HOME | DD

JocelynSamara In reply to Madinja02 [2015-07-26 03:12:46 +0000 UTC]

What, indeed.  What IS wrong with people...?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DraygaQueen In reply to DaoTianzi [2015-11-22 18:38:18 +0000 UTC]

It could be canon soon, with chap 28... Promise ring anyone?

Cmon Jocelyn!

👍: 1 ⏩: 0

ShadowDevill In reply to Zorua076 [2015-06-29 19:49:32 +0000 UTC]

Or maybe it will be a painted wall and a disco ball.  Reflecting the sunlight at them in the shade of the wall, and a picturesque park with rolling hills and adorable little trees here and there on their other side, which you see as she hugs her screaming "YES, YES, A THOUSAND TIMES YES ILOVEYOUFOREVER!"  
: D
…Fantasy land has taken over in my mind, see you in a few hours...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ShadowDevill In reply to SonicANIMEfan [2015-06-29 20:40:43 +0000 UTC]

Marriage is ancient and has nothing to do with religion.  Why is it that people always think that the west's way of doing things is the original or the best?  You know why we live in first world countries today?  Because our ancestors had the biggest GUNS and the fastest SHIPS that they used to INVADE countries, SLAUGHTER innocents, and DESTROY civilizations, especially those who were too peaceful and accepting to fight back.  

That's why christianity/islam/judaism survived, which are religions that worships a GENOCIDAL MANIAC that killed almost the entire populace of the planet, and has PROMISED TO DO IT AGAIN.  That's why european languages are spoken all around the world, because these countries were the most BARBARIC and had no qualms with killing the CIVILIZED tribal people who refused to embrace their hateful practices.  And that is why there's ever even been a QUESTION as to gay marriage and transgender being immoral, because these disgusting ideas have survived in our culture.  Same as gender inequality and the strong nationalist ideas that morphed into straight up racism.  

Please, tell me, where is this "gray area" of which you speak?  Protecting legal rights- what a controversy!  Especially because the country's dominant religion doesn't agree with it.  That sure is the exact opposite of "separation of church from state" right there, huh?  Can you feel gushing sarcasm?  I'm sure this seems like you're getting a lot of hate for no reason, just one comment.  But stop and think for a second before you say something.  What did you write?  You have "nothing against same sex couples.." yet you do not agree that they should have the same legal rights as opposite sex couples.  Then you say that marriage is religious- which is a lie- then you say that separation of church and state means protecting a religious viewpoint over the rights of citizens, and- "if 'marriage' has been defined as being between a man and a woman, and the courts have no right to try and change this.." well, marriage was only defined as that by western religious institutions, and western institutions that at the time were under the influence of religion.  How has marriage been defined throughout world history?  How is it defined by the populace today?  One era does not validate your argument.  And if you think it does, that's called a logical fallacy.  

I'm sure you didn't mean this as offensive.  You appear to be trying to play the middle ground, say something that both sides can agree with.  But what you ACTUALLY said was something incredibly bigoted and hateful, with some denial thrown in.  

You try and make it about a word.  To justify people's actions with a definition.  But what we're fighting for is an idea.  Do you really think there was no difference between getting married and jumping the broom for slaves?  The love was the same.  But the idea was given no respect.  We don't want a DIFFERENT word, we're looking for recognition through the SAME word.  If you want to call it something else, fine.  If you want the word changed to "union", to be more inclusive over a word that has some recent religious connotation, fine.  But it has to be the SAME word for EVERYBODY.  Straight couples, gay couples, religious and atheist couples, it would all have to be called a union then.  No segregation of language, please.  

Just, in the future- it would be nice if you knew what you were talking about before you made your opinion so public.  Do some research, don't just believe what people have told you.  Don't just trust the ideas you've been raised with, question them.  Marriage isn't religious, same sex relations existed all over the world before the west took control, and so did transgender and non binary people.  They've always been there, and certain dominant cultures have choked them out.  (not even just the west, but powerful empires have a habit of stealing people's rights and scapegoating minorities, just western empires are the most prominent so I keep saying "the west" like "the man"...)  Today we are led to believe that such human nature is actually a new idea, but it's not.  Don't take my word for it- go read about it.  From both sides.  

*pant, pant*
…daily rant quota filled.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SonicANIMEfan In reply to ShadowDevill [2015-06-29 23:38:23 +0000 UTC]

I never said that I thought same sex couples should be given less rights. I'm trying to argue for equal, no more, no less. give them the same rights that straight couples have, because, taking a hypothetical scenario, you have a same sex couple, one gets injured seriously and has to go to the hospital, under some light of the law, the partner can't visit them because of some family technicality.. aand I don't really know what I'm sayin or understanding it.... and I have no desire to argue any further because i realize I'm in the wrong and if i try to make any more arguments, I won't know or understand half of what I'm sayin and it's not gonna go well, so I have no desire to argue and I'm going to quit while I'm behind

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MsVixenGamer In reply to SonicANIMEfan [2015-06-27 01:31:01 +0000 UTC]

What about all of the straight people that get married and are atheist?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SonicANIMEfan In reply to MsVixenGamer [2015-06-27 02:11:59 +0000 UTC]

I wouldn't know

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MsVixenGamer In reply to SonicANIMEfan [2015-06-27 02:15:52 +0000 UTC]

Its basically the same as gay marriage 
Just between a man and a woman rather than a man and a man or a woman and a woman

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

mhtg In reply to SonicANIMEfan [2015-06-26 22:04:27 +0000 UTC]

It is also has a ton of legal content, it is one of the few places where church and state cannot be separate, the paperwork is all state authorized- the ceremony on the other hand- well lets just say they can't effect the right of the church officiator to refuse, that would be religious infringement, and darn near impossible to enforce.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SonicANIMEfan In reply to mhtg [2015-06-26 23:01:17 +0000 UTC]

This is a gray area as far as jurisdiction and enforcement is concerned. And by "gray" I mean "dangerous" because the supreme court is getting close to overstepping their boundaries here with this decision. Some states, either by belief or political affiliation, will take issue with the court.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

SGTHigglesworth In reply to SonicANIMEfan [2015-06-27 07:27:13 +0000 UTC]

Guys let's not start an argument, since this kind of debate is basically over. Jocelyn is right about the fact that marriage applies to all sexualities.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

mhtg In reply to SonicANIMEfan [2015-06-26 23:50:36 +0000 UTC]

Then there's the tax bracket argument- people are placed in different tax brackets based on many factors including marital status, thus making it a federal issue, and the denial of mirage based on orientation an infringement of due process.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SonicANIMEfan In reply to mhtg [2015-06-27 00:15:08 +0000 UTC]

but not easy to enforce

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

mhtg In reply to SonicANIMEfan [2015-06-27 00:27:19 +0000 UTC]

well states cant ban- doesn't mean officiators cant refuse, except for judges possibly.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

JocelynSamara In reply to SonicANIMEfan [2015-06-26 22:01:19 +0000 UTC]

If you don't want same-sex couples to marry, that you absolutely have a problem with same-sex couples.  Period.

Marriage is not solely (or even originally) a religious idea.  And for what it's worth, I didn't marry in a church, and religion had nothing to do with our matrimony.  

As for the terminology argument, it's 2015.  Words evolve all the time.  Words change meaning.  It's not new, and there are no other words that have an immunity to that change.  "Marriage" is not some magical exception.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SonicANIMEfan In reply to JocelynSamara [2015-06-26 22:57:15 +0000 UTC]

I don't have a problem with same-sex couples, but this is a very gray area for the court to start getting involved in. And while this may seem like a victory, there's still alot more work to do. It's not so easy to simply change the definition of a religious term that has, for a long time, been defined as something. Not to mention the political backlash from specific parties.

Words can evolve, but at the same time they can be also interpreted in a different manner if they're taken in or out of context. But to go back to what I said in the previous comment, I have no problem with same-sex couples, and I don't believe that "marriage" in something of a romantical concept, should be limited to just straight couples. Same sex couples, I believe, should be treated just as equally as straight couples, but the problem I have is, given that a religious and "legal" definition of "marriage" defines as being between a man and a woman; what can happen? It's not so easy to just "change" a meaning so radically and expect that it'll be taken in a positive light so quickly. If another term can be found to be the equivalent, then good for it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

JocelynSamara In reply to SonicANIMEfan [2015-06-26 23:44:52 +0000 UTC]

"It's not so easy to simply change the definition of a religious term that has, for a long time, been defined as something."
As I already said, religion was not the invention of marriage.  Marriage can be traced back to times before the bible, and places that did not practice Christianity.  It is not inherently a religious term.  It is not originally a religious idea.  

"definition of "marriage"
Every definition I'm seeing includes mention of same-sex couples.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictio…
www.oed.com/view/Entry/114320
www.ahdictionary.com/word/sear…
dictionary.reference.com/brows…

"It's not so easy to just "change" a meaning so radically and expect that it'll be taken in a positive light so quickly."
What part of this has been quick?  It's been a slow, agonizing, years-long fight against people who are more worried about what a word means than the rights of fellow human beings.  What is so wrong with marriage being between same-sex people that we can't use that term?  What does that actually affect?  I've been married to my wife for six years, and it's no less real or valid or meaningful.  And nothing earth shattering has come from it.  What difference do you honestly think having a different word for it will change?

"I don't have a problem with same-sex couples, but..."
You're a hypocrite.  If you have to tack a "but" to the end of it, than you have a problem with it.  As long as we're talking about words, the word "but" in this context implies that there is an exception in which you do in fact have a problem with same-sex couples, and this is proven by you going on to express that reason.  

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SonicANIMEfan In reply to JocelynSamara [2015-06-27 00:12:46 +0000 UTC]

I don't know... and I don't really have any desire to argue with you. I'm sorry, this is a good day for you and I have to come by and ruin it

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Valsalia In reply to SonicANIMEfan [2015-06-27 01:35:05 +0000 UTC]

There's obviously going to be a lot of debate over the next few weeks about this subject, largely by people who didn't have a strong opinion either way before, like I get the feeling might be your case. 

I understand where you're coming from, especially since this appears to be a major upheaval of the definition of marriage; so that's a great point to focus on here. Marriage as an institution has actually changed many, many times, as recently as less than half a century ago. At the beginning of the 1900's, marriage was solidly an institution where the woman has no voting or property rights, and it was pretty much illegal for anyone to marry outside of their "race." And when each one of these parts changed, the exact same argument was made by those who sought to stifle women's rights, interracial marriage, and so on.

And back in the Bible days, "traditional" marriage typically meant tribal polygamy. Every culture in every age has had slightly different definitions of it, and have altered it to suit the needs of the populace at the time. So basically this isn't a giant leap, but rather one more step up a set of stairs humanity has been climbing (and occasionally falling down) since we became capable of thought.

And while "separate but equal" ideas like Civil Unions have been tried, the end result has always been that they weren't recognized as legitimate socially and legally, and conferred none of the important benefits, such as inheritance, hospital visitation rights, family tax deductions, and so on.

And in religious terms, nobody will be forced to hold wedding ceremonies, just like how you can't march into a Jewish synagogue and demand a ceremonial Jewish wedding. The religious/cultural ceremony is "Holy Matrimony," which is a cultural, but not legal, procedure.

All in all, this is an issue that really doesn't affect anyone who doesn't want to marry a same-sex partner. There have been (untruthful) claims otherwise, but are almost entirely being made by those who needed to scare the general populace into supporting their anti-gay causes.

So even if you're uncomfortable with the legal change, don't worry! It won't affect you, or the way the country runs, in any tangible way.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SonicANIMEfan In reply to Valsalia [2015-06-27 02:13:46 +0000 UTC]

I wouldn't say I"m uncomfortable, because I"m not as this decision doesn't affect me so much cause I'm straight. I'm only really puzzled with how the supreme court plan to enforce this

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Valsalia In reply to SonicANIMEfan [2015-06-27 04:15:46 +0000 UTC]

It's actually pretty simple! At least in the legal sense to be legally married, and officially be "Mr. and Mrs. Somethingsomething" and all that, a couple needs to go to a local courthouse or similarly-certified marriage-licencor, and do some paperwork & pay a little court processing fee. 

This part is actually unrelated to whether or not a couple wants to have a ceremony to celebrate Matrimony in the cultural/religious style of their choosing, in which they ask the permission/blessing of one of their local ordained minister/priest/elder/Thetan-massager. And just the same as before, they are entirely free to turn down the couple's request for a ceremony if they wish; so nobody can demand Bar Mitzvah from the local synagogue without going through the synagogue's requirements, and the same case with Catholic and Protestant establishments and all the rest.

There's still a lot of confusion flying around right now about these kinds of details, because most people don't really have any reason in their daily lives to study up on the exact details of how various legal or religious processes work. Essentially nothing in the legal paperwork changes except for there being a form with partner&partner or wife and wife, or however the local state wishes to handle it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0