Illinois to become 15th state to recognize marriage equality

[kılıç_mehmet]

Discussion forum? Debate? Differing opinions?

Bleh, whatever. Tongue

I wasn't even taking away anyone's rights away. That is outside of my jurisdiction.

Well, really... it's between a man and woman of royal (or otherwise noble) blood. All these commonfolk getting married and shit is an affront to the institution of marriage. Why they even want to get married is just... beyond me. I mean, if you're going to attach some sort of religious significance to a union or partnership: why the hell is a secular state using it for legal matters?

Marriage is not an institution that can be defended, or attacked by the use of such examples. Marriage has an innate purpose, something that is bound by tradition, and something that is bound by the natural mechanics of procreation. Since homosexuals are unable to fit into any of the said categories, they are in truth, quite irrelevant.
Its not as though as the "heterosexual nobles" oppressing the "homosexual peasants".

Also as for your second point, it isn't about attaching a religious significance to your union. In my country, all marriages are secular unions, and they are done by civil servants, not by clergymen.
It isn't about attaching a religious undertone, its about giving your union a social acceptance, a social significance, something that binds people other than the personal bonds they share with another.
Besides, the marriage is not validated by the church, the church actually uses the power given to it by the state, not otherwise.
In todays world, the marital services provided by churches serve a strictly traditional role. Here, the traditional role has been stripped off of its power by the state, it is only done if someone really wants it to have a religious undertone, but is otherwise valid when done without it(also from a religious sense).

Marriage utterly removed from any and all legal benefits, I say. Give the benefits now-associated with that shit to a superior legal license.

Could be done, though these are all things that are related to matters of law and property. They ought to be discussed under a different context.

Only the ignorant argue FOR their ignorance, lol. By 'you people' I guess you mean non-believers? Well, Mr. morality, you put yourself here prepared to argue your position, so don't cop out and switch this on me, getting all huffy when you're challenged. Remember how the bible condones slavery, rape, abortion, thievery and suppression of the rights of women? If you do any of those things now, besides being an immoral piece of shit, you go to jail. In the future, marriage equality will be totally like that. but you don't see that cause you cling to your ancient writings of hypocrisy and masochism

No, I don't mean non-believers, I mean people of your ideology. Liberal humanism, cosmopolitanism or whatever you call yourself these days.
And how you brought in the bible is beyond me. Did you see me quote any verses from the bible? I'm not even Christian, nor come from a Christian family.

He self-identifies as a fascist nationalist; I'm only obliging.

This is due to your lack of knowledge of nationalistic movements around the globe. I do not adhere to the same ideology as Hitler, nor as Il Duce.
I adhere to a specific brand of nationalism, Turkish nationalism, and the importance lies in its Turkish character. Something neither Hitler nor Mussolini do possess.

I would kindly request that you avoid making useless insult-only posts in the future. Or at least, if you have to do it: do it with style.

No no, its alright. One must be ready to take insults. As a Turkish saying goes, "He who goes to the hamam, sweats."

Can you imagine our technology in even 100 years? I sure can't. So... I'm personally not comfortable using any of those 'never' statements. Especially the social-acceptance one XD

Well, this isn't something that is going to change unless people find a way to make people reproduce asexually. Because therein lies the meaning and purpose of marriage my friend. I think that marriage is the way that the union of two people is connected to social progress. By creating the basis of the family, the family that we know, the family that is created from the mechanics of natural procreation.

I say this because 100 years before, marriage wasn't any different in its purpose, and it won't be different in its purpose 100 years later on, as it is in fact an institution that is strongly tied to tradition. You cannot seperate tradition from marriage. You cannot create a seperate form of marriage that is disattached from tradition.
But what goes on here is that people try to do this, not with the consent or on the request of the relevant people, but on the request of marginals.

Jesus holy tittyfucking-Christ. Ryan! Staph! PLZ! Plz staph!

For serious.

As I said before, stopping people is out of my jurisdiction, I alone account for no man but myself, and I certainly cannot account for anyone in the states, but what we're discussing here are concepts and ideas.