Is marriage a "right"?

Oh I get that, people digging into their 2000 year old book and saying this and that hurts their feelings.

Well, guess what? I don’t think making laws based on peoples hurt feelings is a good idea. Follow that reasoning and you will ban people drawing Mohamed. An asshole thing to do, but you can’t make laws because peoples feelings get hurt.

There are always caveats in any law, say for marriage. So long as it is between 2 adults, of consenting age, are not related. But KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). If a society has decided (quite rightly IMO) there should be no discrimination towards gay people, then there is no grounds for discriminating against same sex marriage. To further that argument for the sake of @finley and artificial insemination. If a society has decided that a national health care system should extend that right to infertile couples, they should absolutely extend that right to say a 2 women couple.

1 Like

If a person believes in the definition of marriage from the judeo Christian origin. It really states marriage is God’s authority. So either you come to the conclusion no one can get married by the state or that it doesn’t really matter because its just a essentially a legal document that means nothing religiously.

Again, what’s the discrimination?

  • Definition of marriage (nothing to do about rights, just facts): the union of a man and a woman.
  • I’m a single man: do I have the right to proclaim myself “married”? you know the answer, this one is easy
  • I’m a guy and want to be with another guy. Are we a married couple? the argument here is that no,

I’m not married, or we are not a married couple, because one of us is a man, so we don’t match the definition

This is not necessarily anything to do with the Bible BTW.

Most of reasonable conservative people would tell you to fuck in whatever position you want, and would agree on the society granting you some legal rights and recognize your civil status, but probably not on calling it the same way than the way you call to the union of a man and woman.

Again, it’s not necessarily anything to do with rights. Even if there could be a discussion about what rights two men or two women could acquire when they formalize their union.

1 Like

Again you are playing the semantics game. Define a marriage as being a union of two people and all your arguments go away.

But the same applies if we discuss anything really. For example if a motorcycle is a car. You can argue that NOW cars don’t necessarily need to have 4 wheels, but I would argue that that’s what we always understood by car.

If you are playing semantics you are even worse, because you are saying that if I don’t call a man and a man in the same bed “marriage” I’m discriminating them. WHY?

1 Like

But he has a point that not everyone agrees on the definition of marriage and the origins of what we currently draw the idea of marriage from is from the judeo Christian context. Yes I know there’s concepts on marriage before it, but those aren’t the origins of where the West came up with the state institution of marriage.

Taking out the religious context. Marriage has been traditionally defined being between a man and a women.

I don’t think it’s semantics. We are talking about the fundemtal definition of something very important.

1 Like

Because the society as a whole has accepted gay people should not be discriminated against.

Not all societies have, maybe living in Saudi Arabia would make you happier, not sure how your wife would like it (assuming you are married).


Again, where is the discrimination?

Am I also discriminating a men who cuts his penis if I don’t want to date him?


1 Like

Talk about irony, this post must rank in the top 10 of all time.

Absurd. We can see marriage everywhere in the world.

I said that right before you cut off my quote.

And what were those unions, in most of the societies? a man and a woman.

then the issue and discussion should be about these peoples sacredness. how sacred is it if its interfering and fucking with others lives? not very sacred if you ask me.

You know what I mean, Mr “Semantics”. Like in most cases, if you don’t understand this simple thing is because you just don’t want. That’s all.

Doesn’t matter. Just because the dominant religion has been Christianity doesn’t mean that it came up with the idea or has some special right to the concept.

Nobody tells them that they can not love each other, fuck each other, share the same roof and share their properties. But nobody should tell the rest that we have to call that union in the same way we call a man and a woman doing those things.

And you sound like a flat earther to me. Just because something has been believed to be true for 1000’s of years doesn’t make it right.

It’s not a question of what you have to say. It’s a question of what legal rights are offered by the government.

1 Like

It doesn’t affect me much.

You see? We are not talking beliefs here, we are talking concepts, definitions. Mr Semantics.

It does matter, we are talking about the definition of marriage. Most western countries would have derived the concept of the institution of marriage from the religious traditions of it. Not from some tribe in Australia or 3000bc China.