Most gay couples probably aren't getting married even now that it's legal

They also think muslim is a race.

- - - Updated - - -

It is sad they had to hijack the legitimate Civil rights movement to dupe people into going along with them.

 

State college grants are Communist.

 

And then... there were TWO!

(Have ya ever wondered how many of 'em leave here where they spend two hours denying science... to go directly the declare that the SKY IS FALLING... because '97% of Government Scientists Agree'?)

 

If you're an anarcho-capitalist I guess...

 

Well then why did you say "It was about liberals pushing thru thier antichristian agenda" ??

Which is irrelevant to the topic of lawful matrimony. It may be a by-product of, but neither the exclusive domain of nor a stipulation thereto.

Also irrelevant to the topic of lawful matrimony.

 

Non sequitur. I was replying to Doom's suggestion that the SSM debate was about "liberals pushing through their antichristian agenda. I have no idea what the hell you think you're replying to.

 

Except that it was religion that inserted itself into marriage. Marriage was originally and still is a political/business contract so why shouldn't the state be involved?

 

No, there's no qualification. You take my money and give it to someone who did not adequately plan for their offspring's education. "From each according to his means; to each according to his needs." Straight out of the Marxist/Communist/progressive/collectivist playbook...

- - - Updated - - -

No, sorry but you're just wrong. The social and cultural institution of marriage long preceeded our modern government.

 

The Constitution gave the government the right to collect taxes and provide for general welfare. The debate is about what and to what extent "welfare" entails. Progressives think it's a basically a free ride to avoid any personal accountability, while others think it should be done to level the playing field.

But the idea that not even individual states have a right to collect taxes isn't in the constitution; the Founders were against taxation without representation, not in favor of the abolition of taxes and government entirely.

 

Sure I'm in favor of that - private individuals and churches can wed whoever they want, but state recognition of the unions should be limited only to the couples who have children.

 

Taxes should be collected to provide for the necessary and appropriate functions of government only. You are a Communist/Marxist/progressive/collectivist if you believe taxation should occur to "level the playing field" as you have suggested above.

Nor have I argued anything even remotely resembling this preposterous misassertion. I must ask again - is it weed or crack? Or both?

 

You say that, perhaps, because you are peeved the reality that advanced, predominantly Christian nations have embraced gender equality in their marriage laws, and that progress remains anathema to theocratic, Islamic regimes, but that is the reality, nonetheless.

 

Where did I say you said anything?

All is supporting statements and by extension, relevant.

 

General welfare is an appropriate function - state governments have decided that incentivizing marriages and procreation in a stable environment leads to better welfare, so I'd say it's perfectly valid and in line with the Constitution. Keeping the playing field level is meritocracy, as opposed to trying to trying to make the outcome equal regardless of merit (which is closer to the mindset behind much of the gay rights movement).

 

YOU said SSM was "not about gays," but about "the left pushing its antichristian agenda." Those are your words, dude.

No, the only things relevant to lawful matrimony are those specifically reflected in the law as pertinent to consenting adults freely associating and choosing of their own free will to avail themselves to the civic franchise. But nice try.

 

For several hundred years gays weren't allowed to marry... and you expect the numbers of gay marriages to just skyrocket overnight?

Anyone got a sociology degree, to credibly explain why that's not likely?

Good sense tells me that things won't change overnight.

 

I would be extremely careful hanging your hat on the General Welfare Clause. Unless you don't mind being told what kind of light bulbs you can buy, how much soda you can drink, how many bullets you can put in your gun, and how many MPG your Prius must attain. Better, in my view, to embrace the "you break it you buy it" schema. If you are going to make babies, it is your responsibility to house, clothe, feed, and yes - educate them. NOT MINE. The more you allow your government to do for your "benefit" (or state benefit as you like to call it), the less free you will be. Free men do not need government involved in their personal lives, nor do you need to ply me with a tax break to get me to put my penis in a nice, warm vagina - nature and human instinct have that all covered. It's called the "3 Fs" and I'm sure you've heard of them: fighting, fleeing, and reproducing. These are the three things that all humans are most concerned with at our instinctual cores. We don't need no damn gubmint involved.

 

most couples don't get married, true story

 

Procreation is completely irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

So Christians weren't affected then. Glad we could clear that up.

- - - Updated - - -

Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

 

Nope...

 

My take on this is that the left used gay marriage as just one more attack on conservative values. It really doesn't matter what it is, so long as it's an attack on conservative values. In this instance, it's about marriage.

Why don't gays get married? Probably because it's a stupid idea to begin with. Archie and Edith will still get married, but the idea of turning their marriage into a farce was just too juicy a target not to go after.

It's about people that hate and despise those things that average Americans value. They hate America so they will continue to go after everything they can in order to turn the whole country into a laughing stock. It doesn't matter if it's education and turning college students into simps or christmas or going to a bar after work for a few beers before heading home.

They see America and despise everything that says "America". Marriage is just one of a whole slew of things they hate.

 

demonstrable fact

 

Aka cultural Marxism - applying Marx's economic theories to social institutions (ex. with "rich, white, straight Christian male" taking place of Marx's concept of bourgeoisie). I do think a lot of people on the left support gay marriage more because think think that "conservative Christians" hate it than anything else.

 

Yep, nothing more anti-America than equality under the law!

 

It's not equality if it's not based on merit.

The 14th Amendment wasn't meant to equate regulating activity between sexes with discrimination based on race.

Using the gay marriage argument then one could argue that seperate bathrooms or prison cells for men and women is also discrimination, that's why I think it's a big contortion of what the 14th Amendment was intended to mean.