Adam and Steve- Here we go again

[Guvnah]

@fallenturtle

There should be evidence that they are trying. If you can’t make a baby, marriage dissolved.

The desperation for a rabbit hole is strong in this one, Obi.

[Guvnah]

@Paul_Thomson

How would a couple cheat the system? What benefits does the system offer married couples without their own children ?

More rabbit hole.

From a governmental context, there should be no benefits granted to a couple (whether married or not, whether civilly or religiously.) Our culture has changed. Marriage is no longer the de facto supplier of replacement population. It comes from both married and unmarried couplings. Likewise, both married and unmarried couplings are as likely to be childless as fecund. And a legal marriage is as dissoluble as a pro basketball contract today.

In today’s culture, at the governmental level, we already grant benefits and privileges at the “child” level, regardless of the marital status (or even the commitment status) of the parents.

I’m with you that we would be better off as a society if we returned to societal value of permanent marriage and raising the next generation within such marriages. The oppositional force against that structure is simply too embedded in the culture today for that effort to succeed. (Today.)

[Jezcoe]

@Paul_Thomson

@Jezcoe

@sikofit

How about we just have 1 standard for everyone?

That seems like the reasonable thing to me.

Yes. People who can potentially bear children together can get married regardless of race, religion and sexual status.

Others can write up whatever contract they want formalise their relationship and joint goals in a civil union.

All government marriage is a civil union.

[WuWei]

@Paul_Thomson

@WuWei

@Paul_Thomson

Some post menopausal women in history have conceived.

No.

Yes. Sarah wife of Abraham.

I knew it. Nothing says she was post menopausal and that was a miracle.

[Jezcoe]

@JayJay

@Guvnah

@sikofit

Then it wouldn’t be government sanctioned. God doesn’t play into the laws of our country

Which is why I separated things into two categories.

And I talked about conflation, which is precisely what your replies are now doing.

I have no problems with churches refusing to provide gay couples a religious ceremony within their churches.

Me neither.

Churches are not required to conduct any ceremony that they do not want to.

The argument that they will be forced to is a red herring.

[Jezcoe]

@Guvnah

@Jezcoe

When candidates are talking about revisiting same sex marriage or the AG of Texas saying that he would defend an anti sodomy law…people should listen.

You previously:

@Jezcoe

I dont think that that is going to happen.

You know it, yet you sound like you need to be riled up for some reason.

I wish I could help you with that.

I was talking about overturning Loving.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

The argument that they will be forced to is a red herring.

Ectopic

Loving

[sikofit]

@Guvnah

From a governmental context, there should be no benefits granted to a couple (whether married or not, whether civilly or religiously.) Our culture has changed. Marriage is no longer the de facto supplier of replacement population. It comes from both married and unmarried couplings. Likewise, both married and unmarried couplings are as likely to be childless as fecund. And a legal marriage is as dissoluble as a pro basketball contract today.

I agree with all of that

[fallenturtle]

@Paul_Thomson

@fallenturtle

There should be evidence that they are trying. If you can’t make a baby, marriage dissolved. If this is going to be a special privilege for only those who can have kids, we need to make sure people aren’t cheating the system.

I never said “only those who can have kids”.

I said assuming the perfect health of both persons, they could potentially produce a baby together.

If they can’t have kids, why do they deserve to keep their civil marriage?

[fallenturtle]

@Paul_Thomson

@fallenturtle

There should be evidence that they are trying. If you can’t make a baby, marriage dissolved. If this is going to be a special privilege for only those who can have kids, we need to make sure people aren’t cheating the system.

How would a couple cheat the system? What benefits does the system offer married couples without their own children ?

By not having children be it voluntarily or because they can’t. There are a bunch of legal benefits.

Did you want to offer something special to those who can have kids different what what civil marriage grants?

[fallenturtle]

@Guvnah

@fallenturtle

There should be evidence that they are trying. If you can’t make a baby, marriage dissolved.

The desperation for a rabbit hole is strong in this one, Obi.

I’m just working through @Paul_Thomson’s proposal. If you don’t want to participate, no one is forcing you.

[fallenturtle]

@Guvnah

@Paul_Thomson

How would a couple cheat the system? What benefits does the system offer married couples without their own children ?

More rabbit hole.

From a governmental context, there should be no benefits granted to a couple (whether married or not, whether civilly or religiously.) Our culture has changed. Marriage is no longer the de facto supplier of replacement population. It comes from both married and unmarried couplings. Likewise, both married and unmarried couplings are as likely to be childless as fecund. And a legal marriage is as dissoluble as a pro basketball contract today.

In today’s culture, at the governmental level, we already grant benefits and privileges at the “child” level, regardless of the marital status (or even the commitment status) of the parents.

I’m with you that we would be better off as a society if we returned to societal value of permanent marriage and raising the next generation within such marriages. The oppositional force against that structure is simply too embedded in the culture today for that effort to succeed. (Today.)

Is there any measurable harm to continuing civil marriage as it is today?

[fallenturtle]

I often find myself waffling on the whole gay cake situation. I feel there needs to be a compromise somewhere. Perhaps creative services could be partially excluded. Like you can’t refuse to make a basic wedding cake for a gay couple but you can’t be forced to decorate that cake with a custom design that says “homos-4-evar!” or “illegal immigrants are erasing western culture!”.

[Jezcoe]

@fallenturtle

I often find myself waffling on the whole gay cake situation. I feel there needs to be a compromise somewhere. Perhaps creative services could be partially excluded. Like you can’t refuse to make a basic wedding cake for a gay couple but you can’t be forced to decorate that cake with a custom design that says “homos-4-evar!” or “illegal immigrants are erasing western culture!”.

There was a case like that. A guy went to buy a cake that had anti gay messaging on it and the baker said that she would sell hum the cake but wouldn’t write those messages herself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/01/22/this-colorado-baker-refused-to-put-an-anti-gay-message-on-cakes-now-she-is-facing-a-civil-rights-complaint/

The Civil Rights Division of Colorado came to the conclusion that the Baker would have refused the request regardless of creed so the person lodging the complaint of religious discrimination based on his particular brand of Christianity was not discrimination.

Which I think is a good middle ground. Masterpiece Cake could have baked the cake and sold it but could have left the decoration up to someone else.

[Liberty323]

@fallenturtle

@Liberty323

Times change. Society is different now. The left likes to act as if conservatives are constantly trying to get us back to the 1950’s (or 1850’s) but y’all are being duped.

Are you trying to gas light us? The time they fondly look back on may vary from issue to issue, but they certainly want us to go back in certain aspects. Be it the halcyon days of post-war white middle class family life before it was ruined by feminists and no-fault divorce, or before the Supreme Court signed off on the income tax, or some other thing.

Heck, its implied with MAGA.

There are a lot of cat ladies who are all alone and might have a different take on feminism and no-fault divorce. There are also future generations of spinsters who will join them. It’s not only “The Evil White Men” who lament where we are as a society.

[Guvnah]

@fallenturtle

@Guvnah

The desperation for a rabbit hole is strong in this one, Obi.

I’m just working through @Paul_Thomson’s proposal.

Nonetheless … The desperation for a rabbit hole is strong in this one, Obi.

[Guvnah]

@fallenturtle

Is there any measurable harm to continuing civil marriage as it is today?

Allowing it? No harm.

Giving benefits to it? Society gets nothing in return, so it’s a waste of government resources.

I already said this earlier.

[Jezcoe]

@Guvnah

@fallenturtle

Is there any measurable harm to continuing civil marriage as it is today?

Allowing it? No harm.

Giving benefits to it? Society gets nothing in return, so it’s a waste of government resources.

I already said this earlier.

I contend that society gets great return in providing legal protections for marriage for $100 or less.

In order to remove these protections there has to a case made that it would be a net benefit to everyone.

I just don’t see how that case can be made.

[Guvnah]

@Jezcoe

I contend that society gets great return in providing legal protections for marriage for $100 or less.

Individuals benefit

Society gets nothing for it.

[Jezcoe]

@Guvnah

@Jezcoe

I contend that society gets great return in providing legal protections for marriage for $100 or less.

Individuals benefit

Society gets nothing for it.

Society is made up of many individuals.

How does removing access to a ton of legal protections that can be obtained for $100 or less be a net benefit?

Any legislation that would do this would be called the “The Estate Lawyers Full Employment Act of 20XX”