Marriage Equality and the Supreme Court

BrntOrngeStmpde, just so you know, there are already sociological reports that show children raised by gay couples are worse off on average than children in homes with man and a women. I don't think we have to wait to know.
 
A question for Mr. Deez and others that worry about churches being forced to perform same-sex marriages...

If you had a crystal ball and knew for sure, as in 100% positive, that churches would never be forced to marry gay people, would you change your mind on legalizing gay marriage?
 
Not trying to derail the thread but I've gotta make this observation - the same folks who scream about "keep govt outta my life" now want govt to dictate who is married and who is not! And this isn't the only issue, the same "less govt" gang want govt to get into a woman's body and dictate what decisions she can and can't make about her body!

Less govt my @ss.
rolleyes.gif
 
Easterhorn, How is it different? Right now the law doesn't allow a man to marry a man. Right now the law doesn't allow a man to marry multiple women. Both men have the same ability that they can choose to marry a woman. Neither men choose that to be their lifestyle. Why do you choose one law to be changed and not the other?

I would not be surprised if there are more countries in the world that recognize polygamist marriages then there are same sex marriages.

I know this scares some to death as they think this is the slippery slope to bestiality but it really isn't.
 
Here's the other thing: the assumption appears to be that marriage is an inherent right, in that it is covered in "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". The argument is that by defining for me what "marriage" is, you're limiting my ability to be happy.

So what about single people? Why can't I be "married" to my job if my job makes me happy? Why can't I be (as a children's book advocated) married to a flower, or a tree, or nature, or myself? If the judiciary can determine that marriage is essentially whatever I define it to be in order to be happy, why not?

Not to mention, it's discriminatory! The whole point of marriage being advantageous from a tax standpoint is that we want to encourage it as a society. Well, we've now decided that gay marriage and heterosexual marriage are equally effective because "it's still two loving people" - after which we quickly add that ONE loving person is just as capable, and that a child raised by a single parent is NOT at a disadvantage, because we certainly wouldn't want single mothers to feel inferior or somehow lacking. (Never mind the studies that contradict it.) So how about those of us who are single and (as far as you know) derive their happiness from being single? Why am I being persecuted because I have not bowed to the convention of marriage and made myself less happy?

This is what happens when the government starts to try and interpret "pursuit of happiness" as "legislate people INTO happiness" as opposed to interpreting it as "if we leave people alone, they will pursue the things that make them happy."
 
prodigal, you basically just made an argument against almost every tax break in the books. Almost every tax break is designed to get the people to do what government wants.

I got no problem with doing away the tax breaks. Just as I have no problem with allowing you to marry whomever you want.

By the way you do have the right to marry your work it just won't be recognized by the government. The problem is that your work is a cold mistress that won't love you back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top