Gay Marriage now legal throughout the US

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

why would i argue to legalize immorality?

Define morality.





There are still outdated blue laws on the book prohibiting blowjobs in some states.

ORAL SEX my man.

 

[Eastside Get The Money]

I'm still convinced anyone worried about gay money is without a doubt a closet homosexual. But like dude before me said more important things to worry about than some people you don't know getting married

 

[Osman]

I remember reading this article years ago, and it still resonates with me to this day because it is just so damn compelling. Just thought I'd share it.

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.

Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

you know something I'm so sick of this shyt f*** can legally get married but yet no marijuana legalization there is no justice f*** this country once again.

Yeah. So since we can't own automatic weapons, there is no justice for groundwater pollution legislation or the right to unionize?

Why can't the anti-gay crowd stop bringing up things that are LITERALLY different issues as if they're too stupid to stay on track?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I remember reading this article years ago, and it still resonates with me to this day because it is just so damn compelling. Just thought I'd share it.

on this accord, barren couples or one with an infertile spouse should lose their right to legally marry.

This also assumes you'll have more gay people than you already do.

People are ALREADY GAY AND COHABITATE.

Also, polygamy is a DIFFERENT issue. The number of marriage participants has nothing to do with the ability to get married between two people.

 

[Osman]

Yeah. So since we can't own automatic weapons, there is no justice for groundwater pollution legislation or the right to unionize?

Why can't the anti-gay crowd stop bringing up things that are LITERALLY different issues as if they're too stupid to stay on track?

i presume you like men?

 

[Kenny West]

Did you ever think they do it because for so long they weren't able to?

You have to stop thinking of everything as an encroachment but rather see it as expression on THEIR half.

Until about 30 years ago, they didn't have many legal protections MERELY because of what they did IN PRIVATE.

Thats like saying you got treated like shyt, had poor jobs, no housing protections, and couldn't join the military because you liked to eat oatmeal at breakfast instead of eating cereal.

could yall do a pro gay argument without doing a asinine "that's like....." comparison

and if it were me in your example, i just wouldn't join the military

 

[Chrishaune]

What about the fracking though?

You might as well talk about nuclear proliferation or something.

Anti-gay people stay trying to trivialize one issue because they merely don't like it.

It seems to me that today's actions is to lessen the blow of yesterday's by the court. What are you going to say when you can't vote at the booth?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

i presume you like men?

What sort of ad-hominem is that?

Do you have to be black to support anti-miscegenation laws? Do you have to be gay to support equal access to marriage?

 

[Lord Beasley]

Define morality.





There are still outdated blue laws on the book prohibiting blowjobs in some states.

ORAL SEX my man.

breh, im gonna have concede. i said immorality but then i got to thinkin. naked movies were once considered wrong and i watch them sh!ts at least once a week

i saw a man propose to another man in the airport like 2months ago. it being the first time i've ever seen something like that, it shocked the hell outta me. but thinking back on it i realized "who did they hurt?" they're happy, they're friends are happy, and even tho i dont agree with it i'd dap em up if they were my friends

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

It seems to me that today's actions is to lessen the blow of yesterday's by the court. What are you going to say when you can't vote at the booth?

Its two different matters.

The court heard arguments on DOMA LAST SUMMER.

They just revealed their rulings today.

And the problem is that SCOTUS didn't want to enforce something that unfairly is applied to all states. They weren't trying to get into that quagmire. its up to congress to fix it. I think the ruling is a little fukked up, but they do have a point.

 

[FrederickDouglas]

2. Man and his dog? Beastiality? No. Thats a consent issue. Until you can demonstrate that a dog CONSENTS to having sex with you, i'm against it.

So we can kill and eat animals without their consent, but we can't fukk 'em?

 

[the next guy]

Its two different matters.

The court heard arguments on DOMA LAST SUMMER.

They just revealed their rulings today.

And the problem is that SCOTUS didn't want to enforce something that unfairly is applied to all states. They weren't trying to get into that quagmire. its up to congress to fix it. I think the ruling is a little fukked up, but they do have a point.

damn straight

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

breh, im gonna have concede. i said immorality but then i got to thinkin. naked movies were once considered wrong and i watch them sh!ts at least once a week

i saw a man propose to another man in the airport like 2months ago. it being the first time i've ever seen something like that, it shocked the hell outta me. but thinking back on it i realized "who did they hurt?" they're happy, they're friends are happy, and even tho i dont agree with it i'd dap em up if they were my friends

Thats the point.

You ain't got to like it, or agree with it. But why LIMIT their access to it?

There is tons of shyt I don't like or am not attracted to, but we shouldn't get in the habit of LEGISLATING AGAINST IT merely for that reason.

 

[Will Ross]

What sort of ad-hominem is that?

Do you have to be black to support anti-miscegenation laws? Do you have to be gay to support equal access to marriage?

Stop trying to compare race with someones choice to live a lifestyle. Your only real arugment for gay marriage is you don't like Relilgion.