Might be a bit of a sensitive spot for some, but I just want to know what you guys think of gay mariiage? I personally think that it's completely fine, and no book or law can prevent me from thinking that.

Why do you insist on starting flame bait threads like this?

Go read the Supreme Court discussion thread. It's pretty recent.

Yeah, no kidding?

Troll much?

 Matthew wrote:
Might be a bit of a sensitive spot for some, but I just want to know what you guys think of gay mariiage? I personally think that it's completely fine, and no book or law can prevent me from thinking that.

Guess it depends how big a book it is and how hard it hits you round the head

I am all for it ... that way when they get a divorce they can lose half of their gak too. People put too much thought and emotion into a friggin piece of paper. It really does not matter what the outside world thinks of two people that are living together. If you need a sheet of paper for some sort of validation ... I feel bad for you. The only reason that I am married to my wife is because SHE wanted it, I could not care less. I made a vow to her and myself that there would be no others ... and that was way before we got said sheet of paper.

As long as no religious group is forced to conduct said marriages go for it (any that are willing should be free to take part).

Steve, Jane, Bob and Jenifer can marry each other in whatever permutations they want and as long as their legal rights and responsibilities are the same it's cool

I think homosexuals should be allowed to live together, but the word "gay marriage" makes me feel uncomfortable. I would like to see them give it a different name.
I also do not think religious people should be forced into conducting marriages that they oppose.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I think homosexuals should be allowed to live together, but the word "gay marriage" makes me feel uncomfortable. I would like to see them give it a different name.
I also do not think religious people should be forced into conducting marriages that they oppose.

I believe the alternate name is Civil Union.

-Purged-

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
I am all for it ... that way when they get a divorce they can lose half of their gak too. People put too much thought and emotion into a friggin piece of paper. It really does not matter what the outside world thinks of two people that are living together. If you need a sheet of paper for some sort of validation ... I feel bad for you. The only reason that I am married to my wife is because SHE wanted it, I could not care less. I made a vow to her and myself that there would be no others ... and that was way before we got said sheet of paper.

Believe it or not, it's not just a piece of paper. There's unfortunately a lot of rights and benefits that go along with being married. A couple years back an astronaut passed away and her partner was denied her benefits (IIRC it was a pension) because they were not married. Theres also several stories of partners being denied from the emergency room or being able to make medical decisions because they're not married.

I agree, it's just a piece of paper, it doesn't define your relationship, but unfortunately there are some heavy impacts it has.

I'm fine with gay marriage.

Mostly positive. I'm all for it, but I also have some friends on the militant, left-libertarian side of the gender equality debate who think that, after decades fighting for the right to deviate from what society at large believes to be normal, being forced into the state-sanctioned heteronormative canon is humiliating. I don't agree with this, but can certainly see their point.

All this debate on the etymology of the word "marriage" baffles me to no end, though. Mostly because the Spanish language has other words that also have its roots on ancient roman institutions which used to be gendered, but are not anymore. The word "Patrimonio" for instance, refers to the right to own wealth and transmit inheritance. Going by Roman law this was a right exclusive to the paterfamilias, the father (Being a father wasn't enough to qualify for the title of paterfamilias, but let's leave it here for simplicity's sake). Nowadays, "patrimonio" has lost its gender connotation, and noone in his sane mind would use its etymological origins in an obsolete Roman custom to deny a woman's right to own and pass property. Maybe it's different in other languages, though.

First person I see stereotyping one side as "religious wackos" or "SJW's" or anything of the same gets a warning/holiday and the thread locked. There's the warning, please abide by it.

I think it's completely fine and should be allowed anywhere really.

I feel like all of these semi-spam, one sentence threads made by OP are in fact written by a robot that's collating various opinions and view points on a wide range of topics in order to form a realistic personality and memories to pass itself off as human.

I live in Massachusetts.

 nels1031 wrote:
I feel like all of these semi-spam, one sentence threads made by OP are in fact written by a robot that's collating various opinions and view points on a wide range of topics in order to form a realistic personality and memories to pass itself off as human.

Oh no, he's on to us!! Quick OP, run!!!

There is no valid reason to be found on this planet why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. The end.

 nels1031 wrote:
I feel like all of these semi-spam, one sentence threads made by OP are in fact written by a robot that's collating various opinions and view points on a wide range of topics in order to form a realistic personality and memories to pass itself off as human.

Plotting the downfall of the Human race one flaming Thread at a time?

For what it's worth, I agree wholeheartedly with Gay Civil Union (to be PC about it)

Doesn't bother me in the slightest. Gay people should have the same right to marry as anyone else.

However, the inconvenient truth remains that homosexuality goes against the beliefs/teachings of most religions. So I don't think the right to gay marriage should override the right of churches to object and opt out on religious grounds.

You want gay marriage? Great. Find a church willing to perform the wedding ceremony or have a secular wedding.


And I say that as an atheist.

Can we please lock this immediately?

Homophobes hate on homosexuals who want to marry, heterophobes hate on heterosexuals who dare speak up against homosexual marriage or, rather, the privileges marriage grants.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Can we please lock this immediately?

Homophobes hate on homosexuals who want to marry, heterophobes hate on heterosexuals who dare speak up against homosexual marriage or, rather, the privileges marriage grants.

I don't understand the latter. Can you please expand?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Doesn't bother me in the slightest. Gay people should have the same right to marry as anyone else.

However, the inconvenient truth remains that homosexuality goes against the beliefs/teachings of most religions. So I don't think the right to gay marriage should override the right of churches to object and opt out on religious grounds.

You want gay marriage? Great. Find a church willing to perform the wedding ceremony or have a secular wedding.


And I say that as an atheist.

Secular weddings are way more fun anyway. My wife and I got married secularly because at the time we had different religious traditions, and it would have alienated one side of the family or the other if we were married in either church. Marry who you wish, as long as they are of consenting age and consent.

I look forward to new traditions like Best Man arm wrestling contests and flower arrangements that can be seen from space.

Philosophically, I don't think the government has a role in the institution of marriage, or whatever covenant one consenting adult makes without another consenting adult.

Since extricating marriage from the legal code is not pragmatic, then as a fallback position, I believe the text of the 14th amendment unambiguously allows gay marriage.

 jreilly89 wrote:


I don't understand the latter. Can you please expand?

It's the same thing that happens with e.g. immigration. If you say anything against immigration, you're a nazi, if you say anything against same-sex marriage, you're a bigot.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


I don't understand the latter. Can you please expand?

It's the same thing that happens with e.g. immigration. If you say anything against immigration, you're a nazi, if you say anything against same-sex marriage, you're a bigot.

I think that's kind of taking it to an extreme. You can disagree with same sex marriage, but when you start saying things like "Homosexuals are going to hell, deserve to die, etc.", thats what crosses the line into bigotry.

Same thing with immigration.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 OIIIIIIO wrote:
I am all for it ... that way when they get a divorce they can lose half of their gak too. People put too much thought and emotion into a friggin piece of paper. It really does not matter what the outside world thinks of two people that are living together. If you need a sheet of paper for some sort of validation ... I feel bad for you. The only reason that I am married to my wife is because SHE wanted it, I could not care less. I made a vow to her and myself that there would be no others ... and that was way before we got said sheet of paper.

Believe it or not, it's not just a piece of paper. There's unfortunately a lot of rights and benefits that go along with being married. A couple years back an astronaut passed away and her partner was denied her benefits (IIRC it was a pension) because they were not married. Theres also several stories of partners being denied from the emergency room or being able to make medical decisions because they're not married.

I agree, it's just a piece of paper, it doesn't define your relationship, but unfortunately there are some heavy impacts it has.

I'm fine with gay marriage.

There was also that law in Texas (I think, was a while ago that I heard about it) that made it illegal for a divorcee to have their kids sleep in the same house as their new partner unless they were married to that partner. Was meant to protect children from their parent just bringing random people back every night, according to the people who made the law.

Hit the papers a while back after a woman divorced her husband after coming out as a lesbian and then she couldn't have her kids live with her and her new partner as Texas didn't recognise same sex marriages. So what it actually did was basically make it illegal for homosexual couples to have children.

I'm absolutely fine with it, and have actively campaigned for its legalization.

I feel that in 20 years time we will look back on same sex marriage in the same way we look back at inter-racial marriage today.

As long as marriage confers legal status and benefits to the partners of such, no-one should be denied it.

 nels1031 wrote:
I feel like all of these semi-spam, one sentence threads made by OP are in fact written by a robot that's collating various opinions and view points on a wide range of topics in order to form a realistic personality and memories to pass itself off as human.

Pfft, amateur.
I am much more subt-uh, never mind.

 marv335 wrote:
I'm absolutely fine with it, and have actively campaigned for its legalization.

I feel that in 20 years time we will look back on same sex marriage in the same way we look back at inter-racial marriage today.

As long as marriage confers legal status and benefits to the partners of such, no-one should be denied it.

I think that's the main impact. Don't get me wrong, I think it's wrong to deny same sex marriage on any grounds, but a lot of people don't realize the impact that being in a relationship and not being able to get married has: taxes, death, medical decisions, etc.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:


I don't understand the latter. Can you please expand?

It's the same thing that happens with e.g. immigration. If you say anything against immigration, you're a nazi, if you say anything against same-sex marriage, you're a bigot.

Being against gay marriage does not make you a bigot by default. When you quote bigots and their arguments, you come across as a bigot.

sirlynchmob wrote:


Being against gay marriage does not make you a bigot by default. When you quote bigots and their arguments, you come across as a bigot.

Precisely. The problem, as with everything, lies in a highly sensitive and extremely emotional topic with most people on both sides being unable to properly talk about said issue.

 Sigvatr wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


Being against gay marriage does not make you a bigot by default. When you quote bigots and their arguments, you come across as a bigot.

Precisely. The problem, as with everything, lies in a highly sensitive and extremely emotional topic with most people on both sides being unable to properly talk about said issue.

But everyone here has said something without being offensive. I think refusing to talk about a topic is worse than people getting upset or or offended.

 Matthew wrote:
Might be a bit of a sensitive spot for some, but I just want to know what you guys think of gay mariiage? I personally think that it's completely fine, and no book or law can prevent me from thinking that.

No thanks, I'm already married.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
Why do you insist on starting flame bait threads like this?

Its not flame bait if people act like adults.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Can we please lock this immediately?

Homophobes hate on homosexuals who want to marry, heterophobes hate on heterosexuals who dare speak up against homosexual marriage or, rather, the privileges marriage grants.

I don't understand the latter. Can you please expand?

He's saying there's haters on both sides. TBone says everyone stay calm and kill zombies!

No issues with it. Live and let live and all that.

Don't care either way. Marriage control...gun control...people need to stop telling other people what they're "allowed" to do.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Don't care either way. Marriage control...gun control...people need to stop telling other people what they're "allowed" to do.

Preach it brother!.

As long as they are loyal to the emperor and suffer not the heritic or xenos scum I see no problem....

(see what I did there? can't believe in 2015 we are even still talking about this. Live and let live except for little plastic warriors on big tables with dice)

 jreilly89 wrote:

But everyone here has said something without being offensive. I think refusing to talk about a topic is worse than people getting upset or or offended.

This isn't meant to be offensive, but you maybe haven't spent enough time on Dakka. Pretty much every topic about it ends up being a massive flamefest.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Believe it or not, it's not just a piece of paper. There's unfortunately a lot of rights and benefits that go along with being married.

Aye, this. Imagine Bob and Jim having lived together for 10+ years, and yet when one of them gets badly injured in some accident and decisions are needed his partner is bypassed for his parents or a sibling. I don't care if it's called marriage, but IMO it would be fair these two had the option of listing the other as "closest kin" for this sort of thing.

If gay people want to be miserable too then let them. No sense in reserving the suffering for the heterosexuals.

Can we retire the "If they want the right to be miserable and loose half their stuff" jokes, they are kinda old now

 TheCustomLime wrote:
If gay people want to be miserable too then let them. No sense in reserving the suffering for the heterosexuals.

"Marriage has three rings. Engagement ring, wedding ring, and the suffering"

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Can we retire the "If they want the right to be miserable and loose half their stuff" jokes, they are kinda old now

I apologize. I just have a really dim view on the institution of marriage as a whole.

 Chongara wrote:
I live in Massachusetts.

*highfives fellow Mass Hole ! *


I love our People's Democratic Republic of Massachusetts. Wouldn't trade living here for anywhere other than may be hawaii for the weather.


Also Gay Marriage: Still have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why they shouldn't be allowed to be as equally miserable as us straight folk.

Just kidding, I 100% support gay marriage.


I agree with Marv335. 20-30 years from now people are going to look at same-sex marriage prohibition with the same bewilderment as segregation. Just me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Can we retire the "If they want the right to be miserable and loose half their stuff" jokes, they are kinda old now

Get married and get back to us on this one, boss. If you still agree after being married for 3-5 years, let us know.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Can we retire the "If they want the right to be miserable and loose half their stuff" jokes, they are kinda old now

I apologize. I just have a really dim view on the institution of marriage as a whole.

Its not that ,but anytime anyone make something about Gay Marriage, this joke pops up

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Can we retire the "If they want the right to be miserable and loose half their stuff" jokes, they are kinda old now

I apologize. I just have a really dim view on the institution of marriage as a whole.

Its not that ,but anytime anyone make something about Gay Marriage, this joke pops up

Fair.


Recognize that it's an attempt to inject humor and diffuse an otherwise powderkeg of a topic. There's very little lukewarm opinion on this topic. It's usually nuclearly for, or against.

Page 2, 3rd post down:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/631573.page

Do we really need all these "hey guys, how do you feel about these highly divisive topics that always cause heated flame wars" threads when they are literally only one click away?

 d-usa wrote:
Page 2, 3rd post down:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/631573.page

Do we really need all these "hey guys, how do you feel about these highly divisive topics that always cause heated flame wars" threads when they are literally only one click away?

You're right. Quick, take these down, we need to conserve the megabytes!!

 Haight wrote:

I agree with Marv335. 20-30 years from now people are going to look at same-sex marriage prohibition with the same bewilderment as segregation.

I don't think so. The difference between segregation and gay marriage prohibition is that segregation only occurred in the US (and South Africa) whereas gay marriage is forbidden in the large majority of nations worldwide. While this may change in some liberal Western nations, there are many highly conservative nations where gay marriage will likely still be outlawed in 30 years.

I'm pro marriage in all forms, two people love each other regardless of gender or orientation its nice to see them declare that to the world. As for debating whether the term marriage is right? There is no difference to me between a man/woman getting married or two men, both are in love, declaring that and binding themselves to each other. Its nice, its a commitment.

I'm for gay marriage personally. I grew up in Woodstock, NY, so I never thought about something like that being something people would have to campaign for, gay people were, and are, just people to me. I have heard not compelling argument against it as well. The most I have heard is that it makes people uncomfortable.

Marriage is a wonderful institution, and I wish to keep no one from it. It is more than just the legal business, but it is formally and publicly pledging yourself to someone very dear to you.

Could care less. Unless same sex couples get "special" benefits or advantages over traditional married couple. Then I would be against it.

 Jihadin wrote:
Could care less. Unless same sex couples get "special" benefits or advantages over traditional married couple. Then I would be against it.

Couldn't care less.
Saying "Could care less" means that you actually do care.

On topic, I live in the South, and generally don't care about this.
Northerners can stay in their little blue bubble.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Haight wrote:

I agree with Marv335. 20-30 years from now people are going to look at same-sex marriage prohibition with the same bewilderment as segregation.

I don't think so. The difference between segregation and gay marriage prohibition is that segregation only occurred in the US (and South Africa) whereas gay marriage is forbidden in the large majority of nations worldwide. While this may change in some liberal Western nations, there are many highly conservative nations where gay marriage will likely still be outlawed in 30 years.

Indeed there are places where legal discrimination against homosexuals is gaining ground, e.g. Zimbabwe and Russia.

There are also plenty of places where racial genocide is still taking place. Does that mean that people in the US don't look back at the arguments about racial segregation and wonder what the hell people were thinking?

 Breotan wrote:
Why do you insist on starting flame bait threads like this?

Actually considering how conservative a lot of the OT is, I'm always quite impressed by the generally liberal attitude towards gay marriage and also transsexualism. Perhaps it's just because it's PC, but I rarely see anyone on here speak out against those things.

If you really want to bait OT, just mention how guns need to be banned. *hides*

 Smacks wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Why do you insist on starting flame bait threads like this?

Actually considering how conservative a lot of the OT is, I'm always quite impressed by the generally liberal attitude towards gay marriage and also transsexualism. Perhaps it's just because it's PC, but I rarely see anyone on here speak out against those things.

If you really want to bait OT, just mention how guns need to be banned. *hides*

Or those damn evil cops always killing innocent people.

Wow, I started this because I wanted to know how people felt.

YOU RUINED IT

Honestly, I'm surprised how well this thread is going. I think it's partly to do to the fact that dakka is mostly composed of "younger" people, who are usually more open to the idea in general.

I don't see the issue, if gay people want to get married, so what, let them... Actually the whole concept of "letting them" is a bit repugnant to me, it shouldn't even be a question of being allowed to have a basic human right, it should just be assumed its fine.

 Formosa wrote:
I don't see the issue, if gay people want to get married, so what, let them... Actually the whole concept of "letting them" is a bit repugnant to me, it shouldn't even be a question of being allowed to have a basic human right, it should just be assumed its fine.

Well put.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Haight wrote:

I agree with Marv335. 20-30 years from now people are going to look at same-sex marriage prohibition with the same bewilderment as segregation.

I don't think so. The difference between segregation and gay marriage prohibition is that segregation only occurred in the US (and South Africa) whereas gay marriage is forbidden in the large majority of nations worldwide. While this may change in some liberal Western nations, there are many highly conservative nations where gay marriage will likely still be outlawed in 30 years.

Well, i'm really only expecting the change in more liberal nations. I have zero expectation that in nations where they still stone women to death for infidelity that they'll magically be okay with same sex marriage in three decades hence.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Haight wrote:

I agree with Marv335. 20-30 years from now people are going to look at same-sex marriage prohibition with the same bewilderment as segregation.

I don't think so. The difference between segregation and gay marriage prohibition is that segregation only occurred in the US (and South Africa) whereas gay marriage is forbidden in the large majority of nations worldwide. While this may change in some liberal Western nations, there are many highly conservative nations where gay marriage will likely still be outlawed in 30 years.

Indeed there are places where legal discrimination against homosexuals is gaining ground, e.g. Zimbabwe and Russia.

Very true (and sad). However neither are really know for being beacons of progression, are they ? I wonder if the next person who quotes me will point out that if ISIS achieves its global goal of a worldwide caliphate, it's highly unlikely they'd be okay with it either in 30 years.



I should amend my comment. Progressive nations inclined towards civil liberties and individual freedoms will have the bewildered long view at same sex marriare the same way my generation has towards segregation.

 Matthew wrote:
Wow, I started this because I wanted to know how people felt.

YOU RUINED IT

Whoa there fella... Cool your jets. Even a cursory read through would tell you that the majority of posters on this thread are in favour. A few quick searches would have told you that you were lucky this didn't decend into a flame-fest.

Don't be salty, just maybe slow down on the Baiting threads. Ya know?

I'm not sure, but I think he was being facetious.

 sarpedons-right-hand wrote:

 Matthew wrote:
Wow, I started this because I wanted to know how people felt.

YOU RUINED IT

Whoa there fella... Cool your jets. Even a cursory read through would tell you that the majority of posters on this thread are in favour. A few quick searches would have told you that you were lucky this didn't decend into a flame-fest.

Don't be salty, just maybe slow down on the Baiting threads. Ya know?

From the other threads I think he wanted to watch the flamefest and is simply disappointed it's not happening.

 Smacks wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Why do you insist on starting flame bait threads like this?

Actually considering how conservative a lot of the OT is, I'm always quite impressed by the generally liberal attitude towards gay marriage and also transsexualism. Perhaps it's just because it's PC, but I rarely see anyone on here speak out against those things.

If you really want to bait OT, just mention how guns need to be banned. *hides*

if this thread gets to 10 pages i guarantee it will be talking about gun control somehow , it is Dakka after all.

If the gays (i love that term ;D, like the email - it really says something about the person using the term) want to get married who gives a crap.

Is there a subject that frazzled can't fit sausage dogs into? I'm starting to think that in 10 years if i type gun control into a search engine the first result that comes up will be a picture of a short overly long dog.

As long as the bridesmaids are heterosexual ladies i am all for it,
My only confusion will be on the dance floor when you traditionally dance with the bride, who do i ask first! Dilemma's!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb-JZSyhWSc

Obviously I support gay marriage...it is an option for me to marry another man one day.

 Bullockist wrote:


if this thread gets to 10 pages i guarantee it will be talking about gun control somehow , it is Dakka after all..

What does Zimmermann have to say about gay marriage?

 Bullockist wrote:

Is there a subject that frazzled can't fit sausage dogs into?

No.

At this point, opposing gay marriage is just bigotry and backwards if you ask me.

This thread is still open? I guess it is basically because nobody here oppose gay marriage.
Personally, my main reason for supporting it is that is pisses religious bigots off. The side reason is that it also makes some homosexual happy, and this is all nice and cool, but really, pissing of religious bigots is always so nice .
I wonder how it will work up with how gay marriages done in countries that allows them are recognized in countries that do not allow them.

Who cares. The sooner one gets married, the sooner one can get a divorce. That's my optimistic view on things.

No one debating being Matthew asked to give our view on it which we are. No one derailing the thread yet

On the subject of "forcing" religious people to conduct gay marriages, if someone acts on behalf of the state (i.e. legally marrying people, as opposed to ceremonially) that person really has no business deciding who gets to marry and who doesn't. If you're someone who privately leads a ceremony to marry people then fine, do what you want, but if you have official sanction (i.e. the capacity to conduct legally binding marriages) you damn well better follow the rule of law. Official sanction comes with responsibilities, setting the rule of law aside breaks society apart. It is literally the foundation on which the entire legal system rests.

The religious figure conducting the ceremony would just leave out "and by the state _____" and straight into "Husband and Wife"

I am new to the whole forum thing, and I have not read every single post on the subject matter, but what does this really have to do with plying Warhammer 40K!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the subject of "forcing" religious people to conduct gay marriages, if someone acts on behalf of the state (i.e. legally marrying people, as opposed to ceremonially) that person really has no business deciding who gets to marry and who doesn't. If you're someone who privately leads a ceremony to marry people then fine, do what you want, but if you have official sanction (i.e. the capacity to conduct legally binding marriages) you damn well better follow the rule of law. Official sanction comes with responsibilities, setting the rule of law aside breaks society apart. It is literally the foundation on which the entire legal system rests.

Agreed. State registrars etc have a job to perform, and are bound by ethical codes of conduct and discrimination laws. If you're unwilling to do the job according to the typical codes of conduct involved (i.e. no discrimination), then you shouldn't be doing that job. My point was that a Church, Mosque etc should not have to provide a venue for a wedding against their will if they are opposed on religious grounds to gay marriage. Private property, religious conscience, freedom of speech and all that.

TonyA wrote:
I am new to the whole forum thing, and I have not read every single post on the subject matter, but what does this really have to do with plying Warhammer 40K!

You stepped into the wrong sub forum

step away slowly and move up the the 40k specific forums

TonyA wrote:
I am new to the whole forum thing, and I have not read every single post on the subject matter, but what does this really have to do with plying Warhammer 40K!

Very simple. The Rinbow Warriors chapter and Swinging Swords 532nd regiment are planning some combined arms tactics and new camo patterns. They are working through whether their combined arms approach is acceptable under the current codex, or if the Inquisition will consider them heretics.

Its a serious question. Their fuscia camo schemes have been particularly effective against the eldar Shining Spear aspect warriors.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the subject of "forcing" religious people to conduct gay marriages, if someone acts on behalf of the state (i.e. legally marrying people, as opposed to ceremonially) that person really has no business deciding who gets to marry and who doesn't. If you're someone who privately leads a ceremony to marry people then fine, do what you want, but if you have official sanction (i.e. the capacity to conduct legally binding marriages) you damn well better follow the rule of law. Official sanction comes with responsibilities, setting the rule of law aside breaks society apart. It is literally the foundation on which the entire legal system rests.

It is my French culture speaking, but if you give religious people the sanction to make religious ceremonies that are legally binding, something is very wrong. Keep religion away from the state. Ever.
If we are just talking about random state employee getting angsty because he has to do something against his/her religious beliefs, well, they can change jobs.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the subject of "forcing" religious people to conduct gay marriages, if someone acts on behalf of the state (i.e. legally marrying people, as opposed to ceremonially) that person really has no business deciding who gets to marry and who doesn't. If you're someone who privately leads a ceremony to marry people then fine, do what you want, but if you have official sanction (i.e. the capacity to conduct legally binding marriages) you damn well better follow the rule of law. Official sanction comes with responsibilities, setting the rule of law aside breaks society apart. It is literally the foundation on which the entire legal system rests.

Isn't that how it is done now? in my case it involved a spiked mug of rum, a sap to the head, and a father in law with a shotgun, but don't most others involve getting the wedding license separately?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the subject of "forcing" religious people to conduct gay marriages, if someone acts on behalf of the state (i.e. legally marrying people, as opposed to ceremonially) that person really has no business deciding who gets to marry and who doesn't. If you're someone who privately leads a ceremony to marry people then fine, do what you want, but if you have official sanction (i.e. the capacity to conduct legally binding marriages) you damn well better follow the rule of law. Official sanction comes with responsibilities, setting the rule of law aside breaks society apart. It is literally the foundation on which the entire legal system rests.

It is my French culture speaking, but if you give religious people the sanction to make religious ceremonies that are legally binding, something is very wrong. Keep religion away from the state. Ever.
If we are just talking about random state employee getting angsty because he has to do something against his/her religious beliefs, well, they can change jobs.

Separation of Church and State is supposed to exist, but there's always some bleed over.

Money Money Money

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
On the subject of "forcing" religious people to conduct gay marriages, if someone acts on behalf of the state (i.e. legally marrying people, as opposed to ceremonially) that person really has no business deciding who gets to marry and who doesn't. If you're someone who privately leads a ceremony to marry people then fine, do what you want, but if you have official sanction (i.e. the capacity to conduct legally binding marriages) you damn well better follow the rule of law. Official sanction comes with responsibilities, setting the rule of law aside breaks society apart. It is literally the foundation on which the entire legal system rests.

It is my French culture speaking, but if you give religious people the sanction to make religious ceremonies that are legally binding, something is very wrong. Keep religion away from the state. Ever.
If we are just talking about random state employee getting angsty because he has to do something against his/her religious beliefs, well, they can change jobs.

Doesn't matter if the person is religious as long as the rule of law is followed.

TonyA wrote:
I am new to the whole forum thing, and I have not read every single post on the subject matter, but what does this really have to do with plying Warhammer 40K!

Nothing! And everything!

That is the joy and pain of the Off Topic forum.

Going with Ox here. In Germany, you can be married even without the church's consent or get the whole package and get married both at church and at the Standesamt.

Kneel before our German supremacy.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Going with Ox here. In Germany, you can be married even without the church's consent or get the whole package and get married both at church and at the Standesamt.

Kneel before our German supremacy.

That can't be German. There's not enough syllables. It needs to be more like Stanasmtkaputtfrankfurterbliestungfatladyzingengotterdamurunginvadinfrankenreichcommerzanplatz

 jreilly89 wrote:
Separation of Church and State is supposed to exist, but there's always some bleed over.

Are you talking about the U.S., or Sweden, or the whole world?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Doesn't matter if the person is religious as long as the rule of law is followed.

Yeah, but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about state-sanctioned and state-recognized religious ceremonies. Those exists in Britain iirc, and there were some Muslims that were angry because only the Anglican were explicitly forbidden by law to marry homosexuals, while other religions and denominations were merely authorized to refuse rather than compelled to do so. Yeah, it was that stupid.
http://rt.com/news/uk-muslims-gay-marriage-357/
Religion! Complaining when the law does not force you to do something!

Yeah, here in Pennsylvania we can have pretty much anyone officiate a marriage (except people ordained on the internet), as long as you pay the fee for the license first. You can even get a "self-uniting" license. No religious folk even needed. I had mine performed by a Wiccan priestess myself. So people here have the right to refuse to marry gays, but its really not difficult to find a replacement.

Also, I bring this up again, if a man can marry an MLP plushie and have a city recognize it.....then marriage means nothing

 Sigvatr wrote:
Going with Ox here. In Germany, you can be married even without the church's consent or get the whole package and get married both at church and at the Standesamt.

Kneel before our German supremacy.

Hey, don't make me send in Captain America


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Separation of Church and State is supposed to exist, but there's always some bleed over.

Are you talking about the U.S., or Sweden, or the whole world?

Sorry, should of specified the U.S. although I believe England has something similar?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Also, I bring this up again, if a man can marry an MLP plushie and have a city recognize it.....then marriage means nothing

Marriage means what the couple puts into it. A Las Vegas wedding officiated by an Elvis Impersonator is just as real if the two truly love each other.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Sorry, should of specified the U.S. although I believe England has something similar?

England has state religion. That is terrible.

-Purged-

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Sorry, should of specified the U.S. although I believe England has something similar?

England has state religion. That is terrible.

To be fair, our state religion is pretty much the beige paint of religions. Though of course I would prefer it if we had no connection between the state and religion at all.

 Verviedi wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
At this point, opposing gay marriage is just bigotry and backwards if you ask me.

"Everyone should be free to express their sexuality/views!"
"Hello, I honestly believe that only heterosexuals can marry, because the purpose of marriage is to raise a family, and gays can't do tha-"
"FETH YOU STEVE, GET OUT, YOU BACKWARDS BIGOT"

Being allowed to express one's opinion is not the same as being immune to ridicule for holding an opinion that someone finds silly.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
At this point, opposing gay marriage is just bigotry and backwards if you ask me.

"Everyone should be free to express their sexuality/views!"
"Hello, I honestly believe that only heterosexuals can marry, because the purpose of marriage is to raise a family, and gays can't do tha-"
"FETH YOU STEVE, GET OUT, YOU BACKWARDS BIGOT"

Being allowed to express one's opinion is not the same as being immune to ridicule for holding an opinion that someone finds silly.

It's hilarious when people are offended when I ridicule them, then.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
England has state religion. That is terrible.

You can thank King Henry VIII for that. Not really much difference between the two though apparently enough to want to kill each other. Still worship God and his dead son. Monarch is head of CoE and Pope is head of Catholic Church.

As for gay people tying the knot- whatever floats your boat. Tough sell with frothing-at-the-mouth religious folk though.

 Verviedi wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
At this point, opposing gay marriage is just bigotry and backwards if you ask me.

"Everyone should be free to express their sexuality/views!"
"Hello, I honestly believe that only heterosexuals can marry, because the purpose of marriage is to raise a family, and gays can't do tha-"
"FETH YOU STEVE, GET OUT, YOU BACKWARDS BIGOT"

Well, technically they can. They could just adopt an orphan.
Or make one with SCIENCE

 Verviedi wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Verviedi wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
At this point, opposing gay marriage is just bigotry and backwards if you ask me.

"Everyone should be free to express their sexuality/views!"
"Hello, I honestly believe that only heterosexuals can marry, because the purpose of marriage is to raise a family, and gays can't do tha-"
"FETH YOU STEVE, GET OUT, YOU BACKWARDS BIGOT"

Being allowed to express one's opinion is not the same as being immune to ridicule for holding an opinion that someone finds silly.

It's hilarious when people are offended when I ridicule them, then.

Why? Are they not allowed to be offended when you say something they think is silly?

There's a difference ebtween thinking something they say is silly and calling them a bigot/racist/whateverist.

If I call you a dumbass it just means I think you or your statement is stupid.
If I call you a bigot it means you are history's greatest villain.

If someone insults someone else for having a valid different opinion (valid as in coming from a based perspective), then said person is an idiot.

 Sigvatr wrote:
If someone insults someone else for having a valid different opinion (valid as in coming from a based perspective), then said person is an idiot.

Even idiots have freedom of speech though.


in before someone posts "evidently" or something in that vein.

Define valid. Often people who disagree don't find a differing opinion valid, and beneath discussion.

Agree with me or you're a bigot!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If someone insults someone else for having a valid different opinion (valid as in coming from a based perspective), then said person is an idiot.

Even idiots have freedom of speech though.


in before someone posts "evidently" or something in that vein.

Unless its a college campus or "hate speech" in many countries that supposedly believe in free speech.

 Frazzled wrote:
Define valid. Often people who disagree don't find a differing opinion valid, and beneath discussion.

That's a pretty good point, what is valid and what is not is quite often subjective. For instance:

 Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If someone insults someone else for having a valid different opinion (valid as in coming from a based perspective), then said person is an idiot.

Even idiots have freedom of speech though.


in before someone posts "evidently" or something in that vein.

Unless its a college campus or "hate speech" in many countries that supposedly believe in free speech.

There's no country in the world that, strictly speaking, has "free speech", so it's all down to what one means by "free speech".

thats a fair point

As an ordained minister and a pagan I will marry any two concenting adults that ask me, my personal views should have no impact on your happiness or lack thereof.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If someone insults someone else for having a valid different opinion (valid as in coming from a based perspective), then said person is an idiot.

Even idiots have freedom of speech though.

]

That's not freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech covers having a different opinion and being allowed to say it. Insulting someone else isn't covered by freedom of speech or rather why it's so valuable.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If someone insults someone else for having a valid different opinion (valid as in coming from a based perspective), then said person is an idiot.

Even idiots have freedom of speech though.

]

That's not freedom of speech. Freedom of Speech covers having a different opinion and being allowed to say it. Insulting someone else isn't covered by freedom of speech or rather why it's so valuable.

That depends entirely on how one defines "freedom of speech".

 Frazzled wrote:
There's a difference ebtween thinking something they say is silly and calling them a bigot/racist/whateverist.

If I call you a dumbass it just means I think you or your statement is stupid.
If I call you a bigot it means you are history's greatest villain.

What I got from this is “I do not mind being called a dumbass, but being called a bigot is causing me a lot of distress”.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
There's a difference ebtween thinking something they say is silly and calling them a bigot/racist/whateverist.

If I call you a dumbass it just means I think you or your statement is stupid.
If I call you a bigot it means you are history's greatest villain.

What I got from this is “I do not mind being called a dumbass, but if you call me a bigot to my face I might end you.”.

Corrected your typo.

You are only doing this because you are a bigot .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
You are only doing this because you are a bigot .

You're good, you're real good.


I shall reward thee with the light of knowledge. Get thee to an apothecary and procure a Kraken dark rum. Thou shalt doff a quaff of this fine elixir and be merry. Be thousest careful however as it is 94 proof and shalt put thineself on thine arse, and verily.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Going with Ox here. In Germany, you can be married even without the church's consent or get the whole package and get married both at church and at the Standesamt.

Kneel before our German supremacy.

That can't be German. There's not enough syllables. It needs to be more like Stanasmtkaputtfrankfurterbliestungfatladyzingengotterdamurunginvadinfrankenreichcommerzanplatz

...sorry

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


That depends entirely on how one defines "freedom of speech".

I'm referring to the fundamental right. People claiming freedom of speech allows for imposing on other people's rights and integrity are abusing said right to justify their poor behavior.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


That depends entirely on how one defines "freedom of speech".

I'm referring to the fundamental right.

As am I.

Tbh the words bigot and racist are way overused these days, their meanings are diluted and debased. More often than not they're just used as a means by which to shut down a debate instead of actually engaging with and countering an opponents argument.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Tbh the words bigot and racist are way overused these days, their meanings are diluted and debased. More often than not they're just used as a means by which to shut down a debate instead of actually engaging with and countering an opponents argument.

That is rather interesting, because in my experience what you describe above occurs about as often as people trying to defend blatantly racist things with a description similar to the above. "But I guess you're not allowed to say that these days" and similar variations seem to pop up as excuses to avoid thinking rather often.

To be fair, I have no interest in engaging with someone who keeps screaming that the sky is bright orange all day long, every day of the year.

Sometimes, amazingly, people really are just that wrong.

For example: anyone against vaccinations.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
To be fair, I have no interest in engaging with someone who keeps screaming that the sky is bright orange all day long, every day of the year.

Sometimes, amazingly, people really are just that wrong.

For example: anyone against vaccinations.

Suppose someone's anti-vaccination for themselves because of medical reasons (as in, "I'll die if I take this shot"). Would that make them wrong?

They're not against vaccinations. They're all for them, they just literally can't have them.

There's a massive difference.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
To be fair, I have no interest in engaging with someone who keeps screaming that the sky is bright orange all day long, every day of the year.

Sometimes, amazingly, people really are just that wrong.

For example: anyone against vaccinations.

Suppose someone's anti-vaccination for themselves because of medical reasons (as in, "I'll die if I take this shot"). Would that make them wrong?

Just saying, most (if not all) places that require vaccinations do have "medical exemptions" clauses. Those are not the issue. The issue are the "contentious objections" clauses that allow people to value disproven junk science and Jenny McCarthy above the lives of those around them.

 Verviedi wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
At this point, opposing gay marriage is just bigotry and backwards if you ask me.

"Everyone should be free to express their sexuality/views!"
"Hello, I honestly believe that only heterosexuals can marry, because the purpose of marriage is to raise a family, and gays can't do tha-"
"FETH YOU STEVE, GET OUT, YOU BACKWARDS BIGOT"

Nice try, but not quite. Wanting to be able to do something that affects only you and others who choose to be involved is not equivalent to wanting to prevent other people from doing things they want to do which have no direct affect on you at all.

Additionally, I always find the "gays can't raise a family" argument hilarious, because not only is it spurious bollocks(adoption, IVF with a surrogate), but the people who use it never seem to argue that straight couples should be prevented from getting marries if they don't want to have children or are sterile and can't have children.

 Matthew wrote:
Might be a bit of a sensitive spot for some, but I just want to know what you guys think of gay mariiage? I personally think that it's completely fine, and no book or law can prevent me from thinking that.

I could care less, what people do in their home or in relationships is none of my damned buisness. With that being said I'm not a huge fan of ANY PDA hetero or homo. Do what you wanna do, but please keep it in the bedroom.

Why would I want to impinge on the liberty to happily wed of other people? Why would I want to prevent my aunt and cousin from having a happy life? Plus what goes on in the bedroom of somebody else's bedroom is none of your damn business unless it's not consensual.