Fun talk:Ways same-sex marriage will affect heterosexual marriage
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Mostly correct, but forcing religious institutions to perform marriages against their will is unconstitutional. If the church is all right with it however, it is all right. Talsley (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Luckily, I don't think anyone is trying to legislate that. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes they did, the danish government forced the Danish church to marry same sex couples. And several states in the US have forced churches to do so. This is clear violation of the separation of church and state. Talsley (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just for fun, would you care to show one single instance in the us - ANYWHERE in the US where a church was forced to perform a marriage? I sware to god I'll eat my own ear if you can find a SINGLE ONE where the us forced the church to marry someone. for any reason. gay or straight.--
GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 20:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Just for fun, would you care to show one single instance in the us - ANYWHERE in the US where a church was forced to perform a marriage? I sware to god I'll eat my own ear if you can find a SINGLE ONE where the us forced the church to marry someone. for any reason. gay or straight.--
- Talsley, enjoy your brain damage. The Churches in Denmark have the full right to refuse. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Tosh. In Europe they do not have separation of church and state, look for no greater example than the Church of England now wholly subservient to its socialist overlords. Talsley (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Those sure are words you're typing. If they had some kind of meaning and relevance, we could get a discussion going. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Tosh. In Europe they do not have separation of church and state, look for no greater example than the Church of England now wholly subservient to its socialist overlords. Talsley (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes they did, the danish government forced the Danish church to marry same sex couples. And several states in the US have forced churches to do so. This is clear violation of the separation of church and state. Talsley (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Please not more tumbleweed. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Typical response from our commie overlord.Apparently some random meme forum likes it,[citation needed] and it's not doing much harm. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)- As much as I dislike tumbleweed articles, sometimes other sites latch onto them and we get a lot of incoming traffic. Blue (is useful) 20:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Is there any evidence that the traffic extends beyond this one page? I don't find it inspiring when we are linked from other sites if what they're actually linking to is essential just a few words & an animated gif. We could redirect to Same-sex marriage#Arguments against same-sex marriage which actually addresses this issue rather than just giving it a conceited handwave like we're doing here. Щєазєюіδ
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- I guess I'll join with the commie overlord. I'm not a fan of the tumbleweeds. It's like a cute joke, once. But then it's like going to micky D's for dinner every single night. I actually think they are more useful within an article, but I'll probably get shot down suggesting that.GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 20:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't much like seeing them in articles either, but at least there we have the arguments to justify them. When the whole "article" is a tumbleweed, we're effectively saying "we're right and anyone who disagrees is dumb and we don't even have to explain why", which does us quite a disservice when we do have other pages discussing the issues at length. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- Why don't we just put a "But seriously, see also: Same-sex marriage#Arguments against same-sex marriage" section? We'd get to keep our silly tumbleweeds that way. Cow...Hammertime! 20:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't much like seeing them in articles either, but at least there we have the arguments to justify them. When the whole "article" is a tumbleweed, we're effectively saying "we're right and anyone who disagrees is dumb and we don't even have to explain why", which does us quite a disservice when we do have other pages discussing the issues at length. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
- I guess I'll join with the commie overlord. I'm not a fan of the tumbleweeds. It's like a cute joke, once. But then it's like going to micky D's for dinner every single night. I actually think they are more useful within an article, but I'll probably get shot down suggesting that.
- Is there any evidence that the traffic extends beyond this one page? I don't find it inspiring when we are linked from other sites if what they're actually linking to is essential just a few words & an animated gif. We could redirect to Same-sex marriage#Arguments against same-sex marriage which actually addresses this issue rather than just giving it a conceited handwave like we're doing here. Щєазєюіδ
- As much as I dislike tumbleweed articles, sometimes other sites latch onto them and we get a lot of incoming traffic. Blue (is useful) 20:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Butbutbut[edit]
Don't they depress the supply of, say, bisexual individuals who could potentially marry opposite-sex partners? WalkerWalkerWalker 06:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- To clarify: this isn't a concern, or a bad thing, but it's not a tumbleweed in my opinion. WalkerWalkerWalker 07:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
One positive effect[edit]
Reducing, to some extent, the number of divorces (by people 'trying to be straight', lavender marriages etc) - and probably reducing unhappiness as a result. Anna Livia (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)