Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide

Tools    





I should say I believe God created man and women. Its a bit hard to grasp there is one set of adam and eve. When i say adam and eve i mean man and women.



I can't help it if I'm smarter than the rest of society.
No, but you can help whether or not you make non-sequitur arguments that are the social equivalent of "eat your vegetables because there are starving people in China."

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.
This fits the idea that government is incompetent at helping people more than the idea that it's indifferent. As do the billions of dollars poured into various assistance programs.

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.
This statement is ridiculous hyperbole, as several others have already pointed out. And I say that as someone who's pretty darn skeptical of the degree to which politicians care about citizens.

Also: who cares? Why do their intentions matter? If their intentions can invalidate their actions as government officials, then why doesn't that similarly invalidate any of their advocacy relating to gay marriage? Either their intentions are immaterial (in which case this is a pointless diversion from the argument), or they invalidate their positions, in which case they invalidate the policy you're defending. Which is it?

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.
Except for the part where I didn't say or do any of that. I was talking about why the government has an interest at all. It doesn't directly relate to gay marriage, but it does relate to the thing you decided to question (that the government has an interest in marriage, historically). Hence my having to elaborate on it.

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.
And you'd lose that bet. Income explains part of it, but not all (not even most, as far as we can tell). And it's not clear that this would be a reasonable distinction, anyway, because marriage is one of the things that helps lift people out of poverty.

I'm pretty sure I understand just fine.
You demonstrably haven't. You thought I was talking about survival of the species, and now you've somehow convinced yourself that this argument turns on whether or not politicians can be proven to care.

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
This just flat-out isn't answering the question: why validate any? Why did the government start issuing marriage licenses, and why should they continue to do so?

EDIT: forgot this part:

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?
I asked several hypotheticals, and you seem to have only responded to one (taking a church to court). But lesser versions of the same thing have literally already happened: people have sued (and won!) against Christian wedding photographers and Christian bakeries. I wonder how many people who glibly ask "how does it affect you?" even know this. Show of hands?



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.
That's not how it works. And if this is how you feel, it would actually lead you to dislike the recent decision.

This isn't a case of us following some old document that disapproves of things that are more accepted now than they were when it was written. The Constitution doesn't rule on these issues either way; it's more a list of things the government cannot do, under any circumstances. So, for example, we can't pass laws revoking free speech, even if they have a lot of public support. A court would strike it down.

Anything not explicitly ruled out by the Constitution, we decide by voting: either referendums or via elected representatives. That's what happened here: some places voted for gay marriage, some didn't, and then the Court came in and overruled the latter in one fell swoop. And they did it in exactly the way you're saying you don't like--by saying it violated the Constitution.



i'm SUPER GOOD at Jewel karaoke
i feel like there is a lot of theorizing going on here. when the argument is 'the government has previously had no interest in recognizing same sex couples because they have an interest in the next generation/the impact they'll have on the economy and such, and only straight people can create a new generation', it just seems like a whole lot of speculation. has this argument been made by anyone from these positions of power/the federal government?

i've seen several people picking on bouncing brick for his all or nothing extremes. i don't see how anyone can disagree, though, when someone makes a point to defile the government for not having enough invested interest in the citizens of future generations (or, let's face it, any generations) when there is plenty of evidence to back that claim up.
__________________
letterboxd



i feel like there is a lot of theorizing going on here. when the argument is 'the government has previously had no interest in recognizing same sex couples because they have an interest in the next generation/the impact they'll have on the economy and such, and only straight people can create a new generation', it just seems like a whole lot of speculation. has this argument been made by anyone from these positions of power/the federal government?
Yes, the same idea can be found all through legal history. An easier-to-read elaboration of this point can be found here. More available on request.

The general level of flabbergastation at this claim is a simple case of (to borrow a phrase from that second link) historical amnesia. This is why Chesterton's fence is a thing.

i've seen several people picking on bouncing brick for his all or nothing extremes. i don't see how anyone can disagree, though, when someone makes a point to defile the government for not having enough invested interest in the citizens of future generations (or, let's face it, any generations) when there is plenty of evidence to back that claim up.
Well, he didn't just say "the government," in aggregate. He said every individual, at all times. That's an obvious (and massive) exaggeration, and given the general tone of the post, it's pretty clear this is an attempt to make an argument seem stronger through sheer force of insistence.

Second, what evidence actually backs up the claim? There's certainly a lot of evidence that the government isn't very good at investing in future generations. But that's different than saying they don't care.



This whole the government doesn't care is a myth. I've mentioned this in the thread already but I guess no one believed me, the US spends more on each student than any other country Source. Also 49% of our budget goes to social programs like health care and social security, the issue is not that the government doesn't care. Theres absolutely no evidence to support that, you can argue inneficency but not a lack of funding.
__________________
Yeah, there's no body mutilation in it



No one should be denied the ability to adopt just because they have a spouse of the same sex...

-end of discussion-

can't believe this thread is 6 pages of gays adopting kids & fighting over whether Federal is overtaking the State Governments in terms of law rulings instead of us being happy for gays that they can finally get married....
__________________
https://t.me/pump_upp



Alternate version of that post:

<opinion>

-end of discussion-

<annoyance about the existence of other opinions>



Also, I'm not sure anyone has come out against gay people adopting kids. I think I see one person talking about how it's going to be controversial, but that's pretty much it. It's also been a tiny fraction of the thread.



No one should be denied the ability to adopt just because they have a spouse of the same sex...

-end of discussion-

can't believe this thread is 6 pages of gays adopting kids & fighting over whether Federal is overtaking the State Governments in terms of law rulings instead of us being happy for gays that they can finally get married....
Ern.. no. The left seem to think that because something can be done, it should be done. Which is why whenever they have tried to run a country it has always ended in disaster. Modern secularism is basically a license for far left nutcases to impose their absurd agenda on the populous.



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
OK, I thought you were talking about West Virginia being stereotyped like that. Also, I was born in Tennessee, while my family was here for family medical reasons, but spent around 11 years in Florida, and 1 year in North Carolina. Still no twang, though. It's probably because of the private school system. Maybe one day we'll both hit the audio thread on the forum, and compare. Anyway, thanks again!



I think it boils down to people in the South getting set in their ways. They have the room down here to live in the country were they don't get to experience people of different religions or races. It causes short sighted world views because their world is their small town and small property.

I grew up in small town FLA and it's not as bad as the sterotypes but their are some truths to it as well. Lots of people fall into their comfort zone and beliefs while others go out and explore. It wasn't until I went off till college when I started shaping my world views, I don't think I was ever that redneck sterotype, actually I know I wasn't, but my views were expanded by going to bigger cities and experiencing different people and situations.
__________________
I came here to do two things, drink some beer and kick some ass, looks like we are almost outta beer - Dazed and Confused

101 Favorite Movies (2019)



I think it boils down to people in the South getting set in their ways. They have the room down here to live in the country were they don't get to experience people of different religions or races. It causes short sighted world views because their world is their small town and small property.

I grew up in small town FLA and it's not as bad as the sterotypes but their are some truths to it as well. Lots of people fall into their comfort zone and beliefs while others go out and explore. It wasn't until I went off till college when I started shaping my world views, I don't think I was ever that redneck sterotype, actually I know I wasn't, but my views were expanded by going to bigger cities and experiencing different people and situations.
Not sure why the South is being brought into it again? Anyway you and the rest of the stereotypes line up :

Fair enough I've quickly became outnumbered



Simply awesome! It's been a great couple of days )