SCOTUS, Hilary and Same Sex MarriageFollow

Dear God of Man.

I bet his rehab doctor was gay. Then he "discovered they were real people, just like you and me. A little different, but still good hard-working Americans, only wanting the best, blah blah families striving something..."

Either way I'm sure it's a good story.

Well, I said "rule", not "right", but whatever. Um... If I marry a woman who has children of her own, I don't automatically become the legal guardian of her children upon her death. I have to adopt them. Just like anyone else. Just like the partner of a lesbian would have to.



No. It's a special right you're asking for because you want a same sex partner who we all know isn't the biological parent of a child to automatically be considered as so. There are legal processes for adoption of a child, or joint guardianship, that do not require marriage. That's the direction that is open to gay couples just as it's open to any other two people. Thus they are treated equally under the law in this regard.



Um... That's the point. The marriage status ceases to perform the function it currently does, and becomes something any two people can (and should) enter into based on convenience and benefit. Which is precisely the argument for *not* doing this. By extending the status to same sex couples, you eliminate the procreative angle, and thus have no reason to limit it in any real way. It becomes a "goodie" handed out by the government rather than an incentive to be responsible with regards to procreation.



I disagree (to the last bit). There's nothing preventing people from spending their lives together, whether they are a sexual active couple or not. The issue is that some sexually active couples will produce children as a consequence of that sexual activity, and it's in the states interest to get them to marry prior to doing so. Thus, the state creates a legal status with a marriage contract attached so as to encourage those couples to marry. The state doesn't care if gay couples marry, so there's no reason to provide benefits to them if they do so.

I just think that most people can't get past the assumption that marriage *is* the benefits and the status. It's not. It's the relationship between the two people. The legal status is a recognition of the relationship, a formalization of a three party contract (with the state being a party), and a set of benefits to provide people a reason to marry under that contract instead of one they just came up with themselves. You have to look at the history of legal marriage to understand that this is the case. Ask yourself why many states have common law marriage. Then ask why that's never been applied to two people of the same sex.

Step outside your assumptions about the issue and you might just realize that what I'm saying not only make sense, but is the far more logical way of approaching the issue.

Does it? I'm reasonably certain that the members of the court (most of them anyway) are smart enough to know the difference between a relationship between two people and a state status and the attendant benefits. That doesn't preclude examining what social impact the existence of that status has, or how it's perceived importance may influence things, but I doubt they're actually confused that they're both the same thing. In kinda the exact way that they're smart enough to know that qualifying for the legal status of "handicapped" isn't what makes someone handicapped. It's a status we apply to people who *are* handicapped and for whom we determine some set of benefits are needed.

What's next? People aren't carpooling unless they're actually driving in the carpool lane? You don't have a mortgage unless you get a mortgage deduction? Things are what they are, even when the government doesn't place its stamp on them. Shocking that in a supposedly free society so many people don't get this.

Yeah, he should copy and paste the same points verbatim like you do.

Hey, he never said that they were GOOD arguments, just that they are the arguments that are being used!

Ignoring the fact that the only reason they are being used is because if they just came out and said "gays are icky" and "homosexuality is a sin" then they really wouldn't have a case. So they have to do their little gymnastics to try and make it about something else when it's really not.

I also love how my arguments are "tired and discredited", and yet they're the same ones currently being used to argue the case in question.

Really? Your arguments are identical to conservative establishment talking points? How shocking. How do you think they found out about your novel approach to this? I mean, probably it was like Newton and Leibniz discovering Calculus at the same time independently, right? Well, more like Olivia Newton John and Mannheim Steamroller both discovering the ********* way to generate music independently, but you get the idea.

I think eating insects is icky and gross, despite all the arguments that they are nutritious (okay), tasty (if you say so), and abundant (can't argue with that.)

I'm always going to think eating bugs is gross and I want no part of it. But you don't see me out there crusading to have insect eating banned. It causes me no harm and no one is making me eat them. If people want to spend their food stamp money on insects should they ever become available, it's not my place to tell them how gross I think it is. If insect farmers want to claim farm subsidies, as many farmers do in the US, then more power to them.

I don't care of my tax dollars go toward something I personally think is distasteful (that has not been proven harmful) as long as I'm not required to participate in it.