Current SCOTUS case on DOMA

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Bottom line to all of this is that the family is fundamental to the survival of civilization. Without it, civilization collapses

and turns into chaos. Using excuses like the gay guys can raise a child doesn't equate to marriage. That is not the

same thing and never will be. Until you can have children and continually repopulate the Earth with two men, or two

women, without crawling on the backs of another, this will doom society. At least until there are more sane people

on the planet to stop this stupidity, or as Aldous Huxley's book becomes reality.

 

Call a lifestyle choice whatever you wish, but don't take down the institution of marriage with your moral relativism

and open-mindedness. If you fall for this you might as well give up your guns, also, because the same kind of argument

can be made there, also. 

[Chucktshoes]

I still maintain that the government has no business defining marriage in the first place, let alone subsidizing it with financial or legal benefits. There needs to be a civil domestic partnership instrument for the state to handle and leave "marriage" for the churches to handle. <br /><br />One of the more important legal issues with marriage that gays are after is being legally defined as the "next of kin". A suggestion I recently have seen to handle the legal issues regarding medical decisions, inheritance and property is something called the "designated next of kin". This kind of instrument would be useful for more than just gay couples.

[Oh Shoot]

I still maintain that the government has no business defining marriage in the first place, let alone subsidizing it with financial or legal benefits....

 

Well, since they do and have essentially since the country was founded, that point is moot.

 

I had predicted a good case would come about regarding military benefits, but this one comes close, dealing with federal estate taxes. Could have just as easily been social security benefits that spurred the first one.

 

The federal government makes many financial determinations on the basis of marriage, so there eventually has to be a comprehensive federal decision made regarding what marriage is. And yes, it uses the term "marriage", though could of course amend all acts to simply include the term "civil union" I suppose, if they want to make the distinction.

 

- OS

Edited March 29, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[R_Bert]

In certain aspects, you are correct.  However, I would say that it isn't completely inevitable.  What I mean is that we are not a closed system.  We allow outside ideas and influences, so therefore, there is a chance that some unknown input can correct our issues.  Not likely, but possible.

 

Widen the angle a bit more.

 

As you put it earlier, it is a monarchy. Look at Ephesians 4:17-19.  For a Christ-follower, through scripture, the  King of Kings declared it a closed system (vs 18 "because they have closed their minds"). 

 

They are indeed open to input, only as long as it is agreeable. In that, non-believers have commonality with believers, except believers have foundation by some specifics in the Word (for example 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Not sure where the non-believers get their foundation.  Certainly not Islam, Judaism, or Christianity. 

 

<and wow, Bert can't spell tonight! -edits >

Edited March 29, 2013 by R_Bert

[piercedan]

I see where you were coming from now Bert.  As 6.8 brought up moral relativism, this has a major contributing effect on increased entropy.  Another way to look at it is an increase in entropy for OUR system, but an evolutionary process toward a different system with a corresponding reset to less entropy in the new system.

 

I'm of two minds on this.  As stated above by Chucktshoes, my libertarian view says that government shouldn't be in the business of authorizing or sanctioning marriage, or most other aspects of private citizen's life.  Of course my one sentence doesn't sum all considerations, but you get the idea. 

 

Conversely, as 6.8 also said, marriage has historically been about procreation of the species and partnership in rearing stable and productive members of society.  Changing the family structure is absolutely going to have an effect on the fabric of our society.  Homosexual people raising children will change variables.  I can't (am not qualified to) say it will be harmful, but I can say it has the potential to be.  However you look at it, it is different from normal practice and has the potential for causing issue.  Saying that, any marriage has the potential for causing harm to the children.  One difference I see is that we want our successive generations to procreate and carry on the species.  If we are artificially inflating the non-offspring producing segment of the population, we are short cutting that aspect of the equation.

 

Now, saying all of that, I'll make a crude statement and point out that the more gay men there are in the world, the less competition for heterosexual women.  :0)  Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Oh Shoot]

Now, saying all of that, I'll make a crude statement and point out that the more gay men there are in the world, the less competition for heterosexual women.  :0)  Sorry, couldn't resist.

I spent 9 months in San Francisco in my hippie youth. It was a straight man's nookie paradise.

 

- OS

[Chucktshoes]

I spent 9 months in San Francisco in my hippie youth. It was a straight man's nookie paradise.

 

- OS

As long as you aren't averse to the more hirsute of the female species. :)