Jump to content

Marriage equality, and the SCotUS


Ember

Recommended Posts

I believe that everybody-- regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc-- should have the right to experience the pain and suffering of marriage just like everybody else. smile.gif

What about polygamy, or people marrying animals? (Not asking you in particular, just putting it out there, asking where we draw the line)

Salamoniesunsetsig5.png

8,325th to 99 Firemaking 3/9/08 | 44,811th to 99 Cooking 7/16/08

4,968th to 99 Farming 10/9/09 | Runescaper August 2005-March 2010

Tip.it Mod Feb. 2008-Sep. 2008 | Tip.it Crew Sep. 2008-Nov. 2009

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that everybody-- regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc-- should have the right to experience the pain and suffering of marriage just like everybody else. smile.gif

What about polygamy, or people marrying animals? (Not asking you in particular, just putting it out there, asking where we draw the line)

 

I don't think the government should have any role in any form of marriage in the first place.

77yLQy8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the government should have any role in any form of marriage in the first place.

Sort of makes sense considering the legal benefits to it, though... Though the fact that it's more of a legal issue than a social or personal issue says a lot about society.

 

Don't mind me, I'm not actually trying to make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the government should have any role in any form of marriage in the first place.

Brief history lesson. The government realized that it was beneficial for society to have the nuclear family as the individual unit. So they put tax incentives among other reasons for people to get married and to stay married. Each of these incentives were rigorously debated and took a long time to bring into law. Fast forward to now. Homosexual rights and "marriage equality" are only about the quickest way to get the same money. The quickest way to get homosexual couples the same incentives is to redefine marriage to include homosexuals. If there was no incentive to being in a marriage, I firmly believe this would be a non issue.

 

While I disagree with the principles of social engineering, many of societies ills come from the breakdown of the traditional family. Not going to cite statistics, but it's easy to find that children in families with single or divorced parents do much worse than children with both parents. Also the majority of welfare money is spent on families with single parents. It's also easy to see the correlation between poverty and crime rates, etc.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the government should have any role in any form of marriage in the first place.

 

Brief history lesson. The government realized that it was beneficial for society to have the nuclear family as the individual unit. So they put tax incentives among other reasons for people to get married and to stay married. Each of these incentives were rigorously debated and took a long time to bring into law. Fast forward to now. Homosexual rights and "marriage equality" are only about the quickest way to get the same money. The quickest way to get homosexual couples the same incentives is to redefine marriage to include homosexuals. If there was no incentive to being in a marriage, I firmly believe this would be a non issue.

 

Marriage might've "worked" in the 1950s, but it doesn't work anymore. It's obsolete and does more harm than good. There really isn't any incentive to getting married anymore, either. Sure there might be some tax incentives but that doesn't justify the risk of losing more than half of your assets in the more-than-likely event of a divorce.

 

While I disagree with the principles of social engineering, many of societies ills come from the breakdown of the traditional family. Not going to cite statistics, but it's easy to find that children in families with single or divorced parents do much worse than children with both parents. Also the majority of welfare money is spent on families with single parents. It's also easy to see the correlation between poverty and crime rates, etc.

 

Divorce isn't the sole determinate of whether or not marriage is "successful" or good for children. If either of the parents are cheating (very likely), that will negatively affect the children. If the parents get divorced (very likely), that will negatively affect the children. If the parents decide not to get divorced and instead stay together and argue all the time (very likely), that will negatively affect the children. The odds of actually having a "healthy" marriage suitable for rearing children is extremely low.

 

I've beaten this horse to death over in the relationships thread over the past several months, I don't really feel like discussing this in-depth again so I'll just leave it at that. Check out my posts in that thread if you want my stance on marriage.

77yLQy8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't really a thread on marriage itself, but rather marriage equality instead.

 

I know. Another reason why I didn't want to get too detailed in my response to Sees. But you already know my view on the issue: how about we all just quit getting married in the first place? :P

77yLQy8.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like the argument being presented against prop8 can be essentialized as:

  • Marriage is a fundamental human right
  • Denying same-sex marriage denies the right to marriage to homosexuals
  • Homosexuals are a suspect class
  • Denying individual rights based on suspect classification is a violation of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.

One issue I see with this argument is that there's an assumption that the right to marriage includes the right to marry a person of the same gender. Homosexuals specifically aren't being denied the right to marry, they're just not allowed to marry members of the same sex; that is true of heterosexuals as well.

 

If the right to free speech doesn't include all forms of speech, and the right to keep and bear arms doesn't include all forms of arms or extend to all people, I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to arrive at the conclusion that the right to marriage might not include all forms of marriage.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't really a thread on marriage itself, but rather marriage equality instead.

"Homosexual marriage" will never be equal to "Heterosexual marriage" because homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce within a marriage.

 

If you want to discuss tax incentives, I'm all ears.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't really a thread on marriage itself, but rather marriage equality instead.

"Homosexual marriage" will never be equal to "Heterosexual marriage" because homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce within a marriage.

 

If you want to discuss tax incentives, I'm all ears.

What are your thoughts on marriage involving a person who is sterile, elderly, or otherwise unable to reproduce? Whether homosexual or heterosexual, there's no natural reproduction in such cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Homosexual marriage" will never be equal to "Heterosexual marriage" because homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce within a marriage.

 

So does that make a heterosexual marriage where one or both partners are infertile less of a marriage than one where they can have kids? What if a couple chooses not to have kids? You really can't define marriage based on whether or not they can have children.

  • Like 1

 

f2punitedfcbanner_zpsf83da077.png

THE place for all free players to connect, hang out and talk about how awesome it is to be F2P.

So, Kaida is the real version of every fictional science-badass? That explains a lot, actually...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Homosexual marriage" will never be equal to "Heterosexual marriage" because homosexuals cannot naturally reproduce within a marriage.

 

So does that make a heterosexual marriage where one or both partners are infertile less of a marriage than one where they can have kids? What if a couple chooses not to have kids? You really can't define marriage based on whether or not they can have children.

 

I agree with Kaida. Plenty of people have children without being married, and plenty can't have children, so defining marriage as when two people have kids is just silly. I thought marriage was a civil union between two people who decide to remain monogamous. So aren't you being rather bias in saying that. Or do you refuse to acknowledge that homosexual couples can raise children just as well or better as heterosexual couples?

 

The US government would like to have it between a man and women. But either way, denying homosexual couples the rights to marry limiteds economic freedoms which can hurt a society looking to prosper.

  • Like 1

29386_s.gif

"Goals dont have a deadline." -xxxgod quoting Lady Shahdie

[slayer "Essentials"][click pic for main blog][click quote for mini blog][Worthwhile Auras]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US government would like to have it between a man and women.

I was under the impression that the federal government had remained pretty much silent on the issue, leaving it to the states and the people of the states. It's my understanding that California's prop8 and Michigan's 04-2, for example, were public acts initiated and approved by voters.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US government would like to have it between a man and women.

I was under the impression that the federal government had remained pretty much silent on the issue, leaving it to the states and the people of the states. It's my understanding that California's prop8 and Michigan's 04-2, for example, were public acts initiated and approved by voters.

 

Probably so, but DOMA was signed into law in 1996, which I still consider pretty recent. Even if other states recognize same-sex marriage, those couples still can't claim benefit like other couples, such as Social Security. The fact that DOMA is still active suggest to me that is what the federal government truly believes regardless of what individual states decide.

29386_s.gif

"Goals dont have a deadline." -xxxgod quoting Lady Shahdie

[slayer "Essentials"][click pic for main blog][click quote for mini blog][Worthwhile Auras]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Section 3 was found unconstitutional (although I'm not sure off hand on what grounds or if it would be a binding precedent), which leaves this as the meaningful/active portion of the text:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

In effect, couples states where same-sex marriage is not legally recognized cannot be compelled to recognize same-sex marriage from states which do recognize it. I don't see how this would change federal benefits eligibility or express a will of the legislature separate from that of the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Section 3 was found unconstitutional (although I'm not sure off hand on what grounds or if it would be a binding precedent), which leaves this as the meaningful/active portion of the text:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

In effect, couples states where same-sex marriage is not legally recognized cannot be compelled to recognize same-sex marriage from states which do recognize it. I don't see how this would change federal benefits eligibility or express a will of the legislature separate from that of the people.

 

It doesn't change any federal benefits. What I am saying is that they don't want to extend the federal benefits to homosexual couples, which I said in a earlier post, limits economic freedom. And as far as a "a will legislature separate from that of the people", recent polls suggest 50% of the US population think that homosexual should be allowed to marry. As for the other 50% that do not, allowing same sex marriage doesn't hurt anything but their sense of morality.

29386_s.gif

"Goals dont have a deadline." -xxxgod quoting Lady Shahdie

[slayer "Essentials"][click pic for main blog][click quote for mini blog][Worthwhile Auras]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Section 3 was found unconstitutional (although I'm not sure off hand on what grounds or if it would be a binding precedent), which leaves this as the meaningful/active portion of the text:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

In effect, couples states where same-sex marriage is not legally recognized cannot be compelled to recognize same-sex marriage from states which do recognize it. I don't see how this would change federal benefits eligibility or express a will of the legislature separate from that of the people.

 

It doesn't change any federal benefits. What I am saying is that they don't want to extend the federal benefits to homosexual couples, which I said in a earlier post, limits economic freedom. And as far as a "a will legislature separate from that of the people", recent polls suggest 50% of the US population think that homosexual should be allowed to marry. As for the other 50% that do not, allowing same sex marriage doesn't hurt anything but their sense of morality.

 

 

And the feeling of morality is unimportant...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Section 3 was found unconstitutional (although I'm not sure off hand on what grounds or if it would be a binding precedent), which leaves this as the meaningful/active portion of the text:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

In effect, couples states where same-sex marriage is not legally recognized cannot be compelled to recognize same-sex marriage from states which do recognize it. I don't see how this would change federal benefits eligibility or express a will of the legislature separate from that of the people.

 

It doesn't change any federal benefits. What I am saying is that they don't want to extend the federal benefits to homosexual couples, which I said in a earlier post, limits economic freedom. And as far as a "a will legislature separate from that of the people", recent polls suggest 50% of the US population think that homosexual should be allowed to marry. As for the other 50% that do not, allowing same sex marriage doesn't hurt anything but their sense of morality.

 

 

And the feeling of morality is unimportant...?

 

No. But my main concern with this is economic freedom. Societies with greater economic freedoms benefit from greater growth and prosperity, for example, from new ideas and productivity, just to name a few. So for me I rank that higher than my moral feelings about marriage. As mentioned in my above post 50% of the population believe same sex marriage should be legal; morally, they feel men should be able to marry men, and women with women. In this case, I believe not supporters of same sex marriage are just hurting society as a whole.

29386_s.gif

"Goals dont have a deadline." -xxxgod quoting Lady Shahdie

[slayer "Essentials"][click pic for main blog][click quote for mini blog][Worthwhile Auras]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't change any federal benefits. What I am saying is that they don't want to extend the federal benefits to homosexual couples, which I said in a earlier post, limits economic freedom.

How does allowing states to define marriage within their jurisdiction, instead of forcing them to go along with whatever another state has decided to accept as marriage, constitute not extending federal benefits to homosexual couples? With the federal definition of marriage in section 3 found unconstitutional, I expect that we would fall back on state laws to determine whether a couple is married.

 

And as far as a "a will legislature separate from that of the people", recent polls suggest 50% of the US population think that homosexual should be allowed to marry.

Which means that any explicit approval or denial of same-sex marriage is going to piss off about half the people in the country. That's not a small number.

 

As for the other 50% that do not, allowing same sex marriage doesn't hurt anything but their sense of morality.

If money is an issue for unrecognized same-sex couples, why is it not a concern for opposite-sex couples? If there are more recognized couples and the same amount of cash in benefits to go around, somebody's losing out to make up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to your first point, I misread and I apologize. So the issue of federal benefits is not a problem. My bad. However, to your second point, it would be nice if these couples would be recognized as a married couple in law. I know 50% is not a small number, but that number has grown considerably over the past few years. It's becoming clear that more people, or rather a younger generation of voters, are seeing that there is no reason why same sex marriage could be legal. To point 3, someone is going to lose out because these government programs that give these cash benefits really should not exist be it for couple of the same sex or not. Things like welfare, public housing, and the like don't help a society. There is really too much government invention in place where it does not belong that brings us to questions like these. But discussion of this probably belongs in another topic.

29386_s.gif

"Goals dont have a deadline." -xxxgod quoting Lady Shahdie

[slayer "Essentials"][click pic for main blog][click quote for mini blog][Worthwhile Auras]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Societies with greater economic freedoms benefit from greater growth and prosperity, for example, from new ideas and productivity

Not to derail the thread, but I'll take a huge objection to this statement. The most productive economies throughout history have been War Economies which typically tend to be anything but "free". Although they make far more from the produce they do sell, capitalist economies have to produce far more than they consume in order to sustain themselves, therefore leading a massive sink of resources. Creativity is another issue (although I'm not quite sure how you scientifically measure an economy's creativity).

 

Perhaps moreover, while I'm somewhat supportive of democratic enfranchisement and social freedom, I'm challenging the assumption that a free economy/society always = better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps moreover, while I'm somewhat supportive of democratic enfranchisement and social freedom, I'm challenging the assumption that a free economy/society always = better.

 

Oppressive communist societies do better than free capitalist ones, do they? :P All societies have their positive and negative sides, and none of them work the way they're supposed to.

 

To get back on topic, I'd meant to mention this when I posted earlier but forgot. I'm in favor of polygamous marriages but only it that also means that women can have more than one husband. Typically people seem to automatically think this is something only men would do.

 

f2punitedfcbanner_zpsf83da077.png

THE place for all free players to connect, hang out and talk about how awesome it is to be F2P.

So, Kaida is the real version of every fictional science-badass? That explains a lot, actually...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd let people marry horses if it means homosexuals can marry.

 

If the oddity of a man marrying a horse is the "price" our "morality" or our "marriage institution" pays to have a more open society, then it's a price I'm willing to pay. I'm in this for the ideological standpoint, not so much for financial benefits one may or may not receive. Like Muggi, I do think marriage is a pretty lousy idea, so if marriages loose their tax benefits I would not object.

 

The concept of legalizing homosexual marriage will say more about America's equality, land of the free, than any church's interests and any follower's ego.

"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."

siggy3s.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.