IMO marriage should just be a social construct. You want to pronounce your love for someone in the eyes of your lord? Go ahead. It's weird to me that there's so much more tied into it.

Silian Rail said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

NicosMachine said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Its weird how the idea of it gets you excited.

Two consensual adults getting married? BAN ITTTTTTTTT

---

There is no Constitutional right to gay marriage. It's not there. It's not a matter of "banning it" its a matter of returning the decision to the respective states where it belongs.

---

And of course you support the idea that gays should be able to enjoy the same legal marital rights as heterosexuals, right?

---

why? marriage was singled out for its many benefits, namely the stabilizing and procreative impact the nuclear family has on society. Some dudes or chicks playing house doesn't warrant that.

If they want to give their property to each other or visit each other in the hospital, i don't have a problem with that, but we don't have to pretend like that's why people get married.

---

People get married because they are in love. Some decide to have kids. Some don't. It doesn't hurt marriages for procreation reasons to recognize marriages that don't include children.

_mpaul said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Its weird how the idea of it gets you excited.

Two consensual adults getting married? BAN ITTTTTTTTT

---

It's weird how inept you are at making reasoned arguments for your position. Nobody said ban it. Like abortion, it should be up to the states.

---

No, it should be up to the individual. States have no right to ban certain people getting married. It literally harms no one, and there is no logical argument for it sans religion which can not be used for law

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

NicosMachine said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Its weird how the idea of it gets you excited.

Two consensual adults getting married? BAN ITTTTTTTTT

---

There is no Constitutional right to gay marriage. It's not there. It's not a matter of "banning it" its a matter of returning the decision to the respective states where it belongs.

---

And of course you support the idea that gays should be able to enjoy the same legal marital rights as heterosexuals, right?

---

why? marriage was singled out for its many benefits, namely the stabilizing and procreative impact the nuclear family has on society. Some dudes or chicks playing house doesn't warrant that.

If they want to give their property to each other or visit each other in the hospital, i don't have a problem with that, but we don't have to pretend like that's why people get married.

---

People get married because they are in love. Some decide to have kids. Some don't. It doesn't hurt marriages for procreation reasons to recognize marriages that don't include children.

---

Really? When you go to get a marriage certificate does the bored looking clerk ask "are you two in love" or do they just check your birth certificate to make sure you're man and woman. Again, this is back in the day before "love wins".

Marriage is IN PRINCIPLE about having children. The fact that some people do not have children is a bug not a feature of marriage.

People go get a marriage license because they are in love. Please don't be obtuse.

People in homosexual marriages can and do have children.

blakegrimez said:

---

IMO marriage should just be a social construct. You want to pronounce your love for someone in the eyes of your lord? Go ahead. It's weird to me that there's so much more tied into it.

---

Because marriage is a legal contract, and we as a country have granted special privileges to those that are married. That contract governs how married couples handle lots of things like estates, taxes, family rights, spousal medical insurance, and a whole host of other things.

Silian Rail said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

NicosMachine said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Its weird how the idea of it gets you excited.

Two consensual adults getting married? BAN ITTTTTTTTT

---

There is no Constitutional right to gay marriage. It's not there. It's not a matter of "banning it" its a matter of returning the decision to the respective states where it belongs.

---

And of course you support the idea that gays should be able to enjoy the same legal marital rights as heterosexuals, right?

---

why? marriage was singled out for its many benefits, namely the stabilizing and procreative impact the nuclear family has on society. Some dudes or chicks playing house doesn't warrant that.

If they want to give their property to each other or visit each other in the hospital, i don't have a problem with that, but we don't have to pretend like that's why people get married.

---

People get married because they are in love. Some decide to have kids. Some don't. It doesn't hurt marriages for procreation reasons to recognize marriages that don't include children.

---

Really? When you go to get a marriage certificate does the bored looking clerk ask "are you two in love" or do they just check your birth certificate to make sure you're man and woman. Again, this is back in the day before "love wins".

Marriage is IN PRINCIPLE about having children. The fact that some people do not have children is a bug not a feature of marriage.

---

So do you think people that don't want to have children, or heaven forbid can't have children shouldn't be allowed to get married?

HTownAg98 said:

---

blakegrimez said:

---

IMO marriage should just be a social construct. You want to pronounce your love for someone in the eyes of your lord? Go ahead. It's weird to me that there's so much more tied into it.

---

Because marriage is a legal contract, and we as a country have granted special privileges to those that are married. That contract governs how married couples handle lots of things like estates, taxes, family rights, spousal medical insurance, and a whole host of other things.

---

Exactly. Strange to me that there is so much tied into it. But granted, I grew up in a different generation.

Jarrin' Jay said:

---

SCOTUS can overturn the original decision and return it to the States, but not 1 State would ban it. Nor should they IMHO.

---

there are many states that still have statutes or constitutional amendments outlawing gay marriage on the books. obergefell rendered them unenforceable but they're still in place. and despite just about every state in 2022 being majority or at least plurality pro gay marriage, there would be little political will for republican legislatures to overturn them - too scared of getting primaried by moral panic evangelicals

blakegrimez said:

---

IMO marriage should just be a social construct. You want to pronounce your love for someone in the eyes of your lord? Go ahead. It's weird to me that there's so much more tied into it.

---

The issue is that a whole body of laws have been built up around the institution of marriage, eg inheritance, medical rights/access, and tax incentives/protections that are available to married couples but not couples who merely co-habit. The social construct part of it is what has generated the perception that rights follow with it, eg if your spouse is in the hospital you having familial rights that a mere friend might not. With rights comes government influence.

BMX Bandit said:

---

AgBandsman said:

---

DrEvazanPhD said:

---

It's not going to happen.

Look, i'm not super in favor of gay marriage, but one can at least see where the equal protection aspect of it comes in.

Abortion is not a right.

---

This argument presupposes that marriage is a right.

It isn't.

---

wrong.


While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men

---

"Oh, that's just dicta." -some attorney that wants to ignore that case, probably.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

NicosMachine said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

Its weird how the idea of it gets you excited.

Two consensual adults getting married? BAN ITTTTTTTTT

---

There is no Constitutional right to gay marriage. It's not there. It's not a matter of "banning it" its a matter of returning the decision to the respective states where it belongs.

---

And of course you support the idea that gays should be able to enjoy the same legal marital rights as heterosexuals, right?

---

why? marriage was singled out for its many benefits, namely the stabilizing and procreative impact the nuclear family has on society. Some dudes or chicks playing house doesn't warrant that.

If they want to give their property to each other or visit each other in the hospital, i don't have a problem with that, but we don't have to pretend like that's why people get married.

---

People get married because they are in love. Some decide to have kids. Some don't. It doesn't hurt marriages for procreation reasons to recognize marriages that don't include children.

---

Really? When you go to get a marriage certificate does the bored looking clerk ask "are you two in love" or do they just check your birth certificate to make sure you're man and woman. Again, this is back in the day before "love wins".

Marriage is IN PRINCIPLE about having children. The fact that some people do not have children is a bug not a feature of marriage.

---

So do you think people that don't want to have children, or heaven forbid can't have children shouldn't be allowed to get married?

---

Provided they are of complementary sex they can get marriage, but they're missing the point of marriage. They're a feature not a bug. The word marriage itself implies bringing two different complementary parts together and forming one whole, it refers to both the marital act, and the new life that comes from the marital act.

Alan Keyes probably gave the best succinct explanation on the nature of marriage during a debate against Barack Obama in 2004. See below

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

People go get a marriage license because they are in love. Please don't be obtuse.

People in homosexual marriages can and do have children.

---

People go get a marriage license for all sorts of reasons, the state never asks them "are you in love?". If they aren't in love can you stop them from getting a marriage license? What if they're brother and sister? Why is that?

You serious, Clark?

There are a lot of soy boys opining today on social media about the outrage of the Roe decision. Even the slightly famous BBQ writer for the Texas Monthly ratings is posting hostile stuff towards conservatives.

Silian Rail said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

People go get a marriage license because they are in love. Please don't be obtuse.

People in homosexual marriages can and do have children.

---

People go get a marriage license for all sorts of reasons, the state never asks them "are you in love?". If they aren't in love can you stop them from getting a marriage license? What if they're brother and sister? Why is that?

---

Why do we care what the state asks them? Just because you can make a logical argument doesn't make it pragmatic. Most people today go get a marriage license because they are in love. If you refuse to acknowledge that reality, there is no point in us having this discussion.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

People go get a marriage license because they are in love. Please don't be obtuse.

People in homosexual marriages can and do have children.

---

People go get a marriage license for all sorts of reasons, the state never asks them "are you in love?". If they aren't in love can you stop them from getting a marriage license? What if they're brother and sister? Why is that?

---

Why do we care what the state asks them? Just because you can make a logical argument doesn't make it pragmatic. Most people today go get a marriage license because they are in love. If you refuse to acknowledge that reality, there is no point in us having this discussion.

---

Because it shows that the state once understood what marriage was about. If marriage was all about love, why didn't they ask people if they were in love? Why did they make sure they were male and female, and why didn't they let brother and sister get married.

Are you okay with two brothers getting married if they're in love? If so, why or why not?

So you don't believe most people get a marriage license because they are in love. Cool. Have a good day.

Dang, man. You didn't have to murder him like that. He was already dead.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

So you don't believe most people get a marriage license because they are in love. Cool. Have a good day.

---

It's a super easy question. If love is all that matters, why can't family members get married?

I'm saying your question is moot, it doesn't matter. Why does it matter why most people get married, does the definition of marriage change based on why most people get married?

Silian Rail said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

So you don't believe most people get a marriage license because they are in love. Cool. Have a good day.

---

It's a super easy question. If love is all that matters, why can't family members get married?

I'm saying your question is moot, it doesn't matter. Why does it matter why most people get married, does the definition of marriage change based on why most people get married?

---

I never said it was all that matters. I said most people go get a marriage license because they are in love.

Jesus Christ. It's like playing cards with my brother's kids.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

So you don't believe most people get a marriage license because they are in love. Cool. Have a good day.

---

It's a super easy question. If love is all that matters, why can't family members get married?

I'm saying your question is moot, it doesn't matter. Why does it matter why most people get married, does the definition of marriage change based on why most people get married?

---

I never said it was all that matters. I said most people go get a marriage license because they are in love.

Jesus Christ. It's like playing cards with my brother's kids.

---

Are you also really bad at cards?

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Silian Rail said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

So you don't believe most people get a marriage license because they are in love. Cool. Have a good day.

---

It's a super easy question. If love is all that matters, why can't family members get married?

I'm saying your question is moot, it doesn't matter. Why does it matter why most people get married, does the definition of marriage change based on why most people get married?

---

I never said it was all that matters. I said most people go get a marriage license because they are in love.

Jesus Christ. It's like playing cards with my brother's kids.

---

Yes, and that's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Most people have a big celebration after they get married. Many brides wear white, and grooms a tuxedo.

Can we stop the non-sequitur and have you answer the question regarding why all those questions were asked to before getting a marriage license?

Quote:

---

we don't have to pretend like that's why people get married.

---

This is the post of yours I responded to.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

People go get a marriage license because they are in love. Please don't be obtuse.

People in homosexual marriages can and do have children.

---

Some marriages are arranged, some are for convenience, some are for transferring assets, and some are even for obtaining citizenship to another country.
Children are just one of many considerations

tysker said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

People go get a marriage license because they are in love. Please don't be obtuse.

People in homosexual marriages can and do have children.

---

Some marriages are arranged, some are for convenience, some are for transferring assets, and some are even for obtaining citizenship to another country.
Children are just one of many considerations

---

Fairly certain two of those three are illegal. And arranged marriages prove the point that marriage is for procreative purposes.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Quote:

---

we don't have to pretend like that's why people get married.

---

This is the post of yours I responded to.

---

and again, it's a non-sequitur as I was referring to property and visitation rights. You can be in love without getting married. You can get married without being in love. The reason behind these things is because "being in love" is not a necessary pre-requisite for getting married.

I never said being in love was a pre-req.

Explain why you care if homosexuals can legally get married? What is the real issue for you?

Kvetch said:

---

Fairly certain two of those three are illegal. And arranged marriages prove the point that marriage is for procreative purposes.

---

Define marriage.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I never said being in love was a pre-req.

Explain why you care if homosexuals can legally get married? What is the real issue for you?

---

For the same reason I care about humoring men who think they're women; it's not true. The force of government gives teeth to their fable and allows it to be used as a weapon against the sane, all for the same goal, the destruction of the family, which in turn destabilizes society.

Society cares about labels and institutions, you only need to look around and see the hilarious new terms "birthing people" and "menstruating people" to see that. The easiest way to legitimize some new form of creeping leftism is to dress it up in the skin suit of a respectable institution.

So again, why can't brother and sister get married.

I've never heard a good rebuttal to the slippery slope argument. It's clear to me that gay conjugal relationships are disordered. From a philosophical point of view, what should make a thing legal or illegal? And now that we're headed down this slope at breakneck speed, what is the justification for gay marriage that does not also justify polygamy for example? Seems that line is always arbitrary or subjective. Grounded in nothing at all, or if it's grounded in something, it closely resembles Hedonism or some brand of relativism. And those are extremely problematic unless you're prepared to defend some pretty gross atrocities and human rights violations.

Are you posting the same thing on multiple boards using multiple usernames?
Tiger Droppings thread

Nobody cares about gay marriage dude.

Silian Rail said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

Touchless said:

---

I see gay marriage as more of a separation of church and state issue. The government can't force a church to recognize, accept or wed a gay couple, but they have to recognize it legally between two consenting adults.

---

A true "conservative" point of view.

---

This is an extremely liberal point of view, it's the sort of view our liberal forefathers would have retched hearing while they were penning laws prescribing castration for homosexuality.

---

Calling my point of view "extremely liberal".

Bob Lee said:

---

I've never heard a good rebuttal to the slippery slope argument. It's clear to me that gay conjugal relationships are disordered. From a philosophical point of view, what should make a thing legal or illegal? And now that we're headed down this slope at breakneck speed, what is the justification for gay marriage that does not also justify polygamy for example? Seems that line is always arbitrary or subjective. Grounded in nothing at all, or if it's grounded in something, it closely resembles Hedonism or some brand of relativism. And those are extremely problematic unless you're prepared to defend some pretty gross atrocities and human rights violations.

---

That's one of the things that Alan Keyes addresses. If gender and sex are just arbitrary, and marriage is just arbitrary then they don't really exist insofar as they have no meaning. If the value of an inch changes based on the prevailing view of the person measuring, everything becomes impossible.