- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.
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.Your beliefs are not relevant. Is there a clause the requires someone to agree to have sex and procreate in order to get married?
Yes or no, and why if yes. Please.
How long have you been married?
Did the SSM ruling by SCOTUS somehow change your marriage?
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.
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.
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?
It will be interesting to see how gay marriages stack up against the real thing. Libs do love their social experiments.
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?
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.
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?
If it is root vegetables than it was not the SCOTUS decision, but some other new revelation....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.
Marriage is about what it means to the individual, marriage has never and will never belong solely to one religious group.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
It ruined my marriage.
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.
Equal rights are "trivial" and NOT something SCOTUS should be bothered with???
You're Canadian. Obviously you're opinions are worthless in this context.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?