U.S. Supreme Court rules on gay marriage

[Ratbert_2008]

Same-sex couples who marry in states where it's legal will now be treated like heterosexual couples by the U.S.

The court said law wrongly "instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/politics/scotus-same-sex-main/index.html​

Mike Huckabee tweet: "My thoughts on the SCOTUS ruling that determined that same sex marriage is okay: "Jesus wept.""

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/26/religious-reactions-to-scotus-decisions/?hpt=hp_c2​

 

[myselftheother]

Same-sex couples who marry in states where it's legal will now be treated like heterosexual couples by the U.S.

The court said law wrongly "instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others." :clap2::clap2::clap2: Finally doing the RIGHT thing. Welcome to the 21st century, America....

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/politics/scotus-same-sex-main/index.html​

Mike Huckabee tweet: "My thoughts on the SCOTUS ruling that determined that same sex marriage is okay: "Jesus wept.""

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/26/religious-reactions-to-scotus-decisions/?hpt=hp_c2​

:doh: Of course the religious throwbacks are not happy. They still like to bugger children the old fashioned way.

 

[bcneil]

:doh: Of course the religious throwbacks are not happy. They still like to bugger children the old fashioned way.

Come on you need to try to understand how religious people try to think.....this is obviously just one step away from people marrying their dog or toothbrush.
Is that what you want!!!! People married to toothbrushes!

 

[BORKO]

Come on you need to try to understand how religious people try to think.....this is obviously just one step away from people marrying their dog or toothbrush.
Is that what you want!!!! People married to toothbrushes!

I think people should be allowed to marry their dog and their toothbrush.

Just means more girls for me.

 

[bcneil]

I think people should be allowed to marry their dog and their toothbrush.

Just means more girls for me.

I think I figured this out when I was around 12. That being gay just meant, he was one less guy to compete against for girls.

It is sad jesus cried, from what I have been told about jesus, he never really seemed to be a sulking crybaby. But Huckabee would know more about him than I do, so I will defer to his expertise.

 

[Smilf]

Mike Huckabee at his best about 8 mins - 35 seconds in .. Wanting to say, congratulations Canada on preserving your national igloo - yeah he's REAL brilliant.

 

[Sleepmonger]

I'll probably be flamed for this but... not everyone who has issues with gay marriage is a bigot, religious nutjob, or homophobe.

On a civil liberties standpoint I'm all for gay marriage. Let them confess their love, show affection in public, have a wedding ceremony, fuck like rabbits, whatever they want... That doesn't bother me one bit.

However, I fail to see how offering gay couples the financial benefits of official marriage benefits society as a whole. It was my understanding that the entire reason these benefits exist was to foster the creation of a financial environment where a couple can begin raising children. Gay couples can indeed raise children, but some quick stats from Wikipedia show that only around 20% of them do raise children, with the majority of those children currently coming from prior hetero marriages; Marriages which I doubt would have come about if their sexual orientation was more publicly acceptable. Conversely, only around 20% of heterosexual couples do NOT raise children... which kind of tells me that the institution of marriage as a financial status is working as intended.

I say let them get "married" but do not allow them to share employment benefits, claim each other as dependants, transfer tax credits, ect, until either the specific couple actually does support children, or the percentage of gay couples raising children comes in line with hetero marriages.

By offering these benefits to those gay couples who have no intention of raising children, the world is saying those two people are more valuable to society than two similarly employed single people, and I just don't see why that would be. I also feel the same way about hetero couples in their 40's + who obviously do not intend to raise children.

 

[BORKO]

I'll probably be flamed for this but... not everyone who has issues with gay marriage is a bigot, religious nutjob, or homophobe.

On a civil liberties standpoint I'm all for gay marriage. Let them confess their love, show affection in public, have a wedding ceremony, fuck like rabbits, whatever they want... That doesn't bother me one bit.

However, I fail to see how offering gay couples the financial benefits of official marriage benefits society as a whole. It was my understanding that the entire reason these benefits exist was to foster the creation of a financial environment where a couple can begin raising children. Gay couples can indeed raise children, but some quick stats from Wikipedia show that only around 20% of them do raise children, with the majority of those children currently coming from prior hetero marriages; Marriages which I doubt would have come about if their sexual orientation was more publicly acceptable. Conversely, only around 20% of heterosexual couples do NOT raise children... which kind of tells me that the institution of marriage as a financial status is working as intended.

I say let them get "married" but do not allow them to share employment benefits, claim each other as dependants, transfer tax credits, ect, until either the specific couple actually does support children, or the percentage of gay couples raising children comes in line with hetero marriages.

By offering these benefits to those gay couples who have no intention of raising children, the world is saying those two people are more valuable to society than two similarly employed single people, and I just don't see why that would be. I also feel the same way about hetero couples in their 40's + who obviously do not intend to raise children.

So, you're saying that no one should get the financial benefits of marriage unless they have kids?

 

[Sleepmonger]

So, you're saying that no one should get the financial benefits of marriage unless they have kids?

That's not exactly what I'm saying but essentually, yeah. What other reason is there for society to value married individuals over single people?

Young couples who do not have children should still be eligible for the benefits as it is statistically likely that they WILL have children in the future, and those benefits help them with get into a financial position where it's possible.

 

[BORKO]

FYI - in BC after living with a partner for 2 years you are entitled to the same rights and privileges as a married couple. If you break up, you are entitled to half the assets of EVERYTHING.

Under BC law - 2 years commonlaw = married = splitting ALL assets (both accumulated during AND prior) down the middle 50/50. In case you didn't know...the financial "benefits" of marriage apply to everyone after you live together for 2 years.

Uhm, I know that, I'm asking him to clarify his opinion?

 

[Sleepmonger]

So what you're saying is that the 20% that do raise children don't deserve financial security or the same rights for custody in case the other is killed or sick?

Where did I say that?

until either the specific couple actually does support children, or the percentage of gay couples raising children comes in line with hetero marriages.

Or that 100% of gay couples don't deserve rights as next of kin for insurance benefits in case of accidental death, last will and testament proceedings or medical affairs that give next of kin authority to make decisions?

I don't see why someone couldn't declare a non spouse as next of kin... I thought that was possible to do under current laws.

 

[Sleepmonger]

FYI - in BC after living with a partner for 2 years you are entitled to the same rights and privileges as a married couple. If you break up, you are entitled to half the assets of EVERYTHING.

Under BC law - 2 years commonlaw = married = splitting ALL assets (both accumulated during AND prior) down the middle 50/50. In case you didn't know...the financial "benefits" of marriage apply to everyone after you live together for 2 years.

Yeah, common law exists in most places, can you extend federally regulated employment benefits, and the like, to commonlaw spouses? Anyways, I'm not saying to deny them the contractual part of marriage.

 

[bcneil]

That's not exactly what I'm saying but essentually, yeah. What other reason is there for society to value married individuals over single people?

Young couples who do not have children should still be eligible for the benefits as it is statistically likely that they WILL have children in the future, and those benefits help them with get into a financial position where it's possible.

So young couples female/male would receive benefits, even if they have no intention of ever having children. But they get benefits because most female/male couples will have kids. While a gay couple with actual kids, would not qualify for benefits, cause not enough gay couples have kids.

:clap2:

 

[Sleepmonger]

So young couples female/male would receive benefits, even if they have no intention of ever having children. But they get benefits because most female/male couples will have kids. While a gay couple with actual kids, would not qualify for benefits, cause not enough gay couples have kids.

:clap2:

I thought I was fairly clear that a gay couple with actual kids should qualify for benefits, but since the majority of couples would NOT have kids it's unfair to couples struggling to have kids, single people, and friends without benefits that live together, to give all gay couples the same benefits as those married couples who are significantly more likely to have kids.

I say let them get "married" but do not allow them to share employment benefits, claim each other as dependants, transfer tax credits, ect, until either the specific couple actually does support children, or the percentage of gay couples raising children comes in line with hetero marriages.

 

[BORKO]

I thought I was fairly clear that a gay couple with actual kids should qualify for benefits, but since the majority of couples would NOT have kids it's unfair to couples struggling to have kids, single people, and friends without benefits that live together, to give all gay couples the same benefits as those married couples who are significantly more likely to have kids.

I think you're still drawing a line there that doesn't need to be drawn...

 

[bcneil]

I thought I was fairly clear that a gay couple with actual kids should qualify for benefits, but since the majority of couples would NOT have kids it's unfair to couples struggling to have kids, single people, and friends without benefits that live together, to give all gay couples the same benefits as those married couples who are significantly more likely to have kids.

So what happens with the hetero couple that received benefits for years and never had kids. Do they pay it back?
Or get a free pass?

 

[Sleepmonger]

So what happens with the hetero couple that received benefits for years and never had kids. Do they pay it back?
Or get a free pass?

Paying it back sounds good

 

[bcneil]

Paying it back sounds good

So you would implement a magic age so to speak like maybe 45.
No kids by then, pay back any benefits they received.

The government could even make a really cool form.
Include a pamphlet on filing for bankruptcy in the same package

 

[Sleepmonger]

So you would implement a magic age so to speak like maybe 45.
No kids by then, pay back any benefits they received.

The government could even make a really cool form.
Include a pamphlet on filing for bankruptcy in the same package

Exactly! I think it would have to be younger, maybe 40. Just so the majority of babies being born to avoid the penalty wouldn't have birth defects... Though they could always adopt.

I think you're still drawing a line there that doesn't need to be drawn...

Agreed, but if someone isn't going to argue against gay marriage from a standpoint that's not completely ridiculous how is it going to stay controversial? If I have to endure news on the "hot topic" every couple of weeks then there had better be a reasonable argument for and against on both sides... even if I have to make one up myself. Hasn't it been debated since 2005 now?

 

[bcneil]

Exactly! I think it would have to be younger, maybe 40. Just so the majority of babies being born to avoid the penalty wouldn't have birth defects.



Agreed, but if someone isn't going to argue against gay marriage from a standpoint that's not completely ridiculous how is it going to stay controversial? If I have to endure news on the "hot topic" every couple of weeks then there had better be a reasonable argument for and against on both sides... even if I have to make one up myself. Hasn't it been debated since 2005 now?

The best argument against gay marriage, was from a christian.
He thought that if a gay couple married....had a kid....that kid could be teased at school by christians against gay marriage.
Therefore harmful for the child, hence a reason gay marriage mustn't be permitted.