Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.