On the topic of Gay marriage, there are three cases to consider, Government; Religion, Society:

Governments cease to exist if they don't have citizens, so they have a vested interest in supporting and subsidizing heterosexual marriages that result in children being born, which allows the country to continue to exist; Gay people can't have children so Gay marriage makes no sense as a function of the government.

Religion is pretty clear on it's rules and you can't change them, that's what makes it a religion. You could vaguely argue that liberalism is a religion of it's own with it's own belief structure (multiculturalism), god (equality), devil (Hitler), and churches (universities); so there you go, make your own religion if you want that justification, no need to force Christianity to change.

Society recognizes and (ideally) respects heterosexual marriage because again, having kids is what keeps the country and society alive, it's non-optional. There's nothing uniquely respectable about a sexual relationship on it's own, if you have or adopt kids then there's something to respect; So society in general has no reason to legitimize Gay marriage.

Before anyone says it, yes this does mean that I don't see any point in a guy and girl getting married if they don't want/ can't have kids, that's the entire point of marriage.

On the topic of Gay marriage, there are three cases to consider, Government; Religion, Society:

Governments cease to exist if they don't have citizens, so they have a vested interest in supporting and subsidizing heterosexual marriages that result in children being born, which allows the country to continue to exist; Gay people can't have children so Gay marriage makes no sense as a function of the government.

Religion is pretty clear on it's rules and you can't change them, that's what makes it a religion. You could vaguely argue that liberalism is a religion of it's own with it's own belief structure (multiculturalism), god (equality), devil (Hitler), and churches (universities); so there you go, make your own religion if you want that justification, no need to force Christianity to change.

Society recognizes and (ideally) respects heterosexual marriage because again, having kids is what keeps the country and society alive, it's non-optional. There's nothing uniquely respectable about a sexual relationship on it's own, if you have or adopt kids then there's something to respect; So society in general has no reason to legitimize Gay marriage.

Before anyone says it, yes this does mean that I don't see any point in a guy and girl getting married if they don't want/ can't have kids, that's the entire point of marriage.

I didn't know you have to get married to have kids.

OT: This will tip the Judicial Branch into the liberal side.

Good riddance conservatives.

On the topic of Gay marriage, there are three cases to consider, Government; Religion, Society:

Governments cease to exist if they don't have citizens, so they have a vested interest in supporting and subsidizing heterosexual marriages that result in children being born, which allows the country to continue to exist; Gay people can't have children so Gay marriage makes no sense as a function of the government.

Religion is pretty clear on it's rules and you can't change them, that's what makes it a religion. You could vaguely argue that liberalism is a religion of it's own with it's own belief structure (multiculturalism), god (equality), devil (Hitler), and churches (universities); so there you go, make your own religion if you want that justification, no need to force Christianity to change.

Society recognizes and (ideally) respects heterosexual marriage because again, having kids is what keeps the country and society alive, it's non-optional. There's nothing uniquely respectable about a sexual relationship on it's own, if you have or adopt kids then there's something to respect; So society in general has no reason to legitimize Gay marriage.

Before anyone says it, yes this does mean that I don't see any point in a guy and girl getting married if they don't want/ can't have kids, that's the entire point of marriage.

Monogamous marriages, regardless of sex, are preferable for producing working, tax paying adults.

Orphans are a thing.

Therefor it's in the state's and society's interest to promote committed monogamous relationships, regardless of sex.

Quote from: Septy on February 13, 2016, 10:04:26 PM

I didn't know you have to get married to have kids.

You don't, the purpose of marriage is to make having kids easier but it is optional, bastard.

lol

What do you mean by preferable?

It is the preferable situation for kids.

If the majority of Gay marriages were about adopting orphans that would be a fair point, but that begs the question of if Gay adoption is a good alternative to what we have now.

Alternative to what?
Gays being allowed to adopt doesn't take away from others ability to adopt, right now there are plenty of kids without homes that aren't being taken up by heterosexual couples.

That I can agree with, monogamous relationships are better for society, but you'll have to go a step further to justify Gay marriage over a Gay relationship.

Marriage as it stands exists to strengthen the bond of a monogamous relationship to legal status, creating greater mutual obligation and more difficult exit. Barring a group from that, especially if you want couples to be staying together longer, is counter-productive.

Good riddance.

Quote from: Decimator Omega on February 14, 2016, 03:29:19 PM

Good riddance.

Even if you dislike every opinion he wrote, he's still been a huge influence on government for the past thirty years.

Nothing of value was lost.

Quote from: Cadenza on February 14, 2016, 01:14:04 AM

What do you mean by preferable?

It is the preferable situation for kids.

You said "for producing working, tax paying adults."

Quote

If the majority of Gay marriages were about adopting orphans that would be a fair point, but that begs the question of if Gay adoption is a good alternative to what we have now.

Alternative to what?
Gays being allowed to adopt doesn't take away from others ability to adopt, right now there are plenty of kids without homes that aren't being taken up by heterosexual couples.

Alternative to the current system of adoption; if a Gay couple adopts a child then another couple or family member cannot adopt that child, so it's up to you and other advocates to make the case that Gay marriage is a viable method for raising orphans and that it is significantly better than other methods of raising orphans. Furthermore that does imply that a Gay couple that isn't going to adopt orphans has no justification for getting married.

Quote

That I can agree with, monogamous relationships are better for society, but you'll have to go a step further to justify Gay marriage over a Gay relationship.

Marriage as it stands exists to strengthen the bond of a monogamous relationship to legal status, creating greater mutual obligation and more difficult exit. Barring a group from that, especially if you want couples to be staying together longer, is counter-productive.

And the purpose for strengthening that bond is to help with raising children. If you don't want children then marriage isn't for you, use a different method for strengthening your relationship instead of trying to force a system to cater to a group of people that it was never meant to cater to.

Considering almost 1/3 of married couples don't have a child, the original purpose you are bringing up now is practically non-existent. Especially when the system is showing support for that 1/3 and is steadily rising. I'm not saying the nuclear family is bad, but that time is coming to a close. Keep in mind that this has been on the rise since the end of the 50's "Traditional America".

Quote from: Cadenza on February 14, 2016, 05:53:59 PM

And the purpose for strengthening that bond is to help with raising children. If you don't want children then marriage isn't for you, use a different method for strengthening your relationship instead of trying to force a system to cater to a group of people that it was never meant to cater to.

Two thirds of married couples have children, that's double the amount that don't, and yet you're trying to say they don't even exist? that doesn't make any sense at all.

As for the trend, what's your point? that liberalism continues to be a failure of an ideology?

I didn't say they don't exist, I said the original purpose behind the system supporting marriage doesn't.

Quote from: Cadenza on February 14, 2016, 09:02:36 PM

Two thirds of married couples have children, that's double the amount that don't, and yet you're trying to say they don't even exist? that doesn't make any sense at all.

And the original purpose clearly does exist given that the majority of married couples have children. You said this yourself.

What exactly is being failed?
As for the trend, what's your point? that liberalism continues to be a failure of an ideology?

"Ending Traditional America" for starters.

Your reply format is annoying to deal with.

Obama had him killed.

Quote from: PSU on February 15, 2016, 12:19:58 AM

Obama had him killed.

This is Serious.

im being serious

Sucks, but the guy was a fucking scumbag.

Yeah man, it sucks that he defended your right to face your accuser in criminal proceedings, burn the flag and not be punished under unclear laws.

What a fucking scumbag.

Scalia as himself [. . .] was a scumbag

That's even less convincing. Not only is it ludicrous to try and consider him as an individual distinct from his role as a justice--since that pretty much defines anybody's life after occurring--but here is a man who was capable of putting political differences aside for the sake of fulfilling relationships with people as far away from him as Christopher Hitchens, has been a defining character in the development of jurisprudence and studying the constitution and who was able to rule as he thought the constitution demanded he rule as opposed to how his personal opinions would have him rule.

"Oh should we allow child abusers and pedophiles to be protected now?"

The point he was making was that it's not up the Supreme Court to determine which minorities deserve protection. He brought up paedophiles to illustrate the point, calling them "a deserving minority" precisely because nobody loves them and how much outrage it would cause if the situation were altered.

Do I agree gay marriage should be legal? Of course, but it's not the job of the Court to make it so.

Good riddance.

"It's okay if people die, so long as they disagree with me".