Supreme Court Declares Same-Sex Marriage Legal In All 50 States

Why are we so shit?

 

Because it's profitable.

 

Simple: The citizenry are nothing but whiny, ungrateful, little shits in the eyes of politicians.

 

You'd think as a semi-developed society we'd try to maintain social beliefs and country worries. Instead we prioritize country worries in general. I think you should only do that in times of emergency, like the Greece economic collapse happening at the moment.

 

I like to say that civilization is a thin veneer or in my darker times a total illusion. In the end all that individual humans cares about is survival and everyone has their of form of survival. Human nature trumps all attempts at civilization and the sooner we accept that the better.

 

So, anarchy?

 

But if we accepted human nature it'd lead to riots, more corruption and a breakdown of social structure.
So what @BaconMan8910 said, it'd lead to widespread anarchy.

 

My point was that we need to account for human nature when creating new laws and reforming old ones. So far we have failed; in particular we have failed to take into account corruption and deliberate misuse of the word of law to achieve a political or personal end. We need a better system that will hold politicians accountable. Something that politicians have deliberately eroded over the years as their form of survival but at the same time we need to reform those laws to offer the most personal liberty. Sorry for being so cryptic I was in a dark place while tired.

 

Politicians can be held accountable for their actions, but they need sufficient evidence to prove it. As they are influential, you can't just go accuse one of tax fraud without evidence. Also a lot of things they do are left in the dark so no one knows about them until a leak happens.

 

My view on this is simple. There is a separation between church and state for a reason. The courts should have no say in what the church does. The state should have civil unions, that give the same legal benefits as Marriage. Then the only way to be wedded would be at a church, and for only the original religious meanings.
This would make the decision on same sex marriage up to each church and Priest/Pester. No one should be able to force any Priest to do something that they believe is a sin. And no random legal entity should have the right to preform a religious ceremony.

This isn't a step in the right direction because even if it is legal now, the fact that any secular rules are being associated with it, is still wrong direction?

 

It is a step in the right direction. Because marriage, in a legal sense (as recognized by the State) is different and entitled to certain rights not afforded to civil unions/partnerships.

Marriage (again, in a legal sense) is not a religious ceremony, but a legally affirmed and recognized status for two partners.

No one is forcing any religious institutions to wed anyone that they don't wish to. In addition, no marriage (regardless of where it is performed) is a religious partnership unless the couple (and their affiliated religious institution (if applicable)) choose for it to be.

 

Yes, but the problem is that any marriage is a religious marriage.... that is what marriage is. I think the main ting is... they need to stop calling "everything" marriage. Yes I know that civil unions are a thing, but even atheist get "married." I just think that the their wouldn't be anything to gripe about if it was like that.

 

4 words. Justice of the peace. Not every marriage is a religious marriage.

 

But...it's not? You can say that it is, and decide that every marriage is religious (by virtue of being called marriage). But the government has a legally-recognized partnership known as marriage. Just because religious institutions call their church-recognized relationships marriages, doesn't mean that they get to define the term for everyone.

It's why Czars (spelled differently, I know) in the U.S. and UK governments aren't Russian emperors.

 

If religions didn't call it marriage, then neither would the governments. Marriage was originally, and always will be a religious thing. Governments didn't "Invent" Marriage, religion did.
For a long time the governments didn't have anything to do with marriage. The church kept the records, and the government of any settlement knew who was married because of a title or the matching surname. However the church started charging, because it became harder to track all of the data... and the governments took it over because it was an easy way to make money... Hence "marriage licenses". This "takeover" of a religious ceremony violates the very principal of "the separation of church and state".
The problem is that this problem is practically in grained into modern ideals. Marriage has been controlled by the state for so long, that even though "Civil Unions" have been around since before the governments started managing marriages, now even non-religious people that at one time would have opted for a Civil Union, no get married.

I am not saying that it doesn't work this way just fine, I just doubt that all these problems would have taken place now if it was still the way it was originally.

 

You're still arguing symantics. You can't argue that something is one thing when it clearly (by definition) isn't.

There is a legal difference between a civil union and a marriage. The government must have some way by which to recognize civil partners. A civil union accomplishes this but does not grant the same legal rights and protections as a marriage.

In some regards this speaks to the pointlessness of civil unions. On the other hand, they are much easier to annul. A more reasonable approach to legal recognition is to allow for one system (call it marriage or what-the-fuck ever) that affords all legal rights and protections and requires a written contract between partners that can be annulled at any time, and separation will follow the terms of said contract.

The argument that marriage started out as a religious thing isn't a sound one.

What would have avoided all of this uproar is if people would be more open minded and, more importantly, intelligent and reasonable about such things. People who have an issue with same-sex marriage do not have an issue with it because it's called "marriage". They take issue with any relationship between people of the same sex simply because it is a relationship between people of the same sex. And the government should not recognize such amoral, devil-worshipping, herresy.

This "takeover" that you're talking about may have violated separation of church and state back in the day, but not anymore. Marriage as recognized by the state and marriage as recognized by any religious institution are two different things. Can they be performed by the same ceremony? Sure. Do you need one to have the other? No.

 

That is exactly what I am saying. Have one system only for everyone.... and if others want to have an extra ceremony to wed them in the eyes of their religion, then let them

Okay... Just saying that doesn't tell me anything. At least explain.

See, this is just generalizing. As someone who actually knows lots of different types of people.... Most of the people who appose it don't see it like that. Of course that doesn't stop the more zealous ones from making the loudest outcry.

The fact that it is recognized by the state is the problem. If it wasn't, they never could have made it illegal in the first place. However that is, as you say, just semantics.

 

Marriage as an institution predates any modern religions, having been documented all the way back to the first known civilization in ancient Mesopotamia. In Mesopotamian culture, marriage was arranged with the bride and groom often having never met previously, and it was not so much a matter of romance, but of social stability. There is no evidence or mention in the code of Hammurabi or elsewhere that the institution was tied to any particular religion. What we do know is that at the very least it held legal ramifications, which made it a concern of government.

To say that government has hijacked a traditionally religious institution is not only baseless, but possibly completely backwards given the current available evidence.

It's also wholly irrelevant either way, in the same way that it would be an irrelevant argument to say that we shouldn't have granted women the right to vote or abolished the institution of slavery simply for the sake of preserving some meaningless notion of tradition. If an institution or policy is determined to be discriminatory in any way, then I really couldn't care less how long it has existed, or who claimed it first. It should be eradicated or reformed immediately. To base our civilization on these aforementioned standards is a very childish way of determining how our laws should be established; the equivalent of toddlers quibbling over a piece of candy, each declaring their right to eat it on the basis of, "I saw it first!" Stop being a big baby and learn to share.

There is no rational basis for distinguishing same-sex couples from heterosexual couples in terms of the rights that they should be afforded. These rights are valuable to both types of couples and there is no reason to deny either of them these rights as long as the institution exists.

 

^ this.

 

Thank you for explaining how my info was wrong. Its a lot more useful when I know where I am wrong.

As for what your saying, Yes I think that all couples should be treated the same. I am not saying, Nor would I ever say that I don't want that. I just feel that this never should have been a problem. It was, and we cannot change that... It just sucks that it was.