to you know where in a handbasket thnx SCOTUS

[jmra]

Yeah, what I mean if gays can live married with no kids or even as you mentioned heterosexual couple do not want kids or could not afford kids. The whole society will suffer, so somehow, gay marriage may affect the whole society. It is all about acceptance of gays in the society and the legal ramification for kids and their rights.

Sorry I'm going back so far, but I wasn't online for the majority of the discussion here.

Beiruty, are you saying that because my wife and I don't want kids, that society will suffer?

Yup wife cant have kids, guess im right there with the lot that is a drain on society.

I'm trying to understand this one too. The wife and I only had two kids which equates to a zero population growth. How many kids should one have in order to ensure society doesn't suffer?

[Beiruty]

2.2+
We are already below 2.0

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph ... statistics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[zero4o3]

You ask how it directly affects anyone but the people getting married. That's easy to answer. Before the ruling the purpose of marriage was child rearing in a stable family situation. Marriage was expected to be a greater commitment than two people living together, with greater responsibilities, especially to the children. Now the purpose of marriage is to allow to people who love each other obtain the same benefits as marriage with regard to legalities such as rights of survivorship, medical power of attorney, etc.

Your argument while "valid" could only be considered strong to someone who has the same beliefs as you (who agrees with your definition of what marriage was). Do you believe that hetero couples who never intend to have children (or are unable to have children) should not be allowed to be married?

[baldeagle]

You ask how it directly affects anyone but the people getting married. That's easy to answer. Before the ruling the purpose of marriage was child rearing in a stable family situation. Marriage was expected to be a greater commitment than two people living together, with greater responsibilities, especially to the children. Now the purpose of marriage is to allow to people who love each other obtain the same benefits as marriage with regard to legalities such as rights of survivorship, medical power of attorney, etc.

Your argument while "valid" could only be considered strong to someone who has the same beliefs as you (who agrees with your definition of what marriage was). Do you believe that hetero couples who never intend to have children (or are unable to have children) should not be allowed to be married?

Of course not. What any individual does is irrelevant. What matters is how the policy affects society as a whole. Because one couple either decides not to or is unable to have children does not affect society. What affects society is what the majority of couples do. By redefining marriage as a union of two loving people, the focus is removed from the children. Now, if a loving couple gets pregnant, abortion is an option because children no longer matter. Yes, I know abortion was an option before, but there was at least a an effect on the decision due to the purpose of marriage.

Also, by changing the definition of marriage to two people who love each other the legal arguments against polygamy, incest, bestiality and pedophilia are no longer valid. If two people love each other, who are we to judge? So now the laws against incest fall. The laws against statutory rape fall. The laws against polygamy fall. And preventing pedophilia becomes much more difficult. Now, if the child says he loves his pedophile, what's the legal argument for saying it's wrong? The courts are already providing guardians ad litem for children. What does the court do if the child's attorney argues that the pedophile is what the child wants?

When you're talking about fundamental changes to society, you have to look at the macro effects over time.

BTW, I noticed that you changed my "purpose of marriage" to "definition of marriage". Words have meaning. The definition of marriage is two people who love each other deciding to make a lifetime commitment to each other. The purpose of marriage WAS to have strong, enduring families that bore children and raised them properly to become contributing citizens of society. It was in the states' interest to encourage such relationships, which is why there are laws that provide special privileges to married couples. Now the purpose of marriage is the definition of marriage. Notice what's missing? Children. This isn't a religious or beliefs argument at all. Deemphasizing the importance of children could have a deleterious effect on society. The problem is, we won't know that for decades, if then. And by then it will no longer matter.

It's impossible to know what the effects will be. But why have a tax deduction for marriage now? Why should married couples get power of attorney without signing a legal agreement to that effect? Why should spouses have the right to make medical decisions for the ailing spouse? All these things were done to encourage the creation of families that would bear children and raise them to be productive members of society. Now that literally anyone or ones can get married, why should anyone get special treatment under the law?

I guarantee you that this argument will be made by politicians in an effort to raise more revenue for the state.

[mr1337]

2.2+
We are already below 2.0

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph ... statistics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are you also in support of banning contraceptives so that society doesn't have to suffer?

I'm still unsure of your opinion on whether society is suffering or not due to me and my wife's choice not to have children. In fact, we might not even be able to have kids.

Keep in mind that there are children all across the nation in foster care and orphanages.

[Beiruty]

2.2+
We are already below 2.0

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph ... statistics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are you also in support of banning contraceptives so that society doesn't have to suffer?

I'm still unsure of your opinion on whether society is suffering or not due to me and my wife's choice not to have children. In fact, we might not even be able to have kids.

Keep in mind that there are children all across the nation in foster care and orphanages.

Mr. 1337,
Your personal choice of not having kids is yours and no one is blaming you for anything. However, as in Modern Countries, more and more of it is people would rather not have kids, can't afford kids, for whatever the reason, the total Fertility rate is getting below 2.0.
As the whole, the society and the government would have the interest in supplementing the growth of the population by either supporting and funding families with kids or opening the door for more immigration. In anycase, the demographics of the USA is shifting to an elderly nation as the seniors and retirees are dominating, (baby boomers of the 1950s are now retiring). This would bankrupt the social security and the medicare both at the same time. Worse, the congress is doing nothing about it. There are consequences for any change in the society norm.

[Tracker]

I'm not sure the government should be in the marriage business in the first place. It's only recent history that it did. Google "when did the government start licensing marriage." The arguments as to why the government began requiring a license may surprise some

States could stop issuing marriage licenses all together. Mississippi is contemplating stopping marriage licenses
http://www.newsweek.com/following-supre ... age-347740" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Being catholic the church is not going to recognize gay marriages as valid. What's going to happen, however, is gays are going to insist the church recognize their marriage through employment contracts. On the debate over Obama care the church petitioned to not have to recognize these civil unions that are contrary to church values. If the government forced the church to recognize them Bishops were saying they'd shutdown catholic institutions, such as schools, colleges, and hospitals.

Native American tribes have said they aren't going to adhere to the SCOTUS' ruling. They legally aren't bound to it. So many in Oklahoma churches will have to comply with this ruling but it Indian casinos will not

[Beiruty]

So do the Muslims.

[Tracker]

So do the Muslims.

Won't that be interesting. I wonder how many gay-marriage partners will seek employment at a mosque business office to test the law

[Beiruty]

So do the Muslims.

Won't that be interesting. I wonder how many gay-marriage partners will seek employment at a mosque business office to test the law

That is a big deal, a national revolution would rise for those complex social issues. It is just history.

[Tracker]

5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License

by Rev. Matthew Trewhella

http://www.mercyseat.net/marriagelicense.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[cb1000rider]

You guys that are against this: Do you actually believe that the state or federal government has anything to do with what your marriage actually is or isn't? That is, does the state or federal government actually provide any moral basis for what your marriage is?

To me, what the state governs and what the church allows are completely separate issues. The state is largely regulating taxation, survivorship, spousal benefits. To the state, you can get married and divorced as often as you want. Is this really the "marriage" that you're so intent on protecting? To me, it doesn't sound anything at all like religious marriage... And religious marriage is still completely restricted by denominational faith. They should just call it something else and be done with it.

[Tracker]

You guys that are against this: Do you actually believe that the state or federal government has anything to do with what your marriage actually is or isn't? That is, does the state or federal government actually provide any moral basis for what your marriage is?

To me, what the state governs and what the church allows are completely separate issues. The state is largely regulating taxation, survivorship, spousal benefits. To the state, you can get married and divorced as often as you want. Is this really the "marriage" that you're so intent on protecting? To me, it doesn't sound anything at all like religious marriage... And religious marriage is still completely restricted by denominational faith. They should just call it something else and be done with it.

That would be fine as long as the federal gov didnt push the churches to comply with government edicts.

[Beiruty]

Not to diverge a lot. In progressive, socialist Canada, Prostitution was found by the courts to be legal as a self-employed business. One can ask, why prostitution is still illegal in US? Is it morally illegal? Based on what standard? So if love wins as LGBT say, why "selling love" does not win too?

[Topbuilder]

"I am leaving this thread because it is obvious this isn't going to be an active thread very long."

Good "choice" , think I will do the same. My raydar is pinging.