Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...-rules-n375551

its about time they let gay people become just as miserable as the rest of us ;)

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

I love progress. :up:

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

Oh fu*k, here we go... Media rampage can now begin. It will probably be "we had hard lives, but now, we found justice" , like we are talking about Mad Max not gay marriage. Just to avoid confusion, I don't have problem with gays, but as I said before, everything that follows is a huge nonsense. Congrats.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

:up: :up:

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

sweet

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

Loved seeing this today. I live in UT and never thought it would happen here (boy was i wrong) and now that the LGBT can marry anywhere in the country, i am just overwhelmed with pride for my country!
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...e2ca6ca65b.jpg

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

It was time, it amazes me that this subject is even divised in opinion, I am yet to hear a good argument (I don't judge religious arguments to be good) to defend the position agains't same sex marriage.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

Personally Its not my buisness what people do in there own home. I just feel however this organizations for Same sex love will be all in our faces about it and at some point it will become a spark where same sex meets old fashioned real southern people and we get an situation and it will be bloody and horrible.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

Out of curiosity, how many southern people do you know?

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

And why would it be bloody?

Love southern stereotypes, it never gets old.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

Progress for the growth of a big federal government and loss of state rights?

:up:

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

About time !

I imagine you would have said the same thing about slavery. :eek:
That's okay if you would, idiotic racist homophobic bigots have a place in this country too ;)

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

Human rights is federal, marriage has always been state.

But hey if that makes me a bigoted racist homophobic, ok.

Even though I am pro gay marriage as a state issue?

I think most people believe marriage is a human right.
The ability to have and raise children is a human right.

And I think of this as LESS laws, not more.
Before we had a stupid law about WHO you could marry.

Now that law is gone, and you can marry who you want.
Thats not a bigger federal government it's a smaller one.

Anyway I prefaced that bigoted racist remark with "if you would have said the same thing about slavery" :lol:

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

The question would be, is hay marriage an issue that would surpass ''normal'' legislation. I don't know I'm not an expert on US politics, but I am yet to see a non religious argument to defend it so purely rationally speaking I don't know how I could be disappointed with this news.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

Now maybe we can get these sodomy laws off the books.
In MD we still have a law that says blow jobs are illegal. I'm not a fan of that law.

The supreme court ruled it unconstitutional so you won't get convicted but you can still be arrested.

Well, aren't kids main problem when it comes to these kinds of topics? Right to marry probably includes easier adoption of kids? I already said what I dislike about this marrying stuff. I still think they don't have less rights than regular people, they have more, at least in my country, so all these talking like they just freed them self's from "evil Galactic Empire" is a nonsense.

Was it a basic human right when the federal government allowed multi-racial marriage?

This is just sad. You're flat out wrong. Prior to this decision, gay couples were denied hospital visits, ability to adopt kids, inheritance rights, power of attorney, and all kinds of simple rights the rest of us "normal" people were allowed. That's in a country who's first founding words include "all men are created equal." No, the evil empire wasn't killing gay couples, but they sure as hell weren't doing them any favors.

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.

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.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

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?

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! :D

:laugh: 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.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

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. :D

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

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?

:up: 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?

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.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

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.

Glad to hear that.


You got me wrong, I'm saying people who can create life and want to do it should be more supported, encouraged and have bigger and better benefits. Let's use your post as an example, if two 50 year old's want to marry then good for them, I wish them best of luck in life, but you can't take their marriage as important as two 20 year old's who just started their life (so to say) and plan to create a family and so on. I'm not saying marriage without children can't be as good, I'm saying marriage with children needs more help and benefits. It dose make it special in my opinion, special =/= better. If you can't have kids, you can't, you may like it or dislike it, but you are obviously different then people who can, wouldn't you agree?


Because we all came from that point? Creating life should always be important. And again,I'm not saying other marriages are unimportant, I'm saying they don't need as much support, stuff like that. Its not giving you advantage over someone, for example, financial help to married couple with three kids dose not hurt married people without kids, dose it? Its not giving them advantage over anyone, its just helping them. I hope I explained myself correctly. :)

So are prisons, should we hang and shot everyone? There is also a lot of disease in some country's, what should we do there? Cut the kids when they are born so they can't have children in the future? I just think you need to support people who have children because new generations and so on, don't make me go into that now... :)

I'm not saying you need to support them by "cutting" something away from same sex marriage.

Gay's adopting children is difficult topic and we all know why...*

*Happy?

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

I did once see an episode of Jerry Springer in which a man married a horse. So no legislation passed by the US government can really be classed as divisive, provocative or even absurd.

This doesn't even make a bit of sense. Prison overcrowding and disease have nothing to do with overpopulation. Those are problems that can be solved without the ridiculous suggestions that you offer up.

And I notice you edited out the part where you said we all know why gays adopting children is a problem...at least have the courage of your convictions to look like a bigot if you are going to be one.

I edited them out because I knew you will come to act "heavenly", here I'm putting it back. I didn't say its a problem, I said its a difficult topic and we all know why... Don't LIE

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

There's a serious movement in the U.S. to legalize polygamous marriages. Some say they are born polyamorous and so claim it's their right to be married to multiple partners. On my old posting board there was a married woman who said she was polyamorous, so it's more common than one might think.

Now that we have legalized gay marriages, should polygamy marriages be legalized next?

I'm sort of an atheist, or at least an agnostic, I don't think I'd act all "heavenly." :D

You still accused me for something mate... You probably just read it wrong or something, wasn't funny to me, imagine I attack you for something you never said. Saying I called gay adoption a problem is not correct, I said topic is difficult/problematic, as it is.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

My opinion on all this is we over complicate things. I don't think the government ought to be marrying anyone. Leave that to religious institutions. Then those institutions can make the rules they want and adults can be apart of whatever institution they want. What about taxes you ask? I'm for straight tax. What about health insurance? If employers want to add a +1, I should be able to add grandma if I want. Kids are a no brainer. I should be able to have whoever I want making my medical decisions and that problem goes way beyond sexual proclivities anyway. Just my two cents worth. We are way past the type of limited government I desire so my opinion is as irrelevant as it can possibly be. Carry on with your law=heart debates.

well I apologize. It was on screen for such a small amount of time, I guess I read it wrong. My bad.

I honestly hate threads like this, because I end up getting sucked into them, and they are often arguments, not discussions between people who are unwilling to bend on their views, and the winner is usually the guy who beats the other over the head with their views (presented as facts) over and over til someone quits. It's not fun.

I'm bowing out of this one, and going to discuss movies or something fun. :cool:

Your avatar is Monkey with a gun, how do you ever lose any discussion. :D

Polygamy has been going on in America since the country was founded. The most famous proponent of which was Brigham Young, who fathered 59 children by 16 different women.

I'd love to know how athiesim is related to same sex marrage? It's amazing how often people conflate atheism and immorality.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

How is gay marriage immoral?

You do know that if you don't want to hear the religious side of a religious debate that there is no point in asking, right?

I think it should be done in a registry office. To force churches to perform such ceremonies, which are incompatible with their believes, is just left wing bigotry. The church of England has already conceded defeat to the left on this matter.

I didn't know sci fi slob as religious lol

That's interesting. I have wondered how slippery a slope that is. My dad has been a pastor for quite a few years and he turns down heterosexual couples. It ferls like we are a long way from that point but maybe it is just a matter of people crying loud enough.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

to hell with this 'gay couples can't have babies' argument. if two queer women who are in love get married, one of them could get knocked up through artificial insemination. or surrogacy, which queer men and women alike have both done.

Sean has some good points here, if I understand his post correctly.

When the whole gay marriage issue first started I thought that the best solution was for the government to get out of the marriage business.

If adults wanted to get married they could do so at their own will without government approval. They could be married in a civil ceremony, religious ceremony or even at the House of Pancakes.

That way no one could claim marriage was unfairly restricted as any adult couple, including gays could be married. And churches wouldn't be forced to violate their own religious beliefs by marrying gay couples.

As fair as tax and other benefits for marriage couples goes, that should be changed to include any people who live together as a couple (a couple could be platonic)

I did vote for gay marriage in my state but I think getting the government out of the marriage business would have been a better and fairer solution.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

I know I should avoid these types of threads. I'll see to it.

First time I make my thoughts known to someone other than my family and someone agrees with me. I am shocked.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

That's not the argument.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

i just read like 4 pages where people talked about that a whole lot.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

that i believe the children are our future article you linked to, its headliner was basically 'gay people can't procreate and straight people can'

...i didn't read the whole article, cause it was butt long, but that's what i got from the first few paragraphs, and the discussion that derived from it.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

ok, i probably should have worded my post better. no one here is arguing that gay people can't have babies, directly. but the argument from all these ^ posts is that straight couples have had an advantage over gay couples as being recognized at a state level in their matrimony because of their ability to procreate. and that's what all the above argument's been about, right?

that's what i was responding to.

Good news. I can't think of any reason same sex couples shouldn't enjoy the same legal rights as everyone else. It's two people who love each other and that should always be celebrated in my book.

Forcing churches into performing ceremonies, (and the right to bear/adopt children) is another debate entirely though. That said I doubt we'd be leveling 'left wing bigotry' accusations if the issue concerned mosques.

There is a difference between discussing it and using it as a part of overall post and using it as an example for something else we are discussing.

If the government tried to impose gay marriage on the Muslim community there wouldn't even be a debate about it. They would reject it, and would treat such an imposition as an insult to their religion. The difference between Muslims and Christians when it comes to gay marriage is that Christians seem to bend to government pressure, and Muslims remain very stringent on enforcing the laws of their holy book.

Oh, I know that. I was hinting that the accusations would be 'right wing bigotry' as opposed to 'left'.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

The thing is that marriage is not solely religious, my mother is getting married this summer and we are all atheists they call it a marriage, but it is more a ''civil union'' they are legally husband and wife, but the church has nothing to do with it. Is it only here that such things exist?

Ah right, I get you now. But I can't imagine a situation when 'right wing bigotry' was regarded as a negative.;)

I assume that your avatar is a picture of some ancient philosopher or poet, and not a saint.:p

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

Is that Socrates on the left?

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

It's a portion of a painting by Raphael on the left it's Plato pointing to the sky and on the right Aristotle pointing to the ground. Plato believing in some sort of perfect rationnal world that we can find by reason and Aristotle saying we have to Watch our world and try to understand it.

The smiley tells me you're kidding, but tell that to the bleeding heart UK media who've pretty much assured the continued decline of Britain, by trashing the likes of UKIP (and other more nationalist parties) and stonewalling intelligent discussion on the crawl towards Sharia Law in the UK - and the rest of Europe/World. Naturally a debate for another thread.

If this were true wouldn't we all be wringing our hands about pollution/climate change/nuclear waste/recycling/and any other global catastrophe that is far more pressing than whether or not someone can birth children?! This sounds like an excuse to involve yourself in someone's personal life and not a legal argument to do so. Especially since the vast majority of the people on this planet are not gay which means the future generations are fine. Hypothetical children should literally be nowhere on the radar of the government. Only the existing ones needs should be of any concern. I believe this children argument to be completely and totally invalid.


Again, it's none of their damn business what's going on with hypothetical kids. I also see no similarity between deciding voting age and encouraging people to procreate to keep the species going. Also, since we're on it, I don't think it's even the governments job to give a crap that the species does keep going. And, as stated above, I'm pretty sure they're trying their damnedest to make sure we don't keep going.

This fills me with more rage than I can comprehend. No marriage should be more important than any other. None of the scenarios you talk about are more or less important than the other. None of the scenarios you describe should be treated with more or less respect than any of the others. The lives being built by a couple that is getting married, regardless of age/sex/fertility/etc. should be respected equally because we're human ****ing beings who should be kind to one another. We shouldn't discriminate or give preferential treatment. That what this entire thing is about!

WHAT?!??!! No, we don't all know why. I sure as heck don't. Why don't you enlighten me? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but you're saying the subject of same sex couples adopting children is a difficult topic, right? If it is, why? If you're talking about something else, let me know what I'm not getting.

No one is imposing gay marriage on any religion. Why do you think anyone is imposing gay marriage on a religion? This is entirely about the government recognizing same sex marriage. It has absolutely nothing to do with Muslims or Christians.

Why?

No, for two reasons:

1) You can always say "why worry about X when Y is happening?" But that's not an argument. Theft isn't fine because murder exists, and culture doesn't cease to matter because of pollution.

2) Not everybody shares your degree of worry about those issues, and if they do, they may not share your assumption that wringing out hands (or a given course of action) is the best way to solve it. But nobody disagrees that what kinds of people the next generation turn out to be matters.

When I say the government has an interest in the next generation, I don't mean so the human species will continue to exist. I mean because the demographics of a country have a huge impact on what that country is like: its economy, its political stability, its tolerance for risk, investment, everything. It's staggeringly important.

Moreover, they have an interest in what kind of citizens they turn out to be. We have a ridiculous amount of research showing that the traditional family structure produces far, far better outcomes than, say, single-parent homes. It's one of the few conclusions of the social sciences that's so definitive it begins to resemblance the hard sciences.

I think you'll find lots of arguments are invalid when you completely misunderstand them.

Then why is it their business that they're getting married? You don't expect them to license your friendships, do you? So why license marriages? You can't play the "no damn business" card and then turn around and say we have to force states to validate the relationship they apparently have "no damn business" in.

I explained the similarity pretty clearly, but here it is again: laws that advance government interests don't need to perfectly encompass every demographic exception. That's wildly impractical, and we don't do it anywhere. General tendencies are fine, whether the law is trying to capture most of the population that's mature enough to vote, or most of the population that's going to do the child-rearing.

TL; DR: you don't make laws for every exception.

So if it ends up threatening their tax-exempt status, or people get sued or fined for refusing to participate for religious reasons, you'll change your mind on this issue?

Yes, we had civil unions in some places here. It was actually a common proposal of compromise: mimicking most major legal benefits of marriage, without codifying the word into law, so people or states could still define the word for themselves. As you can see, it was ultimately rejected. I'm not sure if the suggestion has reached Bigoted status yet, but give it a few more weeks.

I can't help it if I'm smarter than the rest of society. :D


Again, this has literally nothing to do with hypothetical kids and the government is doing jack to help the ones that exist and doing even less to help the children of minorities. Just drive through north St. Louis city some time and tell me how they're even remotely concerned about the well being of future generations.

Bull crap. The people in power are concerned with what the Kocc brothers want. There's not a single government official that ever thought "we need to make sure the kids of tomorrow are well-balanced, educated individuals." Not once. If there was, would the results of this search exist they way they do?

Why are you comparing same sex couples to single parent homes? I'm not gay, but I'd be pretty damn insulted if you told me my partner and my parenting skills were on par with a single mom. On that note, show me some of this hard evidence. I'd be willing to bet huge money that the kids raised by single parents in low income situations would reflect worse than single parents in middle-class or higher. My money would be on kids raised in poverty are worse off than those that aren't regardless of parent situation.

I'm pretty sure I understand just fine. You're trying to fill in gaps where there isn't hard evidence to cover.

They're not validating marriages for the sake of validating them. They're doing it because not validating them was having an adverse effect on their relationships and it made them feel like second class citizens, which, in the US, should be reserved for poor people, not gay people. Yeah, I said that, but I don't agree with it.

This just seems to reinforce what I said. Because not everyone is gay, there's no reason not to legalize it. I'm sorry, but you still haven't provided any evidence to say that "it's for the children."

This will literally never, ever happen. Even if some same sex couple is dumb enough to take a church to court for refusing them service and they find a lawyer dumb enough to do it, there's protections in place to prevent the gay couple from winning that legal battle. This hypothetical just doesn't make sense and it's something the losing side of this fight throws around without realizing how absurd it actually is. I'm not saying you're absurd, in general, but, seriously, you can't actually believe it would get that, right?

This is just ridiculous. Not one state senator, not one city council member, not one mayor? That's just absurd

Only when they are pandering for the votes of the people who aren't buying the elections. If we're lucky, there might be a couple on the federal level who said something close to that and meant it.

Early in their career.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

If you've ever listened to any DC insider you'll find that they all say the same thing. Even the lofty minded, idealistic politicians are broken down over time in DC. It's nothing but making deals and compromising. There was an episode of On the Media on NPR who had a 30-year+ veteran DC reporter and he flat out said laws don't get made in DC, deals do. I'm sorry if this is cynical and sounds like nonsense, but everything I've ever heard from people close to federal US politics says the same thing. Most of the politicians think you're too stupid to actually be making any decisions on your own.

I wish to God I was making this up.

EDIT: Maybe it was the TED radio hour... It was one of the NPR podcasts. :D

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

I would suggest something then, why do gay people want to get maried in front of the Church? The same Church that marginalize them for some ridiculous reasons? I would say that they have all the right to have civil union and call it marriage so that the symbolic is there, but I agree that the Church should not have to proceed to gay marriages because it would be completely illogic. The Church would go agains't it's principles and gay couples would legally confirm their union in front of an organisation that despise (might be a strong word, but I don't know another one haha) them.

Those people are doing that to make a point. Nothing else. They'll never be able to make a church marry them if said church doesn't want to. It's the same reason a Jewish church would never marry a heathen like me. Because I like non-kosher food. :D

I'm going to play devil's advocate, donniedarko.

Let's pretend there's a politician out there who is capable of thinking further ahead than the next election (ha!). If said person does exist, there's still no reason to think they've ever made a decision that was in the best interest of children who haven't been born yet or even of the kids living right now. How many politicians are against the idea of free/cheap college? How much money do we spend on war versus public schools? How many children are still without healthcare? And, the ones who are on government healthcare (like mine) are a drain on our system and they're getting crappy care at that. How many outreach programs do we have for inner city kids? How many programs do we have for poor kids? Of those, how many actually work?

Come on, do you seriously think there are politicians who give a crap about the well being of the next generation? Or are they more concerned with lining their pockets and making sure there's no inheritance tax so their kids can take their wealth when they die?

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

I don't know what politicians think, why they do what they do haha I'm not in their head. I find it kind of presumptuous to try to imagine their intentions.

I'm not making presumptions of what's happening in their heads. I'm looking at the result of their "work."

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

I don't know I'm not american, but in general I find it quite popular to say that politicians are ********, etc. That they don't care for the people. But most of them would have much more money and calm in their life if they weren't doing politics.


Sure I personally I'm completely at the opposite ideologically to the repupublican party, but I can't say that they don't really think that the ideology they defend is what is best for their country.

I'll direct you back here. If they're making decisions that are "best for their country" why is their country doing so poorly? Are you going to blame the kids?

I don't know anyone, on either side of the political spectrum, who thinks a poor education system is a positive result of their policies. Do you?

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

I don't know why university is that expensive in the USA honestly, maybe because some say that it is not the job of the state to pay for schools? That people who don't go to school don't have to pay for it? (ridiculous argument because everyone benefits from scholars when they do the job they will do)


To give you a comparison, I start university this september and it costs me (my parents haha) around 4000$ per year or maybe even less.

Good grief, bouncingbrick! You keep singling everyone out as either this way, or that way. They're totally for this, or totally for that. Surely you know, nothing on this planet works like that. Especially with the high number of people involved in these situations you speak of. Even this . . .

My friend's granddaughter is gay, and very religious. If she ever does get married, she will more than likely want a church wedding. It's not going to be to make a point. So what then . . . Is she the only one?

My brother has been in politics for several years. I won't say who or where. That is all I will say . . . Except for the fact that he does care about this country's children, and how their lives go. Again . . . Is he the only one?

We've had this discussion before, but over an unimportant topic. I just thought you were exaggerating back then, but you seem to believe things really work out this way. I'm just curious, is all, so don't go getting all upset with me, my little weight losing buddy. ;)

...

I don't know why you think our country is doing so poorly. The US government actually spends more on each student than any other country. So the system may not be number 1 but it's not as if Financials are the issue. And yes a big part of the education systems down sides are the students in inner city schools.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

sorry donnie if I was harsh to you earlier.

What I meant to say was that when slavery was abolished it was a loss of state rights and a bigger federal government. It seemed to me the exact same thing that you were lamenting. Granting individuals equal recognition under the law.

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

Oh no you don't! That's not what you were saying. You said that all gay people who got married in church, would only be there to make a point. I am saying that she will not be there for that, and I am sure she won't be the only one. I'm feeling pretty sure her spouse will feel the same way.

I won't quote all the political stuff, because I hate politics. Most of the conversations annoy me. I find that a lot of people get too worked up, and hateful sounding, to bother to talk to.

No, he is not that high up . . . and no, knowing my brother like you don't, I am sure he has NOT said anything just to look good, sound right. We come from the same father. There's no way in hell.

Oh calm the **** down before you have heart attack... It feels you with rage, you can't comprehend more? Are you going to become Hulk? Don't dramatize situation when not necessary. I kinda make it clear that I'm not saying one should suffer or be "cut out" because of the other, I pointed out that marriage with kids needs more help, you probably feed out of the sun but human beings (besides being kind to each other) need to eat, they need clothes, they need school (these days) and so on... You don't think some people need more help than the others? Not deserve but need.You talk about helping people but you attack me for saying it, good job.


That will be hard, judging from your previous post's, but let me try. You don't think same sex adopting always brings out a lot of headed up discussions? Church is first to get involved, then traditional people and so on, you never saw that? I guess you live in a better world then rest of us. And its also very different because until end of the world we can discuss about not having mother/father (on purpose), and before you start throwing knifes at me, I didn't say I would find it hard, but people in general do.

You don't think same sex adopting always brings out a lot of headed up discussions? Church is first to get involved, then traditional people and so on, you never saw that? And its also very different because until end of the world we can discuss about not having mother/father (on purpose), and before you start throwing knifes at me, I didn't say I would find it hard, but people in general do.

(copy-paste from my other post)

I said nothing about tenn. I was talking about Alabama and Georgia and too me thats deeper south. Tenn is called a southern state but too where we are your not south but more west

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

Yes yes yes they should be able to adopt.
They are able to provide a MUCH better environment for these kids than a government bureaucracy ever will

Re: Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide
 

Here is the thing Im a simple person i only understand God Created Adam and Eve. I am a christian its what I believe. But I also am the type to not care what a neighbor does. But also I dont get how the court could or should make states say its ok too get hitched if its against pro life. Funny thing is in the long run same sex needs the man and women creation too have kids. I just dont know what to think. But I know people worse then me who are more god fearing will say its a sign of then end. Cause if all same sex happens we are doomed. I dont know those feelings of same sex and personally hate topics that are politics.