• 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
Either you're lying just to make some kinda strange point, or, you two should be thanking SCOTUS for freeing two nut-jobs from being stuck with each other until death do they part.

Not sure which I'd prefer to know is true.

That's extremely insensitive of you. I'm some what isolated at the moment. That's why I post on forums. There's no need to be mean about it.
 
The only topic we can discuss anymore is the Smurfs and which one is hot.

Smufette and Brainy. All the others are just wannabe's
 
Or, if there is, why not make it available to all, including blood relatives, polygamists, polyandrists, asexuals, non-sexuals, etc. who may have one or more people in their lives who they have tight, platonic perhaps, connections?

Polyanrists are polygamists.
 
It destroyed my marriage because on the day we found out the ruling had passed my husband said, "That's disgusting. "

I said,"why? Those two ladies love each other."

He said, "Why can't they love each other as friends?"

I said, "Well why don't you let me hang out with my friends? "

Then the yelling started.

"You'd only hang out with fags. You ****ing fag hag!" He shouted.

I asked him what's wrong with that and he said, "well that's hardly women loving each other is it?!"

Then I said I thought he was against all that.

He just got worse and worse and he left and we've been separate since. I don't even know where he sleeps. I think he just wanted a threesome with another woman. Needless to say I'm pretty down about it.

It sounds like watching the wrong tv sitcom would have set that argument off.
 
It sounds like watching the wrong tv sitcom would have set that argument off.

One day he did get upset about bold and the beautiful when he was home early from work.
 
One day he did get upset about bold and the beautiful when he was home early from work.

Yeah. I'd suggest counseling.

Oh, and getting rid of those stupid emoticons at the bottom of the page. At this point you can't pretend you're not just doing it to irritate people.
 
I mean, that is not the job of SCOTUS... that is the job of you and congress and the president.... Their job is just being lawyers of the constitution, that's it.... When they walk into that court room the only god is the constitution and it's commandments are the Bill of rights.

. I'm for gay marriage...

The Bill of Rights is only the first Ten Amendments. That is it. The Constitution all together is the rules the SCOTUS must reference, but it includes all the Amendments, not just the first ten.
 
The Bill of Rights is only the first Ten Amendments. That is it. The Constitution all together is the rules the SCOTUS must reference, but it includes all the Amendments, not just the first ten.

cool, I know that, but That has nothing to do with my point...that was just metaphor...
 
That's extremely insensitive of you. I'm some what isolated at the moment. That's why I post on forums. There's no need to be mean about it.

Not being mean. I just don't believe the tripe you post regarding this topic.

Do you seek attention? Is that what you're doing?
 
I find your answer odd, coming from a self described "very liberal".
Why should the government be involved in the bedroom? That is the real issue here. For some time, same sex couples have been allowed to cohabitate and to call themselves married. This ruling really concerned the special rights given to governmentally approved marriages by the government and the "equality" that these special rights should grant. But think about this. As currently defined, marriage is based on a basically Biblical belief that sex between 2 individuals is so special that it should be only done by adults in a long term loving relationship. And because it is so special , government grants these couples special rights. How archaic is that?

Before, only hetero couples got these special government issued rights. Now same sex couples do as well. And, as we approach 50% of the adult population being single, many for life, where is the equality for them? Why are special rights given to people who subscribed to the Biblical idea that sex should only be done between 2 people in a long term, loving relationship? What about asexuals, non-sexuals, polygamists, polyandrists, and, most importantly and the biggest group, the people who do not prescribed to the Biblical ideals and are content to have a variety of short term non committed sexual encounters?

Keep government out of the bedroom by ending all government issued benefits based on this religious concept. The value of "marriage" is from the participants themselves and the esteem in which they hold marriage. No government special benefits need to be required.

What exactly do you think the difference is between asexuals and nonsexuals? And are you of the impression that they can't or don't legally get married? Polygamy has been covered and we may see it legal at least to a degree.

If they don't want to take on the responsibilities of marriage, which have little to do with raising children and nothing to do with procreation, then you shouldn't get the benefits. Not that hard to figure out.

Marriage is not about sex, but rather intimate, longterm (or at least entered into with this assumption) relationships where people agree to take on specific responsibilities for another and vice versa and are given certain legal recognition and benefits for that agreement.
 
cool, I know that, but That has nothing to do with my point...that was just metaphor...

It wasn't a very good one because it assumes that the first Ten Amendments are set in stone. While it is unlikely they will change, they are not completely set in stone, nor inflexible.
 
It wasn't a very good one because it assumes that the first Ten Amendments are set in stone. While it is unlikely they will change, they are not completely set in stone, nor inflexible.

There are ways to change it ... and no I did not imply that. When the SCOTUS walks into the courtroom, the CONSTITUION AS IN PRESENTLY STATES.... is their god and the Amendments it's commandments. Nothing else is their job... NOTHING. Does it follow the constituion?-is their only concern.... It IS YOUR responsibility to change it, NOT THERES
 
There are ways to change it ... and no I did not imply that. When the SCOTUS walks into the courtroom, the CONSTITUION AS IN PRESENTLY STATES.... is their god and the Amendments it's commandments. Nothing else is their job... NOTHING. Does it follow the constituion?-is their only concern.... It IS YOUR responsibility to change it, NOT THERES

There is no way to get around interpretation, especially when it comes to the law. We wouldn't have lawyers, wouldn't need them if the Constitution, any laws were absolutely straight forward.
 
There is no way to get around interpretation, especially when it comes to the law. We wouldn't have lawyers, wouldn't need them if the Constitution, any laws were absolutely straight forward.

As long as that "interpretation" isn't biased, than yea... If I was a supreme court member I would try to be as 100% objective as possible.... if Hitler walked in and his case followed the constitution, he would be very happy that I was a Supreme court judge because I wouldn't give a crap WHO he is or what his motives are... just whether whatever he wanted followed the Constitution.... I wouldn't care if my ruling made 10000^12 of people sad and made just one happy, if you don't like the constituion and it's words, there are ways to change it.

THE SAME goes with lawyers and judges in a criminal court, if the law messes up of if the authorities skipped protocol and didn't follow the law themselves. And proves beyond reasonable doubt. GUESS what!!!??? No matter how guilty the person is, he runs free...
 
Last edited:
I have read everything you wrote. You made an argument against SSM. Your argument against marriage in general is a ruse. Until SSM started to become a reality, only extreme fringe people discussed getting government out of marriage altogether. Now, it's a common theme amongst the "softer" anti crowd.
You should not make assumptions. They may be wrong as they are in this case.
To summarize my view, this SSM episode made me painfully aware of all the government benefits of marriage. I do not want to receive any privilege that others can not get. There are 2 solutions and I don't really care which way government wants to go-either make marriage more accessible to all (polygamists, polyandrists, asexuals, nonsexuals, siblings/blood relative, etc.), or get government out of such personal considerations and end all government special benefits for marriage. Seems simple.

Simply extending special privilege to LGBT couples doesn't solve the equality/fairness problem.

You are right that I did not see this reality of special privilege of marriage before but I do now. I don't want any special privilege for myself that is denied others. If wanting equality and fairness is wrong in your mind, so be it. It would be illogical to accuse me of having the same rationale as others and it is illogical to think that there is only one mindset (anti-gay) that would led someone to the conclusions that I have.
 
Polyanrists are polygamists.
Thank you. According to Merriam Webster's polyandry is married to more than one male and polygyny is being married to more than one female. I should have used those two or simply stuck with polygamy, which can be either.
 
You should not make assumptions. They may be wrong as they are in this case.
To summarize my view, this SSM episode made me painfully aware of all the government benefits of marriage. I do not want to receive any privilege that others can not get. There are 2 solutions and I don't really care which way government wants to go-either make marriage more accessible to all (polygamists, polyandrists, asexuals, nonsexuals, siblings/blood relative, etc.), or get government out of such personal considerations and end all government special benefits for marriage. Seems simple.

Simply extending special privilege to LGBT couples doesn't solve the equality/fairness problem.

You are right that I did not see this reality of special privilege of marriage before but I do now. I don't want any special privilege for myself that is denied others. If wanting equality and fairness is wrong in your mind, so be it. It would be illogical to accuse me of having the same rationale as others and it is illogical to think that there is only one mindset (anti-gay) that would led someone to the conclusions that I have.

I am actually one of the few that agree with you and have posted much the same many times before. People who choose to live together in a dependent relationship, whether that dependence is based on finances or intimacy or medical/disability need or any other criteria, should be able to reap the benefits of "marriage."
 
It's stupid questions like this that trivialize the real problem with recent Supreme Court rulings. The problem is, many of them have little to do with law and everything to do with a Supreme Court that's lost its way. It no longer sees itself as an interpreter of the law under the confines of the constitution. It now sees itself as social engineers, charged with making the hard decisions that a divided America is too fractured to make politically. That's wrong.

And if Chief Justice Roberts wasn't so tragically conflicted and idiotic, he'd be comical. He's spent two years ignoring the constitution and the letter of the law to manufacture two majority decisions related to the ACA and he has the gall to criticize the majority in the same sex marriage ruling for making a decision that has nothing to do with the constitution and is just a feel good move. The man should resign or be impeached before he can do any more harm.

I keep coming back to this question: You're Canadian and live in Canada. Why do you care so much what happens in the United States of America?
 
My husband just wanted sex with my friends.
 
You should not make assumptions. They may be wrong as they are in this case.
To summarize my view, this SSM episode made me painfully aware of all the government benefits of marriage. I do not want to receive any privilege that others can not get. There are 2 solutions and I don't really care which way government wants to go-either make marriage more accessible to all (polygamists, polyandrists, asexuals, nonsexuals, siblings/blood relative, etc.), or get government out of such personal considerations and end all government special benefits for marriage. Seems simple.

Simply extending special privilege to LGBT couples doesn't solve the equality/fairness problem.

You are right that I did not see this reality of special privilege of marriage before but I do now. I don't want any special privilege for myself that is denied others. If wanting equality and fairness is wrong in your mind, so be it. It would be illogical to accuse me of having the same rationale as others and it is illogical to think that there is only one mindset (anti-gay) that would led someone to the conclusions that I have.

If you don't want the "special privileges" and are married, get divorced. Problem solved. And I don't buy your explanation. Perhaps you're being honest, but I've been debating this issue for years, and I have yet to find someone who didn't "magically" come to the conclusion that government sanctioned marriage is wrong for any reason other than SSM becoming more likely to be law. As far as other types of relationships, that is not for the scope of this thread, however, there is no consistency between those relationships and either traditional marriage or SSM.
 
I keep coming back to this question: You're Canadian and live in Canada. Why do you care so much what happens in the United States of America?

And I keep coming back to the question: You're not me, so why does my opinion matter so much to you? Why does my nationality and place of residence matter so much to you?

I converse with people from all over the world with broadly differing views and differing ideologies and never consider for a moment their nationality or race or gender or age or whatever, only focusing on the nature of their comments/opinions and my view of those comments/opinions.
 
If you don't want the "special privileges" and are married, get divorced. Problem solved.
And if I am against white privilege, I should simply undergo plastic surgery and dermatology changes to be Black? What a silly, narcissistic concept. Inequality anywhere is a crime against all of us as humans.
I have been presenting my views on this in public forums for some time, long before the first time I heard that some others wanted to end marriage due to these changes. Frankly I am surprised at this turn of events.

But still, why are you opposed to ending government special rights to married people? Why should government be involved in this? We have laws on equal protection and special rights seem to be a violation of equal protection laws.
 
...

But still, why are you opposed to ending government special rights to married people? Why should government be involved in this? We have laws on equal protection and special rights seem to be a violation of equal protection laws.


There are over 1,000 special privilege benefits to marriage.
Here is a sample of some of them.
Do you really want to give up all of them?

Government benefits
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.


Employment Benefits

Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.


Housing Benefits

Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.


Other Legal Benefits and Protections

Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.

Read more:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
 
Last edited:
And I keep coming back to the question: You're not me, so why does my opinion matter so much to you? Why does my nationality and place of residence matter so much to you?

I converse with people from all over the world with broadly differing views and differing ideologies and never consider for a moment their nationality or race or gender or age or whatever, only focusing on the nature of their comments/opinions and my view of those comments/opinions.

Your opinion doesn't matter to me. Your obsession with American affairs does! Tell you what...next time there's a problem in the Good Ole U.S. of A, I'm just gonna blame Canada for it. :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom