Supreme Court to Decide Whether Gays Nationwide Can Marry

[greg775]

The idea that the government should not interact in the least with the existence of marriage is just silly. From tax purposes to hell, immigration, it's kinda important. Should the government not recognize that if one member of a family receives a lawful immigration status the spouse should be able to accompany them?

 

Should the government not grant immunity against testifying against a spouse?

 

Come on.

Tax purposes? Just move to Kansas where you'll be sales taxed higher than people in any other state and traated like crap unless u are a rich business owner (I guess there are some here).

 

Back to the issue. Great day for America. I like the post about this being just a piece of paper issue though. We do need to tackle security/economic issues. Our country is a mess. You can be killed at any moment going to church or a mall. And you can be bankrupt in the blink of an eye if you have a medical problem.

[Balta1701]

And you can be bankrupt in the blink of an eye if you have a medical problem.

We've changed this for a whole lot of people. That decision came down yesterday.

[RockRaines]

It's strange to me how many people cannot grasp the difference between the ruling today and the government dictating morals. You still have the right to be a closed minded biggot if you want to.

[Big Hurtin]

It's strange to me how many people cannot grasp the difference between the ruling today and the government dictating morals. You still have the right to be a closed minded biggot if you want to.

Wait, so I don't have to marry a dude? Phew.

[Jenksismyhero]

That was fast

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/201...po#.VY3IBPlViko

[RockRaines]

Wait, so I don't have to marry a dude? Phew.

You also don't have to be in favor of it morally. Shocking, I know.

[pettie4sox]

Wait, so I don't have to marry a dude? Phew.

 

LMAO, I think some people actually believe it's contagious.

[NorthSideSox72]

That was fast

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/201...po#.VY3IBPlViko

This may sound odd, but I do actually agree that this is something to consider. Polygamy is a social construct too.

 

People's fears with it mostly act in a similar way to fears about prostitution. That the act itself if people are truly consenting is one thing, but the reality is that each often tend to come with lots of other very dangerous freight. Abuse of various kinds. So do you prevent the institution entirely, or do you try to enforce on the bad acts.

 

This may indeed be the next battlefield. Not because it is the same, but because it begs some of the same questions, albeit it with more complicated answers.

 

[Jake]

There are so many aspects to the polygamy argument that I really don't know what to think of it. It is indeed difficult to argue against it without making arguments that could easily be confused for anti-gay marriage or similar concerns. Interestingly, polygamous marriages/relationships do indeed have clear connections to at least the biblical era (in scripture) and probably before.

 

I think the recent debate has seemingly codified marriage as 1. romantic and 2. dyadic. With that said, it isn't as if there have been explicit arguments about why it needs to be dyadic, it's just that that aspect wasn't the one people wanted to be reconsidered. I think a lot of the sympathy for SSM is the knowledge that we are almost all bound to want romantic relationships, but not everyone is hardwired to want those with the opposite sex. I think we already acknowledged that people can want multiple romantic partners, but that one of the main points of marriage was to narrow it down to two people. With that said, it isn't as if two has always been the number or promoting fidelity was always the intention (or is always the intention now).

 

SSM was found unconstitutional because any two people could enter into this partnership, except they couldn't. Some dyads couldn't due to an arbitrary characteristic (gender), which many now recognize isn't as cut-and-dry as we'd like to think anyway. More important was the aforementioned natural sexual and emotional urges that nearly every single person feels, though not always towards the same gender. I think we also feel and acknowledge a general urge toward at least sexual relationships with numerous people, but see that as an undesirable trait for society.

 

My immediate reaction is that I don't support it, but I'm sure there is a ton of argument to be had about it if there really is will for it. I'm not ardently opposed.

[greg775]

That was fast

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/201...po#.VY3IBPlViko

I never thought of it, but that is also an interesting topic. Why shouldn't polygamy be legal? It's a fair question. I think it probably should be legal. If consenting males and females are OK with that arrangement, why should the government dictate against it?

Edited June 28, 2015 by greg775

[Y2HH]

I never thought of it, but that is also an interesting topic. Why shouldn't polygamy be legal? It's a fair question. I think it probably should be legal. If consenting males and females are OK with that arrangement, why should the government dictate against it?

 

Because marriages are rewarded by the tax code as an incentive for building a stable family as to raise children who will grow up in an environment that makes them productive which fosters the idea they will do the same. Whether that actually happens is another question. Not to mention this countries aversion to sex unless in commercials and movies, and the high ground morals everyone in positions of power pretend to have, which of course explains our disproportionately high divorce rate...

 

I think I covered everything but I'm on my phone right now.

[greg775]

Because marriages are rewarded by the tax code as an incentive for building a stable family as to raise children who will grow up in an environment that makes them productive which fosters the idea they will do the same. Whether that actually happens is another question. Not to mention this countries aversion to sex unless in commercials and movies, and the high ground morals everyone in positions of power pretend to have, which of course explains our disproportionately high divorce rate...

 

I think I covered everything but I'm on my phone right now.

No offense, but some people think two members of the same sex having sex is immoral as well. The moral thing shouldn't matter. I'm in favor of gay marriage and polygamy. Why not? The tax thing is weak argument IMO. If a guy wants to have 4 wives, why not if the wives agree? If a woman wants 6 husbands, why not if the dudes agree?

[Y2HH]

No offense, but some people think two members of the same sex having sex is immoral as well. The moral thing shouldn't matter. I'm in favor of gay marriage and polygamy. Why not? The tax thing is weak argument IMO. If a guy wants to have 4 wives, why not if the wives agree? If a woman wants 6 husbands, why not if the dudes agree?

 

It's clear you didn't understand my post.

[StrangeSox]

On Roberts' flop when citing the "ancient" traditional marriage in various societies

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-m...justice-roberts

[Rex Kickass]

This was a great result from a supreme court decision that was eventually going to happen. Unfortunately, in over half the states in the United States, I can still be fired, not hired, or not be allowed to buy or rent a house or apartment because I'm gay. Frankly, I wasn't as worried about being married as I was about having my ability to remain employed protected for being the person that I am.

[greg775]

This was a great result from a supreme court decision that was eventually going to happen. Unfortunately, in over half the states in the United States, I can still be fired, not hired, or not be allowed to buy or rent a house or apartment because I'm gay. Frankly, I wasn't as worried about being married as I was about having my ability to remain employed protected for being the person that I am.

Is that true? You can be fired for being gay? Isn't it like age discrimination? If you can PROVE you were fired for being gay, don't you win a huge huge lawsuit??

[StrangeSox]

No, not in most states.

[Balta1701]

Is that true? You can be fired for being gay? Isn't it like age discrimination? If you can PROVE you were fired for being gay, don't you win a huge huge lawsuit??

We would need to specifically add sexuality to the list of protected classes for that to happen. It is not currently there. Here are the reasons why you cannot fire someone or deny them housing currently:

Federal law makes it illegal for most employers to fire an employee because of the employee's race, gender, national origin, disability, religion, genetic information, or age (if the person is at least 40 years old). Federal law also prohibits most employers from firing someone because that person is pregnant or has a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth.

Sexual orientation is not on that list. If you're a landlord in one of the many states that has not filled in the gap, you can deny people housing or force them to move out because they're gay, you could fire someone for being transgendered if you're an employer.

 

This is another which it would be nice to fix, so hopefully you'll be on our side and write your representatives about how unfair that is.

[Jenksismyhero]

We would need to specifically add sexuality to the list of protected classes for that to happen. It is not currently there. Here are the reasons why you cannot fire someone or deny them housing currently:

Sexual orientation is not on that list. If you're a landlord in one of the many states that has not filled in the gap, you can deny people housing or force them to move out because they're gay, you could fire someone for being transgendered if you're an employer.

 

This is another which it would be nice to fix, so hopefully you'll be on our side and write your representatives about how unfair that is.

 

Be sure to add in that list obesity. That's the next horizon.

[Balta1701]

Be sure to add in that list obesity. That's the next horizon.

Should people be able to be fired for being too fat?

[Jenksismyhero]

Should people be able to be fired for being too fat?

 

I think so. Physical demands of the job would be an issue.

 

Of course I think people should be allowed to fire anyone for any reason. But we've been over that before.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Jenksismybitch

[cabiness42]

Should people be able to be fired for being too fat?

 

I didn't get fired for being fat, but I got denied a promotion. My boss flat out told me that I didn't get a promotion because fat people are too lazy to succeed at the next level.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think so. Physical demands of the job would be an issue.

 

Of course I think people should be allowed to fire anyone for any reason. But we've been over that before.

 

Eh, physical requirements for a job have repeatedly been called OK.

 

I didn't get fired for being fat, but I got denied a promotion. My boss flat out told me that I didn't get a promotion because fat people are too lazy to succeed at the next level.

 

Well that's awful.

 

[southsider2k5]

The interesting junction comes with health care costs and health insurance now being mandatory, how concerned should employers be able to be with their employees overall health? Since they are literally being forced to pick up a piece of the cost of their employees, should they have a say in the health of who they hire?

[Jenksismyhero]

Eh, physical requirements for a job have repeatedly been called OK.

 

 

 

Well that's awful.

 

 

I mean don't get me wrong, it's s***ty that people do that over dumb, arbitrary reasons, but when it comes down to it your boss could tell you that you're ugly or you have red hair or you smell funny or you aren't positive enough and demote/fire you for that reason and it's 100% legal. Realistically what's the difference between that and you being a Muslim, or a woman or black or whatever. We can keep coming up with protected classes, but we'll be at it a long time.

 

edit: and obviously at various times in history those protections were necessary because society at large basically agreed and approved of the discrimination against X type. In 2015, that's not really the case.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Jenksismybitch