• 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
Single parents can indeed do an exemplary job of rearing children as can gay parents. I know a number of people in both groups. But that does not change the fact that whether they are straight or gay, children generally benefit more from having a traditional loving mother and father in the home.

I've known 2 parent families who would have been better off being divorced. My best friend as a tween had raging alcoholics for parents, and while my parents had issues, they were Ward and June Cleaver next to her parents. I swear I think the only reason they did not divorce was because they wouldn't have had anyone else to beat up.
 
I've known 2 parent families who would have been better off being divorced. My best friend as a tween had raging alcoholics for parents, and while my parents had issues, they were Ward and June Cleaver next to her parents. I swear I think the only reason they did not divorce was because they wouldn't have had anyone else to beat up.

You can always find anecdotal arguments for just about anything. My argument is not on a case by case basis but on the big picture overall.
 
There is a saying for that. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. I took statistics in college and learned early on how easy numbers are to manipulate

Yup, but in this case the statistics are not being used to manipulate the perception.
 
You can always find anecdotal arguments for just about anything. My argument is not on a case by case basis but on the big picture overall.

That is true, but then some people deny the numbers and go with what they see, so it works both ways.
 
But that's sort of the point I'm making. When a society makes traditional marriage unnecessary or unimportant and rejects what it is intended to be and/or the positive attributes it produces or redefines what it is, then more and more people just don't bother to engage in it.

Actually you missed the point. We focused more on the real marriage and didn't worry about a legal fiction. That what all the anti SSM people can't get through their tiny little minds. That which happens through law has nothing to do with a religious or social marriage. The legal marriage is only about the legal rights and benefits that come with that piece of paper. Limiting who can and cannot not get that piece of paper and the associated benefits has no effect or how people treat the marriage itself, i.e. The relationship. That is one of the reasons I support any two consenting adults, be they same or opposite gender, blood related or not, being able to achieve this status. From a legal perspective it has never been about love or procreation, or family or any of those arguments. Historically it's been more about property and power than family, that latter raising to the fore only recently, historically speaking.

This is why in a country where religious freedom is paramount (not freedom for only one religion), and is composed of a majority that claim to follow the guy who never once said that his teaching should be imposed upon others by force of law or arms, we allow people to marry whom they will, as per their own religious and/or moral convictions.
 
Married 29 years this past June 8th. Dated her for 6 and half years before we got married.

We just survived cancer together, so the SCOTUS is nothing compared to that one.

I love my wife, and no one can tell me to do otherwise.

SSM couples love each other also, but... until this ruling, people could tell them that they could not get married.

My wife and I both are very happy for the LGBT community. We believe that equal rights for all, is what this country stands for. So, in a way, my marriage is stronger given the knowledge that some group, that may decide that they do not like that she and I are married, cannot force us to not be married anymore as has happened to a number of SSM couples.

Other than that? Nope, no change. She loves me, I love her, and we will be together until one of us dies... and even longer after that in our hearts and in heaven.
 
You're too limited in your thinking. A man statistically has a better income, or so it is claimed, so what you want is another husband. Or better yet, do what I did and get one of each.
But there's more to life than money - and I find women so much more fun ...

;)
 
But there's more to life than money - and I find women so much more fun ...

;)

Hey you were the one who started out saying it was for financial reason. Besides, didn't I say one of each? If my husband and I ever sleep together, it will be in the most literal sense. The new wife and I.....
 
The statistics say otherwise.

No, they don't. Most of the statistics show that many people are simply putting off marriage, not considering marriage completely pointless. While there are going to likely be more that never do marry, that doesn't really mean that it is because people are considering marriage to be something they wouldn't want, but rather there are many other factors involved. Same sex couples being allowed to marry is not in any way connected to other couples not wanting to get married.

Record Share of Americans Have Never Married | Pew Research Center

In fact, since homosexuals, those most likely to enter into same sex marriages, are not mentioned in that research, it actually means that the predictions are likely to be a little skewed, since a percentage of those people are now more likely to get married, to someone of the same sex.
 
Sure I do.

Then provide it. Provide the proof. It needs to be empirical evidence, not anecdotes, such as "I lived it", "I saw it", "just look at history". That's not proof, but subjective opinion of the situation.
 
Being a good and effective parent has absolutely nothing to do with the specific genitalia one has between their legs.

Therefore, it makes perfect sense that having the same genitalia or "opposing" genitalia would have no effect either.

Having a good "set" of parents is highly beneficial for any child.
Simply having one parent with a penis and one with a vagina in no way, shape, or form is a guarantee they'll be good parents or bad parents.

If both have a penis, or both have a vagina there's still no guarantee they'll be good or bad parents either.

Parenting is not defined by the junk you got between your legs.

Everyone knows the world is chock-full of people who are not fit to be parents.

Obsessing over what gender each parent is attracted sexually to just doesn't make sense.

What's best for a child depends on a billion other more important things than a penis or a vagina.
 
Good morning Captain.
My "point" is only pointless to the one who disagrees. Even in your profession, not everyone is in agreement. That is why you find articles written by psychiatrists for and against same sex couples raising children. For and against different treatments for gender confusion. etc.

Men and women are not only different physically, their minds work differently. But just as their physical bodies are designed to compliment one another in a relationship, so do their minds when working as a team. I call it the head and the heart. Too much of one or the other can result in bad consequences. It takes a balance of both. In all honesty, there are things my spouse contributed to the raising of our children that I lack simply because of my physical limits but most of all because the way I am wired. Even with two of me, there would still be that void and visa versa.

Two things of note. Research disagrees with you. So much research has demonstrated that two same sex parents do as well as two opposite sex parents that major organizations such as the APA, the AMA, and WHO have accepted this as a given and stated that there is no good reason that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt. Secondly, the differences that you describe are more about the individuals rather than the sex of the individuals. Two parents who have different strengths tend to do better, then two parents who are too much alike.
 
Two things of note. Research disagrees with you. So much research has demonstrated that two same sex parents do as well as two opposite sex parents that major organizations such as the APA, the AMA, and WHO have accepted this as a given and stated that there is no good reason that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt. Secondly, the differences that you describe are more about the individuals rather than the sex of the individuals. Two parents who have different strengths tend to do better, then two parents who are too much alike.
Morning Captain.
You keep mentioning ALL this research to support gays raising children but there is also ALL this research out there that says differently. Organizations like the APA and the AMA can be just as political as those in robes on the Supreme Court. I believe it was in the year 1974 maybe 73 the APA was under pressure to remove homosexuality from their list of disorders. So by a vote of 13 trustees, overnight they cured with a vote what they classified as a disorder for over a century and removed it from the list. Did those 13 trustees represent the opinions of every member of the APA? Absolutely not. Did those 5 justices who were politically appointed that took it upon themselves to redefine marriage for this country represent a large portion of citizens in this country? No they did not. It always seems to boil down to a small group of elitists calling the shots for everyone. Take global warming. You have an elite group of scientists telling us the sky is falling. If a scientist dissents they are mocked in hopes of others will not take them seriously. It is as if all things start and end in politics.
 
Morning Captain.
You keep mentioning ALL this research to support gays raising children but there is also ALL this research out there that says differently. Organizations like the APA and the AMA can be just as political as those in robes on the Supreme Court. I believe it was in the year 1974 maybe 73 the APA was under pressure to remove homosexuality from their list of disorders. So by a vote of 13 trustees, overnight they cured with a vote what they classified as a disorder for over a century and removed it from the list. Did those 13 trustees represent the opinions of every member of the APA? Absolutely not. Did those 5 justices who were politically appointed that took it upon themselves to redefine marriage for this country represent a large portion of citizens in this country? No they did not. It always seems to boil down to a small group of elitists calling the shots for everyone. Take global warming. You have an elite group of scientists telling us the sky is falling. If a scientist dissents they are mocked in hopes of others will not take them seriously. It is as if all things start and end in politics.

Please provide this research that shows same sex parents aren't as good as opposite sex parents. (Just as a note, the NFSS/Regenerus study did not involve same sex parenting, but rather other person identified "gay" parents which were mostly single parents, were divorced in many cases, and their children identified them as gay or lesbian by simply having had a romantic encounter during their childhood with someone of the same sex (my mother could potentially fit that definition if one of us children had misinterpreted her relationship with her best friend), something no one legitimately uses to determine sexuality.)
 
Yes.
This concept of marriage has been twisted beyond recognition and it is time to end the government involvement in the bedroom. Churches or whatever can continue to marry people but there should be no government benefits involved. The value of marriage is simply that which the married couple/group place on it and the esteem in which they hold it.

Government issued special benefits given for marriage have come a long way. Perhaps the government thought that it was good public policy to encourage family stability for the development of children. But that idea is outdated now and what is left is this silly, Biblical based, idea that sexual relationships are so important that they should be done only by 2 people in a long term committed relationship and that government should support this by giving special benefits.

Keep government out of the bedroom and allow equal rights to asexuals, nonsexuals, people who encourage and support short-term non committed sexual relations, polygamists, polyandrists, etc.. This can be done by either eliminating all those special marriage rights or somehow granting equal rights to all those other people. Remember, we are approaching 50% of the adult population being unmarried, many for life. Where is their "equality"?
 
Yes.
This concept of marriage has been twisted beyond recognition and it is time to end the government involvement in the bedroom. Churches or whatever can continue to marry people but there should be no government benefits involved. The value of marriage is simply that which the married couple/group place on it and the esteem in which they hold it.

Government issued special benefits given for marriage have come a long way. Perhaps the government thought that it was good public policy to encourage family stability for the development of children. But that idea is outdated now and what is left is this silly, Biblical based, idea that sexual relationships are so important that they should be done only by 2 people in a long term committed relationship and that government should support this by giving special benefits.

Keep government out of the bedroom and allow equal rights to asexuals, nonsexuals, people who encourage and support short-term non committed sexual relations, polygamists, polyandrists, etc.. This can be done by either eliminating all those special marriage rights or somehow granting equal rights to all those other people. Remember, we are approaching 50% of the adult population being unmarried, many for life. Where is their "equality"?

Most of society views marriage as having a value, including societal value.

You don't have to have sex to get married. Marriage is about establishing a legal kinship, not sex.

Those that aren't married yet are free to get married if they want the benefits of marriage, of the kinship established by marriage. Just like if you want the benefits established by any other contract with another person.
 
Morning Captain.
You keep mentioning ALL this research to support gays raising children but there is also ALL this research out there that says differently. Organizations like the APA and the AMA can be just as political as those in robes on the Supreme Court. I believe it was in the year 1974 maybe 73 the APA was under pressure to remove homosexuality from their list of disorders. So by a vote of 13 trustees, overnight they cured with a vote what they classified as a disorder for over a century and removed it from the list. Did those 13 trustees represent the opinions of every member of the APA? Absolutely not. Did those 5 justices who were politically appointed that took it upon themselves to redefine marriage for this country represent a large portion of citizens in this country? No they did not. It always seems to boil down to a small group of elitists calling the shots for everyone. Take global warming. You have an elite group of scientists telling us the sky is falling. If a scientist dissents they are mocked in hopes of others will not take them seriously. It is as if all things start and end in politics.

The topic of the thread is basically about YOUR marriage and whether or not anything has changed since SCOTUS allowed a subset of a very small percentage of the overall population of America to get married.

Has YOUR marriage changed? If so, how? Better? Worse? YOUR marriage.

Who makes better parents isn't the topic of THIS thread. We've all already agreed good parenting isn't determined by your genitalia or who you find sexually attractive.

There's a crap-ton load of "straight" "parents" out there who have raped, beaten, starved, and murdered their own children, and/or the children of others.

Being "straight" does not automatically make anyone a good/great/effective parent.

Likewise, being "gay" does not automatically make someone a bad/poor/ineffective parent.

So----can we get back to the topic of this thread?

Has your marriage changed?
 
Yes, they do. Especially since your god is not an elected or recognized power within the United States government.
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.
 
Most of society views marriage as having a value, including societal value.

You don't have to have sex to get married. Marriage is about establishing a legal kinship, not sex.

Those that aren't married yet are free to get married if they want the benefits of marriage, of the kinship established by marriage. Just like if you want the benefits established by any other contract with another person.

I agree with that but society doesn't. Marriage is based on sex. We have laws against siblings marrying and relatives marrying. Yes, one solution would be to allow two sisters to marry each other and get those government benefits. Or an uncle and favored niece or nephew. (former NYC mayor Ed Koch was never married but fond of a niece.) Or close friends. I guess that these people could get the benefits of marriage by doing a number of different things, like health care power of attorney, business partnerships, annuities/insurance, etc.

If government would drop those laws regarding marriage based on the belief that marriage is about sex than we could go that route but it seems easier and more equal to drop the special rights given to married couples.
 
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.

Your premise fails because it assumes something that isn't true. Marriage is not based on the biblical belief that sex should only be done between two people in a longterm relationship. Even our own marriage statistics show this to be untrue, given that 3% of people are not virgins when they get married.

4 Cool Statistics About Abstinence in the USA | WaitingTillMarriage.org

Marriage is about forming families, legally recognizing, establishing people as family, specifically spouses and inlaws.
 
I find your answer odd, coming from a self described "very liberal".
Why should the government be involved in the bedroom?

They don't, and my point didn't reflect that. Being allowed a marriage license and having sex are separate issues.
 
They don't, and my point didn't reflect that. Being allowed a marriage license and having sex are separate issues.

So how do people who are not allowed to marry, such as siblings, get these special government issued marriage benefits?
 
Back
Top Bottom