• 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
Well, I really don't believe that anyone would think that marriage benefits were not established as an aid to families and would not have existed if not for the strong possibility that marriage and sex/child were interrelated. And I don't believe that many countries in Eastern Asia, suffering from declining populations, are not extensively investing in special benefits for couples to get married in the hopes that they will procreate.

Your beliefs are not relevant. Is there a clause the requires someone to agree to have sex and procreate in order to get married?
 
Your beliefs are not relevant. Is there a clause the requires someone to agree to have sex and procreate in order to get married?
You are, as you probably aware, purposely misunderstanding my point. But anyway, why do you think that government instituted marriage benefits? It is hard for me to believe that you really believe that government did not have a goal in mind. You apparently think that government wanted people to get married, not in hope of raising stable families, but just because government liked the idea of "marriage". Weird.
 
Yes or no, and why if yes. Please.

How long have you been married?

Did the SSM ruling by SCOTUS somehow change your marriage?

I am celebrating my 13th wedding anniversary today. My marriage is the same no matter what the Supreme Court decides.
 
You are, as you probably aware, purposely misunderstanding my point. But anyway, why do you think that government instituted marriage benefits? It is hard for me to believe that you really believe that government did not have a goal in mind. You apparently think that government wanted people to get married, not in hope of raising stable families, but just because government liked the idea of "marriage". Weird.

Those "goals" have changed with time. In reality, the main goal of marriage benefits was to give people what they wanted, consideration for doing the right thing. Now, it is to recognize that people joined in marriage combine their households, living expenses, money earned, and make sacrifices for each other, do things that benefit society. It also recognizes that spouses sometimes need to be protected from the other.
 
You are, as you probably aware, purposely misunderstanding my point.

No, not at all. Perhaps you are presenting it poorly.

But anyway, why do you think that government instituted marriage benefits? It is hard for me to believe that you really believe that government did not have a goal in mind. You apparently think that government wanted people to get married, not in hope of raising stable families, but just because government liked the idea of "marriage". Weird.

People can raise stable families without procreating. In fact, the successful rearing of children is a main reason why government sanctions marriage. Notice that procreation is not part of this. And homosexuals raise children just as well as heterosexuals.
 
People can raise stable families without procreating. In fact, the successful rearing of children is a main reason why government sanctions marriage. Notice that procreation is not part of this. And homosexuals raise children just as well as heterosexuals.

Ahh! A good argument. But that still leads back to my question about why blood relatives are not allowed to marry. Certainly two "spinster" sisters can take on child raising responsibilities. Should they be allowed to marry? Should a grandparent and adult child/parent be allowed to marry, on the basis that they could find themselves sharing child-raising activities?
 
I got married on the day the decision was made. It made me smile for another reason before I took my vows. :)
 
Ahh! A good argument. But that still leads back to my question about why blood relatives are not allowed to marry. Certainly two "spinster" sisters can take on child raising responsibilities. Should they be allowed to marry? Should a grandparent and adult child/parent be allowed to marry, on the basis that they could find themselves sharing child-raising activities?

This post is surely the silver bullet against gay marriage.
 
It will be interesting to see how gay marriages stack up against the real thing. Libs do love their social experiments.

Why do you think they will be any different, good or bad?

Did any "libs" make that claim? I'd like to see it, if so.
 
Ahh! A good argument. But that still leads back to my question about why blood relatives are not allowed to marry. Certainly two "spinster" sisters can take on child raising responsibilities. Should they be allowed to marry? Should a grandparent and adult child/parent be allowed to marry, on the basis that they could find themselves sharing child-raising activities?

These are red herrings. You made an argument against SSM. I showed you how you are wrong. These other issues are... other issues that have their own concerns.
 
You are, as you probably aware, purposely misunderstanding my point. But anyway, why do you think that government instituted marriage benefits? It is hard for me to believe that you really believe that government did not have a goal in mind. You apparently think that government wanted people to get married, not in hope of raising stable families, but just because government liked the idea of "marriage". Weird.

Are you aware that:

--gays create families whether married or not? They have kids biologically and every other way that straight couples do. In some cases they have to overcome even more obstacles to do so, indicating very strong desire for family.

--including gays in the govt marriage contract extends the same protections to their children as in heterosexual parent families, meaning their children now have MORE protections under the law than if SSM is not legal.

So overall, if concerns are around children, it's hard to say SSM is not better for kids. No one can stop the relationships and families but the law extends protections to their kids.
 
It ruined my marriage.
 
Ahh! A good argument. But that still leads back to my question about why blood relatives are not allowed to marry. Certainly two "spinster" sisters can take on child raising responsibilities. Should they be allowed to marry? Should a grandparent and adult child/parent be allowed to marry, on the basis that they could find themselves sharing child-raising activities?

Have you seen any people demanding this? BLood relatives dont need protections for children because their blood relationships already protect the kids.

As for other concerns, again...who is demanding to marry blood relatives? Cousins can already marry in some states and the Earth hasnt stopped rotating and we havent seen an avalanche of birth defects.

And again, as long as they are consenting adults, there are no laws that prevent their living together (in any manner they choose) now so you arent going to stop their behavior. Just dont see anyone demanding this type of marriage but if they did, I also dont care: we're back to consenting adults.
 
Update: It's been a couple weeks since the ruling, and my marriage has spiraled out of control. I have ceased to shower and my wife has resorted to sleeping with vegetables. The only topic we can discuss anymore is the Smurfs and which one is hot.
 
Update: It's been a couple weeks since the ruling, and my marriage has spiraled out of control. I have ceased to shower and my wife has resorted to sleeping with vegetables.
If it is root vegetables than it was not the SCOTUS decision, but some other new revelation....
 
Marriage is about what it means to the individual, marriage has never and will never belong solely to one religious group.

No, 'marriage' is a societal defintion that neither belongs to individuals, nor to a particular religous group. That is why SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage did not also make polygamy legal.
 
Have you seen any people demanding this? BLood relatives dont need protections for children because their blood relationships already protect the kids.

As for other concerns, again...who is demanding to marry blood relatives? Cousins can already marry in some states and the Earth hasnt stopped rotating and we havent seen an avalanche of birth defects.

And again, as long as they are consenting adults, there are no laws that prevent their living together (in any manner they choose) now so you arent going to stop their behavior. Just dont see anyone demanding this type of marriage but if they did, I also dont care: we're back to consenting adults.

Not sure how many of my posts you have read on this subject. Everything that you write is correct. Not sure if it is important to wait for some group to demand change-laws should provide equal protection from the start. Same sex couples could live together for some time. as have hetero unmarried couples. There is no basis for tying marriage benefits to child raising as many hetero and same sex couples have no children. So my basic question was-Is there still a reason to have special benefits given to married people? 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?
I think that it is time to get government out of the marriage business. All those benefits of marriage are available through legal partnerships, power of attorneys, annuities, etc. Government simply makes it easier by wrapping this up in a neat and easy package.
 
These are red herrings. You made an argument against SSM. I showed you how you are wrong. These other issues are... other issues that have their own concerns.
Clearly you have not read anything that I wrote. I am not against SSM nor does your proclaiming something a red herring make it so.
 
Not sure how many of my posts you have read on this subject. Everything that you write is correct. Not sure if it is important to wait for some group to demand change-laws should provide equal protection from the start. Same sex couples could live together for some time. as have hetero unmarried couples. There is no basis for tying marriage benefits to child raising as many hetero and same sex couples have no children. So my basic question was-Is there still a reason to have special benefits given to married people? 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?
I think that it is time to get government out of the marriage business. All those benefits of marriage are available through legal partnerships, power of attorneys, annuities, etc. Government simply makes it easier by wrapping this up in a neat and easy package.

I am coming in at the end so apologies.

And basically I dont think the govt should be involved either but I've accepted it. I can see the positives in that as well.
 
Clearly you have not read anything that I wrote. I am not against SSM nor does your proclaiming something a red herring make it so.

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.
 
We still haven't discussed how my marriage was ruined by the SCOTUS decision.
 
Are you that hung up on getting some attention???

Do you require a special invitation?

Read the OP. I asked for an explanation. I think I even said "please".

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 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.

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.
 
Equal rights are "trivial" and NOT something SCOTUS should be bothered with???

You're Canadian. Obviously you're opinions are worthless in this context.

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...
 
Back
Top Bottom