• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

Love doesn't appear to have anything to do with it. All I ever hear about is how awesome the benefits are.

I truly, truly pity you if you actually think marriage has nothing to do with love and everything to do with benefits.
 
From what I hear from people like Roguenuke(I think that is right) it's all about the benefits.
Apparently, it's just too much of a bother to be so shallow without government. Who knew?

Just to be fair to you.
If I die first, my wife gets half my teacher's pension.
The same will now be true for those in gay marriages.

It shouldn't be too hard to Google DEM Mayors and Governors who have recently fretted over what these marriages would do their budgets.
This can be viewed as unintended consequences/unfunded mandates/unplanned for outcomes .
 
So people in opposite gender marriage would be fine with giving up the benefits then? A married couple in Australia just recently promised to dissolve their government marriage license should ssm come to their country, which seems principally consistent. Is that what you're suggesting?

They wouldn't have to give up their benefits. People that are married would keep their benefits, but the government would not issue any further licenses effectively ending government marriage once all current marriages end by either death or divorce. This wouldn't lead to any issues with the fourteenth amendment as the same conditions would be applied across board.

Because it does nothing for me. Thanks, though.

I didn't expect it would.
 
You give so many ****s you responded to a post that wasn't even addressed to you. You can be a flaming faggot all you want, you'll never be accepted. You'll always be an outcast, no matter what the court says. I hate you.

I can feel christ's love just radiating off of you.

The fact that you can marry means I will not be asking my girlfriend to marry me...I don't want to share the same institution as you.

You may have won a court case, and the left-leaning folks on this site may support you, but you will NEVER be socially accepted by mainstream America.

I never had a problem with gays before today, but this is too much. I will not be your friend.

"Sorry babe, I'd love to marry you, but I simply can't share an institution of marriage with faggots."
 
Last edited:
I truly, truly pity you if you actually think marriage has nothing to do with love and everything to do with benefits.

That's the impression I get from people on DP.

And why get married for love anyway? You don't need marriage to say you love someone, to commit to another person, to live with someone, to share your life with someone, to have children, to share your stuff, to raise children, etc, etc, etc. Why get married if there wasn't cool stuff to get because of it? Seems kind of pointless.
 
Last edited:
They wouldn't have to give up their benefits. People that are married would keep their benefits, but the government would not issue any further licenses effectively ending government marriage once all current marriages end by either death or divorce. This wouldn't lead to any issues with the fourteenth amendment as the same conditions would be applied across board.



I didn't expect it would.

Hold on, don't swerve away. You suggested that those who wanted to have ssm legalized were just in it for the benefits. Are you suggesting that those in opposite sex marriages are not interested in the benefits?
 
That's your opinion which polls show that most Americans don't agree with.

Gay people getting married will have zero effect on any other marriage.
Actually reserch shows that you're more likely to remain married if your parents are still married, or to divorce if your parents divorce. It's all about social stability, one of the supporting reasons to allow SSM.
 
That's the impression I get from people on DP.

And why get married for love anyway? You don't need marriage to say you love someone, to commit to another person, to live with someone, to share your life with someone, to have children, to share your stuff, to raise children, etc, etc, etc. Why get married if there wasn't cool stuff to get because of it? Seems kind of pointless.

Sounds like maybe you shouldn't get married.
 
Actually reserch shows that you're more likely to remain married if your parents are still married, or to divorce if your parents divorce. It's all about social stability, one of the supporting reasons to allow SSM.

Agreed, but I think he was referring to some imaginary negative impact of a gay couple's marriage on some unconnected straight couple's marriage.
 
Sounds like maybe you shouldn't get married.

I would never dream of doing something so stupid. The risks are too great and the rewards don't interest me. And living with a woman is ****ing bad enough without her having claims to my stuff. And that alimony stuff, **** that.
 
Hold on, don't swerve away. You suggested that those who wanted to have ssm legalized were just in it for the benefits. Are you suggesting that those in opposite sex marriages are not interested in the benefits?

I'm suggesting that both groups are in it for the same thing.
 
Agreed, but I think he was referring to some imaginary negative impact of a gay couple's marriage on some unconnected straight couple's marriage.
That's not what he said, though.

Any given relationship will impact more people than those in it.
 
Stable, self-sufficient, productive households are a legitimate state interest and therefore efforts to promote that pass the rational basis test.

Only a whackjob interprets equal protection arguments as "no law can affect any person differently from any other person for any reason."

I see - so all other things being "equal", two couples of whatever gender, one married and one not, should be treated differently by the government because to do otherwise makes you a "whackjob"? So, in other words, equality depends on whatever liberal definition exists at any point in time. It's not a principle, it's a slogan.
 
Correct and your problem with that is what exactly? Citizens are more equal than non citizens. Charities are tax exempt and I can deduct contributions to them but not if I give a homeless man a gift of $5.

Etc....................

You can toss up all the idiotic scenarios you want - they're meaningless. Try "one citizen is more equal than another citizen under the law" and "one tax exempt charity is more equal than another tax exempt charity under the law". Perhaps next some smart liberal will determine that Democrats are more beneficial to society than Republicans so people get tax breaks for donating to Democrats but not donating to Republicans. Maybe you'd like that, but you wouldn't like the reverse.

How are two couples, one married, one not, living together and making a home together different simply by virtue of their government piece of paper? How is one unmarried couple with four children less a benefit to society than a married couple with no children and no interest in children?
 
Stable, self-sufficient, productive households are a legitimate state interest and therefore efforts to promote that pass the rational basis test.

Only a whackjob interprets equal protection arguments as "no law can affect any person differently from any other person for any reason."

And just to be clear, if you think all marriages provide "stable, self-sufficient, productive households", particularly in the 21st century, you've got the wrong idea about who's the "whackjob".
 
On the contrary, I'm for finding a way to make that work, make marriage available to them in a way that does not financially burden the rest of society and actually provides protections for each of those spouses, not just dropping a legitimate limit on number of spouses because some feel butt hurt that same sex couples can now enter into marriage. There is a difference in the way a two person marriage with any sex/gender combination would operate compared to having more than two spouses in a marriage or a single person with more than one legal spouse.

And again, how very accepting of you. Why do you or the law get to decide what works for someone else in their personal life? Rights that are equal and protected aren't determined by your opinion of their validity at any given moment in time. This is why government should be narrow, limited and unobtrusive when it comes to the individual lives of its citizenry.
 
Those who propagate heterosexual relation may be at risk of lawsuit or discrimination at hiring. If not already.

This is not connected to gay marriages, but global tendency. The balance between rights of one and discrimination of others is very thing.
 
Last edited:
Those who propagate heterosexual relation may be at risk of lawsuit or discrimination at hiring. If not already.

This is not connected to gay marriages, but global tendency. The balance between rights of one and discrimination of others is very thing.

What do you mean by "propogate heterosexual relation?"
 
I mean people, who share their personal opinion on advantages of heterosexual relations, grow their children like heterosexuals and don't follow "gender" ideology.
 
Besides biology there is cultural influence on sexual behaviour. Those who wants to influence on culture may be persecuted. Pendulum swings few times before it stops at the middle. Pretended "weakness" now is used to archive own aims.
 
Since Sodom and Gomorrah had problems which had absolutely zero to do with same sex marriage or homosexuality (there is a difference between homosexuality and dominance/power assertion rape, even of people of the same sex), it stands to reason if we were to see something, it'd have been before now.

That was more a reference to the corruption between NYC media and DC politics.
 
Yes, the roots of the modern American left.

What exactly does the modern American left have do with the fact that slavery was part of the American experience?
 
Back
Top Bottom