They would both be "Mr" or both be "Mrs". Is there some rule that there can be only one "Mr" or "Mrs" in a relationship? Have you ever talked to a gay married couple before? Male couples refer to each other as "my husband". Female couples refer to each other as "my wife". Both are husbands? Both are wives? OH, THE HORROR!

 

As for who's the bride or who's the groom in the actually wedding ceremony, maybe they're both grooms or both brides or they decide by flipping a coin or playing rock, paper, scissors. Again, why does it matter?

 

I'm really sure either of these "quandaries" were really weighing on the minds of the SCOTUS when writing their opinion. *rolls eyes*

[PaulATMOS]

freqnasty - I think you are trying to read your definition into it.

Here is this - just top definition from google - I realize it may not mean a whole hell of a lot to many but....

Capture.JPG

You will note that definition has been altered in recent times to include "two people of the same sex". That was never the original definition. Over the course of history, homosexuality has never been largely accepted so to think that they would have had homosexuals marrying one another would have been nothing short of a travesty.

[Stoffel]

You will note that definition has been altered in recent times to include "two people of the same sex". That was never the original definition. Over the course of history, homosexuality has never been largely accepted so to think that they would have had homosexuals marrying one another would have been nothing short of a travesty.

 

How does it affect you that gay people can get married?

[T3X4S]

freqnasty, I will assume you are religious.  I wont belittle you in this thread for that.

But I have to ask, why are you so sanctimonious of the idea of marriage ?  Why are you so concerned about its definition, origin, history, different iterations ?

It means whatever those people who want to enter into it want it to mean.

Please tell me how someone else's interpretation of a word effect you ?

[+Red King Subscriber²]

Slavery, beer, sex before marriage, divorce, shrimp, and now gay marriage.

[T3X4S]

You will note that definition has been altered in recent times to include "two people of the same sex". That was never the original definition. Over the course of history, homosexuality has never been largely accepted so to think that they would have had homosexuals marrying one another would have been nothing short of a travesty.

Oh, I totally understand what you are saying, and do realize that is a modern definition.  But it begs questioning of why dont you modernize your definition ?

If 2 people want to spend the rest of their life with one another, and nobody else - why does this bother you ?

Honestly, I dont think it matters what the origin of the word is - just like mentioned about the origin of the word, terrific... its what it is used for now.

So many people are adjusting to a more modern, more accepting way of thinking - the effing awesome internet has helped with that.  If they aren't eating babies, or killing puppies - its OK, let them be happy.  It doesnt effect you.

[Draconian Guppy]

Some of the replies in this thread

[T3X4S]

Slavery, beer, sex before marriage, divorce, shrimp, and now gay marriage.

Ironic how each of those things are mentioned in the bible

Some of the replies in this thread

like ??

 

I don't need to be there to understand history.

I think that is something else you clearly dont understand.

[Draconian Guppy]

Ironic how each of those things are mentioned in the bible

like ??

 

I think that is something else you clearly dont understand.

People really take it personally even though it doesn't have any effect on them whatsover. That and the snarky remarks every now and then.

[T3X4S]

I'll take the 5th on that

[PaulATMOS]

I've got nothing against gay people and would never chose not to be befriend a gay person or do business with one because of their sexual orientation. I'm just of the opinion that marriage is something between a man and a woman and that should be respected.

I'm not sure why gay people protesting about not having had the right to get married like a man and woman have traditionally done, makes them feel like their love for their partner is any less or their life is somewhat incomplete because they're not married.

[mudslag]

I've got nothing against gay people and would never chose not to be befriend a gay person or do business with one because of their sexual orientation. I'm just of the opinion that marriage is something between a man and a woman and that should be respected.

I'm not sure why gay people protesting about not having had the right to get married like a man and woman have traditionally done, makes them feel like their love for their partner is any less or their life is somewhat incomplete because they're not married.

 

 

Don't like gay marriage, don't have one. This ruling does absolutely nothing to you as a person or how you live your life. Your personal beliefs on the other hand are yours and those beliefs stop at your front door. 

 

You say you're not sure why they protest for not having the "Right", I have to ask, do you even understand what that means not to have the same Rights as the person next to you? If you understand that, then you shouldn't have a problem understanding why they protested in the first place. 

[TMYW]

I've got nothing against gay people and would never chose not to be befriend a gay person or do business with one because of their sexual orientation. I'm just of the opinion that marriage is something between a man and a woman and that should be respected.

I'm not sure why gay people protesting about not having had the right to get married like a man and woman have traditionally done, makes them feel like their love for their partner is any less or their life is somewhat incomplete because they're not married.

It's not that they feel that "their love for their partner is any less", it's that they feel that they're being marginalized by society and the law. Try to use your rationale to justify "separate but equal" for blacks. You're going to be left spinning your wheels.

[TPreston]

I've got nothing against gay people and would never chose not to be befriend a gay person or do business with one because of their sexual orientation. I'm just of the opinion that marriage is something between a man and a woman and that should be respected.

I'm not sure why gay people protesting about not having had the right to get married like a man and woman have traditionally done, makes them feel like their love for their partner is any less or their life is somewhat incomplete because they're not married.

20 years ago it was legal to rape your wife, 200 years ago marriage was basically slavery where the woman wasn't an equal partner but a commodity to be traded, 2000 years ago child marriage was common as was polygamy.

 

Traditional marriage is a myth.

[FloatingFatMan]

Gay marriage is highly offensive to the Islamic religion. In fact, the act of sodomy in an Islamic country results in harsh jail time. Let's face it, marriage was never designed nor worded for the joining of two same sex couples. They can have a civil union but the word marriage cannot be used.

 

The more Islam is offender, the better.  Also, same sex couples were getting married way before the Christian church was even thought of, let alone came into being and decided to ban it.

[FloatingFatMan]

I don't need to be there to understand history.

 

You don't understand history.

You will note that definition has been altered in recent times to include "two people of the same sex". That was never the original definition. Over the course of history, homosexuality has never been largely accepted so to think that they would have had homosexuals marrying one another would have been nothing short of a travesty.

 

Incorrect. I suggest you go and actually learn some history, and I don't mean just American history, which is so short it's barely any history at all.

I've got nothing against gay people and would never chose not to be befriend a gay person or do business with one because of their sexual orientation. I'm just of the opinion that marriage is something between a man and a woman and that should be respected.

I'm not sure why gay people protesting about not having had the right to get married like a man and woman have traditionally done, makes them feel like their love for their partner is any less or their life is somewhat incomplete because they're not married.

 

Because they were denied the same legal rights, protections and benefits as different sex marriages are, and that's unacceptable.