Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide

Sorry if I offended you, no wait, I'm not. At least you got one thing right, it is sad. I doubt they were denied hospital visits, attorneys and things like that, maybe that happens where you live. By the way even "normal" people get denied those same right sometimes. There is one right that is very debatable, adopting kids but everything else? They had those, at least in recant years, not like this law just changed everything, like they came from slaves to masters or something...

Why should anyone do them any favors? That's the deal, they are threaded like pandas, look at them wrong and you are in deep sh*t.

__________________
“By definition, you have to live until you die. Better to make that life as complete and enjoyable an experience as possible, in case death is shite, which I suspect it will be.”

Well lets see I live in WV weither depending where you live your either a yankee or you have a southern twang closer you get around Bluefield area.
And yes I know the WV tag about we are all back water hillbillies who merry our sisters or cousin our we are too poor to by shoes are better yet you have in door plumming. Anyways I have been too both Georgia and Alabama.
Alabama around a small farming area. Where we WV are all yankees. Trust me there will be some WV backwater people who wont get how its allowed for two men too get married and hold and kiss and its a law now to be able too do it in public.
Trust me Southern people will be the first too start some brawl with sam sex people. Well West Virginia people are capable its just most people here are going to collagies near Morgantown and we get allot of all kinds of people here of all race and sexual prowes. West Virginia is a state were allot of country people live but believe me i know people who are far from country as can get. I just think its a bad idea to say hey go ahead and get married in a country where allot of church going red necks live. Its gonna be like tossing lighter fluid to get a bond fire going. Its gonna get hot and there's gonna be a big mess.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5506720.html

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/11/justic...-sex-adoption/

https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...e-sex-couples/

https://www.google.com/search?site=&....0.7NntzSugkGA

Everyone should do favors for everyone because we should have compassion and empathy for one another. It's attitudes like yours that prevent the world from being a better place.

__________________

Well, did you look for it? Here's one.

People can declare anything they want a "human right," I suppose. The question is whether it's a Constitutional right. And there's really nothing to suggest that it is. There's nothing to suggest that heterosexual marriage is a Constitutional right, either.

Bear in mind, what's being asserted is not a right to marry someone but the right to have that marriage recognized by the government. This is a pretty important distinction, legally, because arguing that you have the right to make your government validate your relationship sounds a lot less noble than the straw man of saying you have the right to love who you want.

This is simply mistaken. It's a bigger Federal government because the Federal government is overriding state government. I don't know if you can call this more "government" or not, but it's definitely more Federal government.

And you didn't preface the "I'll bet you'd feel the same way about slavery" part at all. Let's be civil. donnie's making a civil, legalistic argument, and opposing gay marriage is not like supporting slavery. That's absurd.

We already said this (adoption) is very controversial, with a very good reason.

More adoption disputes...

"detail guidelines for hospital visitation that prohibit discrimination based on “race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.” It ain't just gay's ,is it?


I also didn't say we shouldn't generally do favors to each other, I just said why point out country's not giving favors to gays, they are not giving favors to anyone, we are kinda in same situation there. We will skip part about my attitude, we don't want this thread to turn ugly.

Yoda, that's a very long argument haha. I'll read it later today when I'll go to the library, but since then if you are opposed to it could you tell me the reason?

__________________
I do not speak english perfectly so expect some mistakes here and there in my messages

What you seem to be saying is, I HAVE to be one or the other? OK, then you tell me. Which one are you?

You sound like you hate being stereotyped?!? So why did it just sound like you were doing it to me?

I would like to believe that where I live, for the most part anyway, will stay civil. I'm in Tennessee, but the way . . . and no, I do not have a twang. I'm simply Southern!

__________________

No problem, I don't want it to seem like homework.

I should clarify that the argument in question is a legal argument, not an argument about why it's good or bad morally, socially, etc. And it's actually summarized pretty well in the first paragraph (abridged slightly):

This is a really important distinction that seems to be totally lost on most of the people cheering this decision, virtually all of whom seem to think "I support gay marriage, therefore I support any decision that helps it along."

The Court's ruling was not "gay marriage is okay," and if it had voted the other way the ruling would not have been "gay marriage is not okay." That isn't what they were (ostensibly) voting on. They were voting on whether or not the States have any right to make any distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex marriages.

I see, what would be the possible distinctions?

Now, please don't take this wrong, I'm not trying to be offensive or anything, but to me obvious reason is that man and women can have kids, and should have benefits according to that (support and stuff like that), just my thoughts on it. That's biggest thing that comes to my mind, Yoda will probably explain all that legal stuff better.

I'm not offended by others positions, I like to debate don't worry.


If you say that what makes man and woman marriage special is the possibility to have children then what would you say to a couple aged over 50 year old that wants to marry? (they can't have kid obviously) or to a woman or a man that for genetical reason is not fertil, they wouldn't have the right to marry? Or simply to a man and a woman that wants to marry, but don't want kids?


Also, why the fact that you can have kid should give anyone a moral edge or an advantage?

Would like to see more people take this approach, even though it's a lot easier and more psychologically comfortable to write other people off as bigots.

This question is best answered with another (one that I'm not sure has occurred to a lot of the people cheering this decision): why should the government care who gets married? It's not the government's job to schematize our personal relationships. They don't formally recognize friendships, for example. Government only gets involved when it has a compelling interest in something. What interest do they have in marriage?

Answer: children. Government has a major interest in the welfare of the next generation. And, right on schedule, the very next question is always this:

It doesn't matter that some couples don't (or can't) have children, because government often draws broad categorizations to capture certain demographics. For example, not every 17 year old is too ignorant to vote, and not every 18 year old is informed enough to do so, but by establishing a minimum voting age we exclude most of the people who probably aren't ready, and include most of the people who are. It's not perfect, but creating a perfect test would be invasive, costly, and ultimately pretty arbitrary. Demographic capture is necessarily balanced against simplicity.

Similarly, government encourages the development of the next generation broadly by recognizing (and supporting in various ways) heterosexual marriage, which achieves the desired goal in one fell swoop.

Addendum: whether or not you find this distinction good socially or morally (and I can certainly think of some decent counterarguments), the above should be more than enough to establish that a legal distinction is reasonable. And that's what the Court was deciding here: whether or not States should even have the right to distinguish between the two at all, ever, regardless of its wisdom. Courts don't judge whether a law is good or smart, they judge whether or not it's Constitutional. In theory, at least.

And it's pretty clear that most of the people happy about this ruling really don't care about any of this, if they're even aware of it. If everyone were actually considering the questions under consideration, there would (theoretically) be lots of people who support gay marriage, but not this particular decision. The fact that there are basically none suggests that most of them couldn't care less about the legal implications.

If the government doesn't get involved can a gay couple get married? If the answer is yes then I would agree, but it seems that in certain states (I might be mistaken) gay people still couldn't get married



I would agree if the human race were in trouble of not having enough children, but it's the opposite, we are to much, I'd go as far as encourage people not to have children haha. (I know it's not a very popular position, but it's based on environmental concerns). Also, if you accept (which I don't) that we should encourage people to have children then gay couple can adopt. And on a fairly ethical standpoint it is wonderful because it gives opportunity to a kid that is born in a difficult situation to be raised in a good environment and then he can become a good citizen, etc. Honestly Yoda, don't you think that, even if it is in your subconscious there isn't some sort of religious belief behind your position about the normality of the couple and a quesionning about the morality of homosexuality (it's a question not an affirmation).

I keep hearing about how "Only 'Traditional' couples can have children, that's why it's superior to same sex marriage" No. Adoption is an important thing. "Traditional" couples have children, but some of them can't afford to keep them, or aren't ready for the responsibility, so these children end up in the system. Anything that finds these poor kids a stable, loving home should be looked upon as a good thing. I don't care if the family has two dads or two mums, it's a family, the kids will be raised by someone who loves them, end of story. I know a few same sex couples who are fantastic parents. They're certainly better with their adopted kids than my parents were with their biological ones.

Plus isn't the world getting a bit too overpopulated anyways?

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

When people say "marriage" in this debate they mean marriage licenses, issued by the state government. Anybody can have a ceremony, devote themselves to someone they love, or even have a religious marriage ceremony in a church, if the church supports them, etc.

Well, forget popular, I don't think it's accurate. Most claims about overpopulation are simply false. There's a semi-recent argument about this in another thread which starts here. General summary: birth rates in most developed countries are below replacement level, and past concerns of overpopulation has all been tremendously inaccurate.

But remember, the legal question doesn't hinge on whether or not you "accept" this idea as a good one. It's not the Court's job to decide if the legislation is smart, or even effective. Just if it violates the Constitution.

I agree. I support gay adoption. I'd like to see a lot more research done on how kids fare in different types of households, but it's pretty clear that loving parents are better than none, regardless of gender. Part of the argument for the government's interest in marriage is that we have a wealth of research suggesting that it leads to better outcomes for children, in almost every way.

And to that end, we have things like the Child Tax Credit, the fact that children can be claimed as dependents, etc. which aren't contingent on marriage.

Well, if it's in my subconscious, then I obviously wouldn't know it. It's always possible. But of course, it's also possible that non-religious people enjoy the idea of sticking it to religious people in any political issue they can.

All any of us can do is try to make sure we have coherent, rational reasons for what we believe, as a check against subconscious biases. But we can never really know if we're succeeding.

But with marriage isn't there some sort of insurance for the couple, like if one of the two dies the other can have half of te others pension fund, etc. Personally I think marriage is ridiculous, but if someone judges it a good think then I'd give them the freedom to do so gay or not.


You're right, accurate would be a better word and I maintain that my position is. I don't think the replacement level is what we should aim about, I think that the more humans there are the more pollution, there is, and that overall humans do more harm then good to its environment, to other species, etc. There is a very good South african philosopher that talks about it called David Benatar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar. My stance is that humans don't have any kind of moral superiority to other species on this planet based solely on the fact that we are humans and with the way we use the planet we put in jeopardy the lives of other species. I wouldn't go as far as Benatar who says that we shouldn't reproduce at all, but I find his arguments to be hard to refute, I'm still reflecting about it.


And that is absolutely ridiculous, it's as if the constitution is the ultimate truth and that, by rationnal arguments, we can't put forward something that is supperior to it. It is like thebiblical obsession because in a book there is something it is true. I prefer the approach of reading a book, a document with a critical thinking then always having to apply it. But it is how it is even though I think it's wrong.

I don't know, the importance of marriage might be cultural, here in Québec marriage is almost something that has become marginal, it doesn't have the same signification it has in the US (it might be related to the fact that religion also has a very less important place in our society)


agreed (even though I don't think religion is coherent hahaha)

Totally agree; one of our longtime MoFos from back in the day has such a family, in fact. The research (like, all of it) clearly shows us that kids are better off in stable, two-parent homes, and while we have very little data about how gay marriage may differ from heterosexual marriage for children (if it does at all), I think it's obvious that loving parents are always better than caretakers.

That said, the legal question is what captures the overwhelming majority of cases with the simplest rule, and the statistical difference between straight and gay couples here is massive. You can write a law that carves out lots of exceptions, but in this case it's clearly something we'd be doing simply to include homosexual couples for social reasons; it's not something you'd do because the numbers told you it was the best way to capture the parental demographic.

I don't believe so, no. But more importantly, it's dangerous to base rights on potentially fluctuating concerns. And it's not like anybody in favor of this would be willing to curtail it if birth rates kept dropping.

I'd like to say that for the first time in several years' I'm proud to be American. Its a very small step and will do very little for the hate crimes and discrimination. But its a good step.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...