• 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!

Has your marriage changed since SCOTUS ruling?

My marriage


  • Total voters
    49
You're dancing around now. Someone's opinion may be the inspiration for a law but it takes a great deal to get one passed which means a lot of people.

Our constitution is not a personally moral or religious piece of work: it's an ideal drawn from many different sources. So this "opinion" thing you're chasing has no merit.

It doesn't matter how many people share the same opinion since the point was that all law is based on someones opinion.
 
It doesn't matter how many people share the same opinion since the point was that all law is based on someones opinion.

You're parsing words now, have fun with that.

:roll:
 
Willing to bet you have to recite the entire oath and that every justice sitting today has. This presumes that God is a fact, regardless of your trying to wiggle out of the point with the different gods mention. Btw, all the members of the court are from the Judeo-Christian tradition. So, no, not a different God at all.

No, they do not have to cite the entire oath, including so help me God (that would actually go against several SCOTUS rulings)(whether they did doesn't matter to whether they have to). You have no actual evidence that they have to recite the oath, including "so help me God". Nor do you have any evidence that they believe in the same God you do. If you believe God is going to spite people for getting in a same sex marriage and they believe God has no issue with same sex couples, homosexuality, I would call that believing in different "God"s.
 
Yes or no, and why if yes. Please.

How long have you been married?

Did the SSM ruling by SCOTUS somehow change your marriage?
Most developed countries recognize SSM as a right or no different than hetero sexual marriage and as such legally sanctified by the state. Even many churches perform SSM.
WTHeck is the problem?.
And as mentioned in another thread, ya still can't marry your sister or gopher, no matter what.
And it ain't gonna lead to incest based marriages.
 
My husband and I are both in our first marriage and have been married for decades. The recent SCOTUS ruling will not affect us personally in any way.

But what I do strongly believe is that the assault on the traditional family as an important and valuable American institution has been further eroded and made unimportant and irrelavent. By SCOTUS now, illegally and way outside its constitutional authority, forcing us to change the definition of marriage and thereby make marriage into something it never was and was never intended to be, more and more young people won't bother with it. We will have ever more children born out of wedlock and be much more likely to grow up without the advantage of the traditional family with a loving mother and father in the home.

Marriage has always been about the children that were assumed to be the logical result of the marriage, and all marriage laws in all 50 states were designed first and foremost to protect the children. You cannot change the definition of something, however, without making that something into something different than what it was.

IMO, while I have always supported the necessity and ability of gay people to have the necessary protections and rights enjoyed by others, and I have no animosity whatsoever to any gay person, the SCOTUS decision has done irreparable damage to the institution of marriage and we as a people, both straight and gay, will be the worse off for it.

This is your personal opinion. Marriage has not always been about the children, especially not legal marriage. There is absolutely no damage done to marriage by allowing same sex couples to marry. Hell, even if your contention were partially true and the main reason for marriage was for children, same sex couples raise children, and they do nothing to harm children being raised by opposite sex married people. There are not going to be fewer children born because same sex couples are getting married. There are not going to be fewer happy, stable opposite sex marriages just because same sex couples can legally marry.
 
What is relevant is that the Constitution is the highest law of this nation, and all public servants are required to act in strict accordance with it; including the Justices on the Supreme Court, whose oath and duty is to uphold it and to issue rulings in accordance with it—a duty which five of the members of that court blatantly violated on this occasion.

Whether or not the Constitution can be described as “a moral or religious document” is completely irrelevant to its purpose and authority.

The Constitution has not been violated by this ruling because the individuals have just as much right to protection of their rights as states do. In fact, individual citizens have more.
 
Last edited:
This is your personal opinion. Marriage has not always been about the children, especially not legal marriage. There is absolutely no damage done to marriage by allowing same sex couples to marry. Hell, even if your contention were partially true and the main reason for marriage was for children, same sex couples raise children, and they do nothing to harm children being raised by opposite sex married people. There are not going to be fewer children born because same sex couples are getting married. There are not going to be fewer happy, stable opposite sex marriages just because same sex couples can legally marry.

I think my opinion will likely hold up against close scrutiny and research than your opinion will.
 
I think my opinion will likely hold up against close scrutiny and research than your opinion will.

No, apparently it didn't. And I doubt it would in the future, since it hasn't in the past. We have had laws that specifically ban first cousins in some states from getting married only if they can have children. There are no laws in the US that prevent people from getting married if they are sterile or too old to have children or already raised all the children they are going to have. We have had same sex marriage in the US for over a decade now and not only have we not seen a decrease in marriage where same sex couples can legally marry, but we have in fact seen some decreases in divorce, as well as pretty frickin high marriage rates. There is no logical connection between same sex couples getting married and a decrease in children being born, without some serious convoluted studies that have huge correlation equally causation problems.
 
No, apparently it didn't. And I doubt it would in the future, since it hasn't in the past. We have had laws that specifically ban first cousins in some states from getting married only if they can have children. There are no laws in the US that prevent people from getting married if they are sterile or too old to have children or already raised all the children they are going to have. We have had same sex marriage in the US for over a decade now and not only have we not seen a decrease in marriage where same sex couples can legally marry, but we have in fact seen some decreases in divorce, as well as pretty frickin high marriage rates. There is no logical connection between same sex couples getting married and a decrease in children being born, without some serious convoluted studies that have huge correlation equally causation problems.
2013
Racial or ethnic group
Percent of births considered "non-marital"

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders -17 percent
Non-Hispanic whites - 29 percent
Hispanics - 53 percent
American Indian and Native Alaskans - 66 percent
Non-Hispanic blacks - 73 percent
TOTAL - roughly 40 percent in 2013 - up from 31 percent in 2005
CNN's Don Lemon says more than 72 percent of African-American births are out of wedlock | PolitiFact

Since 1970, out-of-wedlock birth rates have soared. In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers. By 1990 the rates had risen to 64 percent for black infants, 18 percent for whites.
An Analysis of Out-Of-Wedlock Births in the United States | Brookings Institution

Rates in 1950 were under 10%
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.pdf
 
Marriage was established and defined by God, not by man, and no mortal institution has the authority to override God on this matter. Those who presume to do so will one day stand before God to be judged, and they will be held fully accountable for this evil.

You always forget this line, Bob: "In my opinion, based on my purely individual and subjective beliefs, beliefs that mean absolutely nothing, generally". YOU believe that marriage is defined by God. Guess what? You're wrong. And we now have evidence to prove it. Your lack of acceptance of this is irrelevant.
 
You always forget this line, Bob: "In my opinion, based on my purely individual and subjective beliefs, beliefs that mean absolutely nothing, generally". YOU believe that marriage is defined by God. Guess what? You're wrong. And we now have evidence to prove it. Your lack of acceptance of this is irrelevant.

I sure enjoy reading your posts, Cap. lol


Do you think this might be a good time to ask Bob to prove that God exists before accepting that he?...or she?....or he-she?....defined marriage and not humans by trial and error? Or would the circular reasoning be too much to endure?
 
I voted 'changed', but I needed an entry for 'remains to be seen'.

Why?

Because I'm now motivated to push for POLYGAMY to be the next big thing.

I've been looking hard at my finances, and have been noting the spare bedroom vacated by my twenty-something daughter who recently moved on her own.

- I think I can fit and afford another women in here! :cool:

Yep.

So, if we can get this polygamy thing going, and I can find a decent women that maybe my wife likes, I could be sitting pretty.

Guys, if you can't see the advantages of this, you need to hand-in your man card.

Everyone else is changing the definition of marriage - we can do this! :2wave:
 
Last edited:
I sure enjoy reading your posts, Cap. lol


Do you think this might be a good time to ask Bob to prove that God exists before accepting that he?...or she?....or he-she?....defined marriage and not humans by trial and error? Or would the circular reasoning be too much to endure?

Thing is, Moot, I believe in God and am quite religious. But MY God isn't the rigid, hateful, ignorant god that some folks believe in. My God is loving, flexible, understanding, and wise.
 
Thing is, Moot, I believe in God and am quite religious. But MY God isn't the rigid, hateful, ignorant god that some folks believe in. My God is loving, flexible, understanding, and wise.

Sorry Cap, I didn't mean to assume. I agree, God can be whatever one wants it to be....to a point. Personally, I don't know if there is a God or not so I leave the option open...just in case there is one. But if there is a God, I do not believe that he speaks to anyone outside their own head. Which kinda rules the bible out.
 
Sorry Cap, I didn't mean to assume. I agree, God can be whatever one wants it to be....to a point. Personally, I don't know if there is a God or not so I leave the option open...just in case there is one. But if there is a God, I do not believe that he speaks to anyone outside their own head. Which kinda rules the bible out.

Didn't think you assumed that I didn't believe in God, Moot. Figured you didn't know. It tends to amaze people that with some of my positions, I am also one of the most religious people on this board. My view of God and religious is just inclusive, rather than excluding.
 
Didn't think you assumed that I didn't believe in God, Moot. Figured you didn't know. It tends to amaze people that with some of my positions, I am also one of the most religious people on this board. My view of God and religious is just inclusive, rather than excluding.
Your God is much better. Which makes you the perfect foil for Bob, so I'll leave you to it. :)
 
2013
Racial or ethnic group
Percent of births considered "non-marital"

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders -17 percent
Non-Hispanic whites - 29 percent
Hispanics - 53 percent
American Indian and Native Alaskans - 66 percent
Non-Hispanic blacks - 73 percent
TOTAL - roughly 40 percent in 2013 - up from 31 percent in 2005
CNN's Don Lemon says more than 72 percent of African-American births are out of wedlock | PolitiFact

Since 1970, out-of-wedlock birth rates have soared. In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers. By 1990 the rates had risen to 64 percent for black infants, 18 percent for whites.
An Analysis of Out-Of-Wedlock Births in the United States | Brookings Institution

Rates in 1950 were under 10%
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.pdf

That doesn't prove anything about marriage being about the children. Those people being in non-marital, longterm, stable relationships would work for those children almost, if not as well for children, especially if the parents cared to take the extra time to actually care for and about the children (both parents or at least two people). While marriage does benefit children, it has little to do with the actual marriage itself and a lot to do with other factors.

Children with married parents are better off

Today, better-educated, higher-income adults are much more likely to marry. That means their children benefit from the marriage, and the income, and the education of their parents. Howard and Reeves also point out that the same skills that make marriages work (like commitment and patience) also come handy for good parenting. And so perhaps it's not that children are better off when their parents marry — it's that the qualities that enable successful marriages also make good parents.

...

At the end of the day, marriage itself might still have some effect on the adult outcomes of children. But it would be a small one.
 
1 Man & 1 Woman ... CHECK exactly the same and the way it IS supposed to be !!!
 
That doesn't prove anything about marriage being about the children. Those people being in non-marital, longterm, stable relationships would work for those children almost, if not as well for children, especially if the parents cared to take the extra time to actually care for and about the children (both parents or at least two people). While marriage does benefit children, it has little to do with the actual marriage itself and a lot to do with other factors.

Children with married parents are better off

I have made my case for traditional marriage and the WP can try to argue that marriage isn't the reason that kids in two parent homes are better off, but that is rather absurd on the face of it. Being married is WHY the kids are most likely to have two parents--a mom and dad--in the home. Without the commitment, there is a far more likelihood both won't be in the home.

And you further said that marriage is at an all time high. Well sorry, but the stats don't back you up on that either:
Marriage Rate Declines To Historic Low, Study Finds

The point being made that the less emphasis is put on the traditional marriage--the less it is held up as the cultural norm and benefit it has always been--the less likely people are to get married. And the more kids there will be who don't have the stability and benefits and positive role models of the traditional two-parent home. And I will continue to believe that is bad for kids whether those kids are straight or gay.
 
Back
Top Bottom