Why I support SSM, for my conservative friends.

[ford_prefect42]

On my last post, a lot of people made the completely valid point that SSM is a serious erosion of the institution of marriage. Specifically, it moves the focus of the institution from procreation and continuity of inheritance and makes the institution of marriage about "love". Romantic "Love" being a notably fickle beast, one can reliably predict

Comments

[baron_waste]

No good options, so pick the least bad one. That's SSM.

That's America, really, when you look at history.  We've always been inefficient, whacking it together any way that works because we'd seen what attempts at “efficiency” had produced and the cure is far worse than the disease.  [The 20th century had no shortage of examples, thanks to socialism in its various malign forms.  Yeah, I gotcher plan right here…]

That's why I favor same-sex marriage despite being a Republican - because I'm a Goldwater Republican, a Reagan Republican, and I believe that people should mind their own business and be free to do so.

Edited to add:

On the other hand, the institution of ten thousand years is not overthrown
in a day, even by unelected unaccountable democracy-short-circuiting
court order - I have a lesbian friend who is “married” to the woman
she's living with, and I say it that way (tho' never to her!) because I see
it that way, as make-believe, not real grown-up milepost-in-life marriage.
[I mistyped that male-believe, which is not

[haikujaguar]

because I see
it that way, as make-believe, not real grown-up milepost-in-life marriage.

I think this will happen a lot more than SS marriage folks will want.

[mosinging1986]

That's why I favor same-sex marriage despite being a Republican - because I'm a Goldwater Republican, a Reagan Republican, and I believe that people should mind their own business and be free to do so.

Tell that to the people who've lost their jobs/businesses due the bullying of the Rainbow Crowd.

[baron_waste]

… Why?  Assuming you could produce any valid literal examples, why would I bother, and why would they be at all interested in my opinion?

Seems rather a pointless undertaking.

[djpsyche]

The reason the Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage was a no-brainer was because it is a clear violation of the Constitution's guarantee of equal treatment under the law. If a state enacts laws giving Person A the right to form into a legally binding contract with Person B which confers certain privileges with respect to their relationship, it is unconstitutional for that state to place restrictions on the genders of Persons A and B. The Supreme Court is concerned with constitutionality, no other factor.

And I still cannot understand how declining to discriminate against one group hurts another group. That makes no sense whatsoever.

[chess]

It's not 'declining to discriminate' that hurts the other group - it's 'enforcing that they aren't allowed to discriminate either'.

See: florists, bakers, adoption agencies etc.

(Although some people are also complaining it indirectly hurts them due to weakening the moral fibre that holds society together, or something.)

[mosinging1986]

It's not 'declining to discriminate' that hurts the other group - it's 'enforcing that they aren't allowed to discriminate either'.

See: florists, bakers, adoption agencies etc.

This nonsense of "discrimination" drives me nuts.

There were no homosexual individuals "discriminated" against. Period.

You show me where a homosexual was not served in any of those businesses that were sued.

Even if that were so, which it isn't, businesses discriminate all the time! Have you never seen "No shirt, no shoes, no service" signs on a door? Ever heard of a club that turns away non members? Ever hear of a restaurant that has a dress code?

Businesses discriminate all the time. But again, that's not what even happened in these cases.

(Although some people are also complaining it indirectly hurts them due to weakening the moral fibre that holds society together, or something.)Of course it does. Once marriage is changed to mean, in effect, "Whatever you wish", social anarchy will reign. It's the entire upending of the social order

[baron_waste]

On the other hand, “Express Checkout, 20 Items or Less” is not binding; the cashier cannot refuse to check your purchases out no matter how many or few you have.  It's more in the nature of a request, not a directive.  Quite likely the “no shirt” signs are the same, tho' I've never heard of it being tested.

[mosinging1986]

The institution of het marriage is pretty much dead as the central societal institution at the broad societal level.That's an assumption that I don't know is correct. I don't know all the numbers, but people do still get married and stay married

[ford_prefect42]

"That's an assumption that I don't know is correct."

Actually, it's not an assumption, it's a conclusion that I reached. I understand if you reach a different one.

For the rest of it, Yeah, I know what you mean. however, I don't see a better remedy to the issues than to follow this rabbit hole.

[mosinging1986]

Well, even given that it's correct, it doesn't help to toss out the whole thing just because some people don't use it.

[prester_scott]

I definitely agree with this point of yours: SSM is just one step in a long journey that started long ago. I can trace it back not just decades, but centuries. Yes, there have been notable eruptions in the 1930's, '60s, '90s, and it looks like we're due for another soon, for which the Obergefell decision was the starting gun; each one building upon and exceeding the last. It goes back much further than that under the surface though: philosophical fault lines that weakened the foundations of our civilization

[kharmii]

Without having enough knowledge of my own religion, unfortunately, every instinct tells this every bit of this comment is true. It's exciting to see someone put it down in words.

[ford_prefect42]

I agree that most people aren't considering the eternal. Including myself. Most people, at this point, myself included don't really have much belief IN the eternal at all. How would your position on this issue be different if you honestly believed that there were no god, and that when you die, all that happens is, you rot

[prester_scott]

I thank you for the compliment and for your kind and respectful treatment in all you've said in these few posts of yours. I hope that I have been no less than respectful to you. I take your position and your worldview seriously. In fact, that's what I want to write more about

[farchivist]

If Congress had ever bothered to recognize civil unions/domestic partnerships performed by a state and granted them same 1500+ federal benefits given to marriage, it probably would have never been an issue. And that's always been the kicker - the federal benefits of marriage. *shrugs* Always look at the money.