Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide

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

__________________
Letterboxd

That's not the argument.

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

__________________
letterboxd

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.

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.

__________________
100 Favourites From The Future: REWIRED

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.

__________________
“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.”

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'.

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?

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

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.

Is that Socrates on the left?

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.


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?