Marriage discrimination struck down in Arkansas.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Mehmet you said that traditions change via majority consensus. Therefore if the majority (straight people I assume) decide that gay marriage is fine with them, then by your standards is gay marriage acceptable?

Just curious.

Well, in such a hypothetical case, acceptablility would not be my call, that's what I'm saying. However, that would mean that the majority would have to invent new traditions, which would need to take hold over certain generations. Traditions do not change overnight, especially traditions concerning marriage, having been shaped by centuries.
They form the basis of social institutions that constitute the pillars of society.

However, I don't think that such a hypothetical case will ever be reality, as what you're advocating here is, in my opinion, quite radically opposed to the traditions that define marriage, and therefore society, you'd need to destroy these traditions completely to actually redifine the concept of marriage in the majority's mind.

---

---

They do not meet the proper criteria to be married, meaning. The concept of marriage aims to create families, families that fit the description of the traditions associated with marriage.
But since the liberal and rootless cosmopolitan mentality tries to tear down everything related to traditional social norms and institutions, they try to re-define what marriage actually tries to accomplish.
Another thing is to normalize homosexuality by giving it what it never had before, legitimacy.
Well, as it seems, no. I think hat today, only the people who have no stake in marriage are the ones who get to define what marriage and what its not.
Traditions are changed via majority consensus. The way I see it, the minority forces its ways upon the majority consensus.
Well, I'd say that heterosexual relationships are what is considered normal, and anything else is considered abnormal. I think that there is a consensus to that in any part of the world you visit.
And in any part of the world, marriage is defined by the standards of normal people, by that, heterosexuals who have at least some use for marriage.
Acceptance is one thing, redefining society according to them is another thing.
Besides, for that to happen, like me being part of the minority in this regard, I'd say that you'd need to brainwash at least 5 more generations with your pro-gay bullshit.
Well, I don't think that they do actually recognize marriage either. They have already attacked everything that made marriage important, they glorify extramarital relationships, they glorify individualism and abortions, and they disattach marriage from its traditional connection with child-bearing and child raising.
What else remains? Now they wish to include *them* as though as they had always been part of it.
When anyone thinks of marriage no one thinks of two guys in suits or two girls in wedding gowns, and this actually makes them cringe, the fact that they will never be part of contemporary society. So they viciously attack every social institution that was traditionally not open to their kind.

And when anyone says otherwise, they simply call them bigots, fascists and etc.
Nice.

And in addition to this, this neo-liberal bullshit is slowly backfiring, and reaction is on the rise, especially in Europe. I wonder what you're gonna do when it hits the US aswell.

---

Throughout human history there have been many forms of "traditional marriage"

Who's to say today's norms aren't in need of changing just as many of the other 'norms" have been changed through humanity evolving.

"Many forms", by that, I assume that you're referring to cases of monogamy and polygamy. However the fact is, that they have been centered on the concept of a union between a man and a woman, and the importance of conceiving and raising children within that marriage, through biological reproductory processes, or in some cases, adoptions.
To be honest, any tradition regarding marriage that you might look for anywhere on earth, it will be related to the same concept involving a man and a woman.
You're merely trying to introduce something new into it without actually accounting for its popularity.

[Ryantology]

I really have no time to explain my position on this "marriage equality" bullcrap.
I merely have stated that this "marriage" that they are proposing is not even marriage.

Fine, then. Don't worry about it. If marriage equality came to your country, it wouldn't actually have any effect on you anyway.

Its merely another ploy of the liberal, rootless cosmopolitan mindset to redefine social institutions and traditions. Lets re-define everything to suit the purposes of minorities.
Sounds to me like the dictatorship of minorities such as the homosexuals over the majority of normal people.

Yeah, it's so terrible to, uh, do what? Demand the recognition of equal rights that our country's Constitution guarantees? That's an important point in this debate in America, the point everybody on the wrong side of this debate seems to ignore: this sort of discrimination has been illegal since the passage of the 14th amendment 150 years ago. These state-level bans were never legal to begin with. If you want to legally deny millions of people their equal rights, you have to put a Constitutional amendment to vote, to overturn the 14th amendment. Then, you can legally put state-level bans to a vote.

Good luck.

It doesn't really matter, anyway. By the end of this decade, only the most deeply-inbred states won't have majority support for it anyway. For all this panty-shitting going on about activist judges, they are only accelerating the inevitable by a handful of years.

[Foxaèr]

However, I don't think that such a hypothetical case will ever be reality.

Legalization of same-sex marriage is a reality, whether you want to accept it or not.

However the fact is, that they have been centered on the concept of a union between a man and a woman....it will be related to the same concept involving a man and a woman.

Stating only one man and one woman is a tactful extension of one's bigotry.

[Chas]

They actually struck down Marriage itself, yet know not what they do.
Poor dumb bastards.

No, they didn't, you dumb fuck.

---

The first state in the country to recognize marriage equality in America has, by far, the lowest divorce rate in America, and it has only gone down in the ten years since that happened. Most of the states which have marriage equality today are states which are in the bottom-half in divorce ratings. 7 of the 10 states with the lowest divorce rates recognize marriage equality.

To put it mildly, you're full of shit.

I really have no time to explain my position on this "marriage equality" bullcrap.
I merely have stated that this "marriage" that they are proposing is not even marriage.
Its merely another ploy of the liberal, rootless cosmopolitan mindset to redefine social institutions and traditions. Lets re-define everything to suit the purposes of minorities.
Sounds to me like the dictatorship of minorities such as the homosexuals over the majority of normal people.

Marriage equality has no effect on you or on your rights, you dumb fuck.

---

Mehmet you said that traditions change via majority consensus. Therefore if the majority (straight people I assume) decide that gay marriage is fine with them, then by your standards is gay marriage acceptable?

Just curious.

Well, in such a hypothetical case, acceptablility would not be my call, that's what I'm saying. However, that would mean that the majority would have to invent new traditions, which would need to take hold over certain generations. Traditions do not change overnight, especially traditions concerning marriage, having been shaped by centuries.
They form the basis of social institutions that constitute the pillars of society.

However, I don't think that such a hypothetical case will ever be reality, as what you're advocating here is, in my opinion, quite radically opposed to the traditions that define marriage, and therefore society, you'd need to destroy these traditions completely to actually redifine the concept of marriage in the majority's mind.

Marriage equality does not affect others' traditions. Your argument is nonsense.

[The Valkyrie]

Mehmet you said that traditions change via majority consensus. Therefore if the majority (straight people I assume) decide that gay marriage is fine with them, then by your standards is gay marriage acceptable?

Just curious.

Well, in such a hypothetical case, acceptablility would not be my call, that's what I'm saying. However, that would mean that the majority would have to invent new traditions, which would need to take hold over certain generations. Traditions do not change overnight, especially traditions concerning marriage, having been shaped by centuries.
They form the basis of social institutions that constitute the pillars of society.

However, I don't think that such a hypothetical case will ever be reality, as what you're advocating here is, in my opinion, quite radically opposed to the traditions that define marriage, and therefore society, you'd need to destroy these traditions completely to actually redifine the concept of marriage in the majority's mind.

---

---

---

Throughout human history there have been many forms of "traditional marriage"

Who's to say today's norms aren't in need of changing just as many of the other 'norms" have been changed through humanity evolving.

"Many forms", by that, I assume that you're referring to cases of monogamy and polygamy. However the fact is, that they have been centered on the concept of a union between a man and a woman, and the importance of conceiving and raising children within that marriage, through biological reproductory processes, or in some cases, adoptions.
To be honest, any tradition regarding marriage that you might look for anywhere on earth, it will be related to the same concept involving a man and a woman.
You're merely trying to introduce something new into it without actually accounting for its popularity.

No. It's been centred around a man and many women, or a man and his female slaves, or a man and any women they can get their hands on, including raping virgins, in the Abrahamic traditions.

Many other cultures accepted gay relationships, especially among men.

Now, if your view of a marriage is valid simply because of the chance for kids, do you therefore not recognise marriages where the couples choose not to have kids, or marriages between elderly people?

If you're determined that tradition trumps all then let me mention that slavery was traditional for ceenturies, as were many other things we find abhorrent today.

If we can change our attitudes on those, why is marriage such a sticking point?

[SteelCurtain]

If we can change our attitudes on those, why is marriage such a sticking point?

Because, ewww.

[Elskidor]

Mehmet you said that traditions change via majority consensus. Therefore if the majority (straight people I assume) decide that gay marriage is fine with them, then by your standards is gay marriage acceptable?

Just curious.

In the states the majority already approve of same sex marriage, and have for a bit now. We are just waiting for the ruling, and some of the states are more stubborn about accepting change than others.

[Ryantology]

If we can change our attitudes on those, why is marriage such a sticking point?

Because, ewww.

Ladies and germs, we present: the only honest argument against marriage equality that has ever been put forth.

[FlyingNarwhal]

Mehmet you said that traditions change via majority consensus. Therefore if the majority (straight people I assume) decide that gay marriage is fine with them, then by your standards is gay marriage acceptable?

Just curious.

Well, in such a hypothetical case, acceptablility would not be my call, that's what I'm saying. However, that would mean that the majority would have to invent new traditions, which would need to take hold over certain generations. Traditions do not change overnight, especially traditions concerning marriage, having been shaped by centuries.
They form the basis of social institutions that constitute the pillars of society.

However, I don't think that such a hypothetical case will ever be reality, as what you're advocating here is, in my opinion, quite radically opposed to the traditions that define marriage, and therefore society, you'd need to destroy these traditions completely to actually redifine the concept of marriage in the majority's mind.

This is a snippet from Wikipedia on same sex marriage in my state:

---

A poll of Massachusetts residents taken on November 19–20, 2003, found that 50 percent supported the Supreme Judicial Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage, 38 percent opposed it, and 11 percent had no opinion; 53 percent opposed a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and 36 percent supported it; 53 percent thought the legislature should do nothing more than modify state law to conform with the SJC opinion, while 16 percent wanted the governor and legislators to resist the ruling's implementation and 23 percent wanted them to provide benefits to same-sex couples while reserving marriage to different-sex couples.

A June 2011 Public Policy Polling survey found that 59% of Massachusetts voters thought same-sex marriage should be legal, while 33% thought it should be illegal and 8% were not sure.

A September 2011 Public Policy Polling survey found that 60% of Massachusetts voters thought same-sex marriage should be legal, while 30% thought it should be illegal and 10% were not sure. A separate question on the same survey found that 86% of respondents supported legal recognition of same-sex couples, with 56% supporting same-sex marriage, 30% supporting civil unions, 12% opposing all legal recognition and 2% not sure.

A March 2012 Public Policy Polling survey found that 58% of Massachusetts voters thought same-sex marriage should be legal, while 31% thought it should be illegal and 11% were not sure. A separate question on the same survey found that 86% of respondents supported legal recognition of same-sex couples, with 55% supporting same-sex marriage, 31% supporting civil unions, 12% opposing all legal recognition and 2% not sure.

A June 2012 Public Policy Polling survey found that 62% of Massachusetts voters thought same-sex marriage should be legal, while 30% thought it should be illegal and 8% were not sure. A separate question on the same survey found that 88% of respondents supported legal recognition of same-sex couples, with 58% supporting same-sex marriage, 30% supporting civil unions, 11% opposing all legal recognition and 2% not sure.

A May 2013 Public Policy Polling survey found that 58% of Massachusetts voters thought same-sex marriage should be legal, while 32% thought it should be illegal and 10% were not sure.

A September 2013 Public Policy Polling survey found that 60% of Massachusetts voters thought same-sex marriage should be legal, while 29% thought it should be illegal and 11% were not sure.

---

Now in my state same sex marriage was legalized by judicial ruling, but polls have shown that the majority of the population supports it anyways, by a wide berth in the most recent poll. 60% want to keep it legal versus 29% that want it to be illegal, and 11% can't form opinions. But that is a 31% difference between legalized same sex marriage and illegal same sex marriage.

And this is the direction that the rest of my country is heading towards, and has been heading towards for decades at this point. Even in the past, when acceptance of same sex marriage was in the minority, it was still on an upward trend. Is it not possible that this is the invention of a new system of traditions that has started several decades ago? The idea of a traditional marriage has already been destroyed in this country. Higher and higher divorce rates, more children born to non-married parents, more people choosing not to marry at all yet remain in monogamous relationships, these issues have plagued what was once called traditional marriage. I think marriage isn't looked at with the same reverence that it once was, and now one of the main reasons for marrying someone isn't the symbolic and ceremonial aspect anymore, but has more to do with the legal benefits you acquire with respect to your spouse.

Anyways I think, in my country at least, that we are on the precipice of a shift in the conventional traditions. I don't agree with your opinion that this will cause an ultimate collapse of society though. I think if you look at the history of the human race you'll find that many traditions (including but not limited to marriage) have made numerous shifts, changes, and complete metamorphoses all without the complete collapse of society.

[Elskidor]

It kinda skyrocketed in the pro-support direction after 2011. I'm surprised it's still be argued as if it is still an issue in the states...at this point the die hard anti folk are just fighting against the inevitable. It's kinda like Christians fighting against the evil Athiests. They can try to hold them back, but the battle is lost.They are coming....hide your kids and hide your wives..they are bleeping everyone out here!