|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Same-sex marriage/Archive2
Time to clean up this article for the USA[edit]
Who cares about the states that it's legal in anymore, when it's legal in all states? etc. --Seth Peck (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Already as of July 2015, the institution of traditional marriage has been improved destroyed in twenty-one countries.[edit]
...and the ref lists 22 countries. Does Mexico not count, or did we not count? Queexchthonic murmurings 15:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- In Mexico, gay marriage is recognized nationwide, but not performed nationwide.--Arisboch (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Tweaked some sense into it. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Biblical literalism strongly predicts opposition to gay marriage. Who knew?[edit]
Bible Beliefs, Conservative Religious Identity, and Same-Sex Marriage Support: Examining Main and Moderating Effects. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Umm... Not that I'm not glad of the quantification, but your question would be better if it asked who didn't know. WalkerWalkerWalker 23:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Still baffled[edit]
At why the debate about who can marry who is even a thing in the USA. Wouldn't this fall under the 14th amendment? I mean, seriously, who has the time to worry about what other people do in their own personal lives?
I (rightly or wrongly) tend to assume that the most vociferous opponents of homosexual unions (regardless of terminology) are closet cases that are lashing out at people because of their own psychological issues.
I know you are all going to raise an eyebrow when I invoke Ann Coulter's name, but she was right about how to end the "gay marriage" debate in the US. Just have the government get out of the "marriage" business. The government should issue "certificates of civil union" to any couple regardless of orientation that confer all of the same legal rights (equally) that marriage licenses currently do.
Then if one wants to be "married" you do that in accordance with your ethnic and faith traditions and it is simply a ceremony with no legal standing.
This cuts off the argument of both sides right at the knees because the argument is primarily semantic anyway. Religious fundies get their knickers in a twist because the word marriage has a very specific meaning to them (because #biblequrantorahetc). The same-sex couples are just seeking the same legal rights as heteros (understandably and rightly). If we are giving everyone the same legal standing then there is no discrimination, that ends the argument from the same-sex couples. The fundies don't have a leg to stand on anymore because the government is completely out of the "marriage" business and has no obligation to legally define it.
Thoughts? Am I way off base here?
- People get very upset that this would delegitimise marriage, reduce the social role of churches, and result in anarchy and a decline of all moral standards. But yeah. Not quite what you suggest, but in some civilised countries, such as Germany, marriage is an entirely civil matter and church weddings have no legal standing. (Admittedly, this arose out of anticatholicism in the Imperial period.) Annquin (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I can imagine people would get upset, but only because fundamentalists aren't exactly known for their intellectualism. Their church wedding should still be just as legitimate in the eyes of FSM as it was before. The only thing that is changing is a few words on a legal document. B4Xiphos (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Substance abuse, fidelity and domestic abuse rates[edit]
This is a very common and the most reasonable argument used by the right. Can someone add this to the list, and possibly rebut it?— Unsigned, by: GreatPerson / talk / contribs
- On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Christopher (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Gay radicals against gay marriage[edit]
I'm curious about one viewpoint I've come across within the lesbian community, though I wonder if it's too obscure and fringe to even bear mention. But it seemed like the sort of thing RationalWiki might take an interest in. Gays who are so politically radical that they oppose same-sex marriage. Their point? Gays should radically oppose everything the straight world does instead of imitating it; it's a betrayal of the great tradition of gay political radicalism to allow the state into gay relationships. Ipazia (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)