Another bizarre decision by the Supremes: A same-sex union is now a "marriage"?

[Skylar]

As always, no response to the actual OP.

Its been addressed and refute from page one. As always, you just pretend none of it exists.

Pretend away. The world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.

 

[BULLDOG]

As always, no response to the actual OP. Just diversions, insults, subject changes, and hysteria from the left, with zero factual backup that applies to the actual OP.

Apparently these people are hoping that if they continue to inject their usual nonsense and garbage, it will somehow reflect on the OP.

Desperate tactics, but they have nothing else.

Back to the subject:
Marriage is a union between man and woman. And has been since marriage was first created. No society or religion has ever defined it as a union between two men, or two women, in the history of mankind. Except, of course, a few very recent converts to the new religion of the ludicrous "men and women are the same" trope.

No problem with same sex couples getting together. Call it a civil union or whatever. But it's not, and can't be, a marriage.

Calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit.

And if the Supremes issue a command that a tail will now be called a leg, and that creatures with tails can now walk on it like a leg, will that make it so they can?

I gotta say that is an odd comparison, but lets go with it anyway. No, a tail is not a leg, and will never serve the function of a leg. However, gay marriage does serve the function that is required for gays. Marriage means exactly the same as it did before, but now it is legal for gays, even if you don't like that.

 

[Derideo_Te]

After reading through this thread about the SCOTUS decision on SSM and the OP's rampant homophobia it made me wonder if his choice of name is a subconscious reflection of his own inadequacies in the manhood department.

Perhaps it is not surprising that the OP is arguing about the "tradition and history" of marriage while ignoring what has actually happened to the tradition of marriage over the course of history.

Once upon a time simply being consenting adults of opposite gender did not give you the right to marry because marriages were "arranged" to further political and commercial purposes. It wasn't that long ago that women were considered to be the property of their male spouses. Interracial marriage was denied and obstructed by religious beliefs.

All of those definitions of the "tradition of marriage" have been changed by society over the course of history.

What the SCOTUS did was no more "bizarre" than granting women the status of equal partnership in a marriage or granting equal rights to all races to intermarry.

And this latest ruling is based on the same precedent. Marriage is a partnership of equals irrespective of gender.

To argue otherwise is to expose the true agenda of those who are opposed as nothing more than religious bigotry and discrimination against a subset of We the People.

Personally I am glad to have been a small part of this nation reaching a more perfect union of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans.

 

[jillian]

I see where the Supreme Court has now ruled that same-sex "marriage" is now a "right".

Just one problem: Marriage is a union between man and woman. And has been since marriage was first created. No society or religion has ever defined it as a union between two men, or two women, in the history of mankind.

No problem with same sex couples getting together. Call it a civil union or whatever. But it's not, and can't be, a marriage.

Calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit.

And if the Supremes issue a command that a tail will now be called a leg, and that creatures with tails can now walk on it like a leg, will that make it so they can?

there is nothing "bizarre" about the decision. It's perfectly consistent with Loving v Virginia and the other prior cases decided by the court.

your disapproval doesn't make the decision either bizarre or incorrect.

wingers are funny

 

[NYcarbineer]

I see where the Supreme Court has now ruled that same-sex "marriage" is now a "right".

Just one problem: Marriage is a union between man and woman. And has been since marriage was first created. No society or religion has ever defined it as a union between two men, or two women, in the history of mankind.

No problem with same sex couples getting together. Call it a civil union or whatever. But it's not, and can't be, a marriage.

Calling a tail a leg does not make the name fit.

And if the Supremes issue a command that a tail will now be called a leg, and that creatures with tails can now walk on it like a leg, will that make it so they can?

It's official:

Oxford Dictionary officially changes marriage definition to include gay couples

World's most renowned dictionary of the English language and several other British dictionaries have changed their definition after England and Wales made same-sex marriage law
23 AUGUST 2013 | BY JOE MORGAN

Photo by Scott Nunn.
The world’s most renowned dictionary of the English language has officially changed the definition of ‘marriage’ to include gay people.

Oxford English Dictionary online now acknowledges marriage is no longer defined as being between a man and a woman.

Future paper editions published of the dictionary will have the new, updated definition of the word.

Compilers for the OED have added ‘the relation between persons married to each other’ to its definition ‘the condition of being a husband or wife.’

It now has the note ‘the term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.’

- See more at: Oxford Dictionary officially changes marriage definition to include gay couples Gay Star News