US Supreme Court to Take on Gay Marriage

originally posted by: Ploutonas
1) You see? Gluten, vaccines, chemtrails dont let people think... In you first question and second answer, you should first understand that this was the constitution of ancient Athens. This was the bases, WHY athenians should get married.

And that has what to do with this topic?

Today, they do whatever they can to destroy family.

Wait - Whose family is being destroyed?

I gave you all this stories, for the reason to justify my denial to your more and more needs and the reason " I believe its a tool of corruption".

You haven't answered my questions, though...
1. Do you ask that straight couples give a justification for their marriage?
2. What's my justification for getting married, since I don't have kids?
3. Why is people's reason for marrying ANY of your business?
4. What is the problem with gay people marrying?

easy to answer because questions 1,2,4, are already answered, you could add some more analysis, but I dont wish to create a rage conversation about it. But all in all my first reply in the prev page answers them.

As for question 3, why I shouldn't care, am a part of this world and I care about it, this will affect all. this will also affect the social structure of each society and sadly that I live on as well.

Try to understand that I am not against you, i dont care about each human needs, i respect their personal decisions.. They can do whatever they want, they can love whoever they want and they can live with their choices forever. But the social structure changes you want, it gives a huge negative impact in the essence of "family" and family is very important. Many civilizations survived millennia's because of it. Its not only about you and your partner, is about the whole.

a reply to: Ploutonas

Your first post did not answer my questions whatsoever. But if you want to sidestep them, I understand.

it gives a huge negative impact in the essence of "family" and family is very important.

Simple question: What negative impact do married gay people have on the essence of family. Please explain.

Many civilizations survived millennia's because of it. Its not only about you and your partner, is about the whole.

I'm not suggesting anyone take away the family. Families will go on just as they have for millennia.

And if it's not clear, I am straight.

With the decision handed down in Alabama, and the state Supreme court justice doing his actions, I wonder what the result will be? Does the state officials follow federal law or state ruling? And what will be the ramifications of such actions and is there a legal precedent on such?

a reply to: sdcigarpig

He's just grasping at straws and they have started issuing licenses today.

Source

The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for gay marriages to commence in Alabama, denying a request from the state Attorney General to block the marriages from going forward while the Justices consider a separate case on the issue later in the term. A district court judge struck down the state's gay marriage ban in late January.

37 out of 50!

Congrats! Alabama

I hope the lawsuits against Roy Moore are successful.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic


Simple question: What negative impact do married gay people have on the essence of family. Please explain.

Every child deserves the indisputable benefit of an intact family that is comprised of mother and a father.

Two people of the same sex who decide to shack up and introduce an innocent child into that mix are destroying any chance that child may have to benefit from the complimentary and distinctly different attributes mothers and fathers committed to each other and their children bring to child rearing and family life.

Not to mention the exposure to the documented much higher occurrences of promiscuity, disease, drug and alcohol abuse, depression that plague same sex relationships.

Same sex relationships destabilize our society, which is fundamentally and inseparably linked to to the protection, promotion and preservation of the family unit and the marriage that creates it: the permanent union of one man and woman for the creation and rearing of children to productive adulthood.

There never has been, nor will there ever be anything called 'gay marriage.'

In spite of the social engineering efforts of the progressive left, it will remain a logical and a biological impossibility.

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic


Simple question: What negative impact do married gay people have on the essence of family. Please explain.

Every child deserves the indisputable benefit of an intact family that is comprised of mother and a father.

Oh Gawd! Yes, let's use the children to justify personal bigotry.

Children care that they are loved, safe, and secure. Period!

Good parents are good parents. What sex they are is not relevant.

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic


Simple question: What negative impact do married gay people have on the essence of family. Please explain.

There never has been, nor will there ever be anything called 'gay marriage.'

You're right. It's called 'marriage equality'.

As far as your other nonsense, provide your data and source to back up your claims.

Funny, where was the outcry for straight couples using IVF to have children?

originally posted by: Seamrog
Every child deserves the indisputable benefit of an intact family that is comprised of mother and a father.

That's not indisputable. That's your opinion. There's no indication that kids with a single parent or gay parents suffer from not having a man and a woman as their parents. There's nothing magical about "a mother and a father" that makes a family happy, "intact", healthy, protective, loving, or beneficial toward the kids. NOTHING. The fact that they have different genitals has NOTHING to do with one's ability to be a loving parent.

Comprehensive Study

As this summary will show, the results of existing research comparing lesbian and gay parents to heterosexual parents and children of lesbian and gay parents to children of heterosexual parents are quite clear: Common stereotypes are not supported by the data.

Two people of the same sex who decide to shack up and introduce an innocent child into that mix are destroying any chance that child may have to benefit from the complimentary and distinctly different attributes mothers and fathers committed to each other and their children bring to child rearing and family life.

Your portrayal of a gay couple (just wanting to "shack up") vs a straight couple (who are committed to each other) is comparing apples to oranges. Let's talk about two couples (one straight, one gay) in long-term, committed, relationships, like marriage. Straight people can "shack up", too.

Not to mention the exposure to the documented much higher occurrences of promiscuity, disease, drug and alcohol abuse, depression that plague same sex relationships.

Those issues are not confined to gay people...

Same sex relationships destabilize our society

How? They've been in existence forever.

There never has been, nor will there ever be anything called 'gay marriage.'

Agreed! There is just marriage.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

If it wasn't so sad and frustrating, it would be amusing to see how history repeats itself. All the outrage that happened when the Supreme Court said that it was unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage -- all the claims that it was going to tear the very fabric of our society; the children of said marriages would be mentally deficient; mixing the races was going against God's plan - all based on fear, hatred and ignorance.

It's just so weird when you look at the historic big picture. The overall group has no problem taking some people's basic rights away (minority races, women, children, gays). Fortunately, we usually come around, but it takes us a while - and some get dragged kicking and screaming.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

If it wasn't so sad and frustrating, it would be amusing to see how history repeats itself. All the outrage that happened when the Supreme Court said that it was unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage -- all the claims that it was going to tear the very fabric of our society; the children of said marriages would be mentally deficient; mixing the races was going against God's plan - all based on fear, hatred and ignorance.

It's just so weird when you look at the historic big picture. The overall group has no problem taking some people's basic rights away (minority races, women, children, gays). Fortunately, we usually come around, but it takes us a while - and some get dragged kicking and screaming.

Some articles I've read are comparing Roy Moore to George Wallace.

I graduated high school in 1964. All of what happened during the civil rights movement remains fresh in my mind.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
I am hearing reports from Alabama where it is a big mess. Some counties are doing such, others are not, and I know of one county that is not issuing or doing marriages for anyone, making a whole lot of people up set. It has become a mess, similar to the current state of the United States, where some states allow, others are not, others are recognizing and some are not. It can only hope that the highest court sorts this all out and makes sense of it all and put and end to the question of yes and no. I think that this is only just the start of a slight mess. When you consider some of the bills that are being proposed and looked at, sitting in some of the state legislatures.

If it becomes the law of the land, will the different states honor such, or will there be more rounds of court cases that costs the people money?

a reply to: sdcigarpig

My husband mentioned that earlier. I'm hoping the SC sees that mess as a good reason to deal with it once and for all, at federal level, so the states can sort out whether or not they're going to offer marriage at all, since the Constitution states that ALL citizens of the state must have equal protection under state laws.

When Utah (I think) was hem-hawing about marriage equality, one of their legislators floated the idea of getting rid of marriage in the state altogether, just to prevent having to marry gay people. But it didn't go much further than that.

Good old Alabama.

Amid conflicting signals from federal courts and the chief justice of Alabama’s Supreme Court, some Alabama counties began granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Monday in a legal showdown with echoes of the battles over desegregation in the 1960s.
...
But in the small town of Troy, all was quiet at the Pike County Courthouse, where Judge Wes Allen of Probate Court, like his counterparts in some other counties, had decided that rather than issue licenses to same-sex couples, he would not grant marriage licenses to anyone. “We don’t have any appointments, and we have a sign up saying that we aren’t issuing any licenses at this time,” he said.

Source

.

a reply to: Seamrog

Interesting statement:
Every child deserves the indisputable benefit of an intact family that is comprised of mother and a father.
Yet if you base the argument on marriage being just for children, then you would agree that couples who are married and who have no children, their marriages are invalid, or those who are past the age of child rearing, they should not get married? And what of all of the single parents out there, do you think that their children are somehow lacking from parental guidance or from a lack of support?

The reality of the state of marriage these days, is that it is in shambles. Not from gay marriage, but from the high profile divorces that occur. Is it not conceivable that in the course of all of this, that something good may come of it? That instead of showing people who go in, get married and less than a year later are separating or divorcing? That the celebration and portrayal of things like divorces, and teen parents are just to blame if not more so than the advent and concept of same sex marriages?
Take a good look at the TV, look at shows like Maury, and other shows like it, where you have women who have sex without protections, and are then looking for the father of their baby and end up testing multiple men, only to find out that they are not sure who the father of their child is.
And what is worse, the state of the economy, where there has been a rise in what is called latch key children, where both parents are having to work full time to make ends meet and have a comfortable life.
In 2012, researches have been looking at this for years, and the current trend in the United States is that there is a good chance that close to 40% of all marriages (the first time) end in divorce, 60% of all second marriages end in divorce and 73% of all third marriages end in divorce. Even the CDC did a study and the results are shocking and confirm what is being stated: about 1/3 of all first marriages are ending in divorce for men, about 1/5 of all first marriages for women.
It has been documents that the average length of a marriage is about 8 years. 8 years and that is just the traditional marriages. Rare are the days when it is until death do you part. So what happens then, if the traditional marriage is in a shambles, what does it matter if 2 people of the same sex gets married?

Many of those who are wanting to get married, chances are they have been together for years, far longer than a straight couple and are wanting to have the same rights and privledges, the same protections under the law as those who are just a man and a woman. And not everyone who marries, wants to have children at all.

Alabama --- I think it's 9 out of 67 counties who are going fully ahead with marriages.

Some are issuing licenses, but not allowing marrisges.

Some are refusing marriage licenses to gays.

Some are refusing license and marriage to anyone.

---------------------

An emergency hearing has been called to try to force the Federal mandate that all counties comply to issuing the licenses.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

There is only one problem with the state not being involved in marriage, and that is that the laws would have to change to recognize such. And if the state is no longer dealing in the marriage business, then the judges could no longer rule on things like divorce. And all of the protections under the law for those married together would also have to go. Think about it, without those protections, then it means that spouses would have to jump through extra hoops for them. Things like power of attorney would have to be gotten for both. And there would no longer be legal protections. So that means a wife could now be compelled under the law to testify against her husband. Berne Maddoff's wife could be compelled to testify or go to prison.

Then there are the medical considerations as well, we would thus see the rise of some of the more infamous cases, like the one out of Florida, where the husband was ready to pull the plug on his wife after years of her being on life support and her parents sought to keep her on, causing more grief and anguish for both.

And then there are the taxes, the codes would have to be removed to prevent an unfair application, and now a wife who stays at home would have to pay taxes.

As appealing as it sounds, I would say it would be a bad idea.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

My husband and I have been happily married for 22 years without children. All the happier because of that, IMO. We will be married until we die. Seamrog would apparently wish to deny me the most precious thing I have. because of how he or she defines marriage.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Oh, I agree! It's a bad idea. But it's an option a state could take if they were just hell-bent on denying marriage to a segment of their population. It would be a helluva mess.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
But you bring up a very valid point and one that I think that should be explored fully.

What exactly, in this day and age, is a marriage?
With all of the diversity and number of people out there, this is the one question that I think that if the courts were to sit down and think about, it may be something that either is what is present and no one wants to admit to, or no longer is valid and needs to change. If a marriage is no longer about children, or religion, or wealth, or sex, then what exactly is a marriage?