Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage nationwide

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
Promoting stability in families and households can be achieved without promoting marriage as well.
I don't think this is the case anyway. Unless you're referring to the group of people who can't afford to pay for the divorce so still remain married but are completely separated and dating new people. Not sure that's really stability.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,468
If it were merely a religious institution and conferred no benefits from the government, I doubt atheists would care. It would be like an atheist saying they wanted a relationship with Jesus Christ right now. Don't see them clamoring for that, because it confers no benefits from the government.

And there are other ways to deal with the property rights issues.
I think you are missing a lot of huge benefits from marriage that come from neither religion nor the law.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,468
Why would atheists care if it were purely a religious institution?

And the government doesn't need to promote procreation. Males do that all on their own. Promoting stability in families and households can be achieved without promoting marriage as well.
if you're talking about marriage, from day one,I believe the beginnings of marriage, the concept of marriage, came from a desirefor things like monogamy, stability, and lineage.

making a quasi-public commitment to a partnerand to the foundation of a family,is a big deal.having it institutionalized, even beyond religious ramifications, are part of the motivations of keeping that foundation stable.

it is easy to say nowthat we could have the same end result without the institution of marriage, but that's because it is so ingrained in our consciousness. but without it, without that very concept, I believe how we procreate, how we partner, and how we raise children would look much much differenton both the macro and micro levels.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,468
I don't think this is the case anyway. Unless you're referring to the group of people who can't afford to pay for the divorce so still remain married but are completely separated and dating new people. Not sure that's really stability.

it has been demonstrated in study after studythat children R much better offwhen raised within a family structure that contains a mother figure and a father figure specifically. children grow up to be much more well adjustedin that type of environment.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
it has been demonstrated in study after studythat children R much better offwhen raised within a family structure that contains a mother figure and a father figure specifically. children grow up to be much more well adjustedin that type of environment.
No question. I just don't think the government should have anything to do with keeping that commitment between a married couple together. In certain ways it has tried to do this by making divorce something that is difficult to attain (Lengthy waiting periods and such). At least for me I'm not talking about getting rid of marriage. I'm saying that government shouldn't be involved in that business at all. Let private institutions handle it instead. Religious institutions are just an example.

I think we all know that the Government isn't going to back out of having their hands in people's private lives, so this is really just a philosophical discussion at this point.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
No question. I just don't think the government should have anything to do with keeping that commitment between a married couple together. In certain ways it has tried to do this by making divorce something that is difficult to attain (Lengthy waiting periods and such). At least for me I'm not talking about getting rid of marriage. I'm saying that government shouldn't be involved in that business at all. Let private institutions handle it instead. Religious institutions are just an example.

I think we all know that the Government isn't going to back out of having their hands in people's private lives, so this is really just a philosophical discussion at this point.
Marriage is an interesting institution because it's so ubiquitous throughout all of humanity. As much as the familial concept itself. Really we think of government or religion defining marriage, but marriage predates both of them.

I think the hard thing is we currently associate marriage with the certificate as much as the ceremony. Having a piece of paper from the government that says so makes it 'official'. I think we have grown increasingly dependent on recognition from some type of authority in the last few generations.
 

peplaw06

Brand New Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
294
if you're talking about marriage, from day one,I believe the beginnings of marriage, the concept of marriage, came from a desirefor things like monogamy, stability, and lineage.

making a quasi-public commitment to a partnerand to the foundation of a family,is a big deal.having it institutionalized, even beyond religious ramifications, are part of the motivations of keeping that foundation stable.

it is easy to say nowthat we could have the same end result without the institution of marriage, but that's because it is so ingrained in our consciousness. but without it, without that very concept, I believe how we procreate, how we partner, and how we raise children would look much much differenton both the macro and micro levels.
It's a circular argument.... People think marriage now is an institution for the entire population because it always has been.

But if it were just limited to a religious thing (or another type of private institution), then there would be some substitute. Perhaps those outside the religions who instituted marriage would use civil unions from whatever private entity they deemed appropriate. Monogamy and stability and lineage could all be promoted without marriage... just the fact that marriage has been tied to those things does not mean those things would be undesirable without marriage.

The commitment isn't even that big of a deal. People get divorced all the time. I know I have seen studies that say that those who get married are more likely to get divorced than those who are in long-term monogamous relationships are likely to split. Waiting periods have been instituted by the law to try to discourage divorce, but I don't think that deters most people.

People who cohabit develop their own stability, and once you intertwine two lives, it takes work to unravel it. Even if it's not a divorce, oftentimes they have to separate bank accounts, debts, property, etc. Those things don't just magically appear once a couple gets married. It's not like those tho are unmarried who have kids and their names on shared stuff have a much easier time than those who are married and decide to get divorced.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
I think the hard thing is we currently associate marriage with the certificate as much as the ceremony. Having a piece of paper from the government that says so makes it 'official'. I think we have grown increasingly dependent on recognition from some type of authority in the last few generations.
This is definitely true. It is interesting that benefits are bestowed on people for getting that marriage certificate. I mean why exactly does a military member who is married deserve more money then one who isn't? Why is someone with a certificate allowed to be on another person's insurance but a person who doesn't isn't? That whole concept seems arbitrary to me.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
This is definitely true. It is interesting that benefits are bestowed on people for getting that marriage certificate. I mean why exactly does a military member who is married deserve more money then one who isn't? Why is someone with a certificate allowed to be on another person's insurance but a person who doesn't isn't? That whole concept seems arbitrary to me.
It definitely is. Honestly I think we've based too many things on the (defunct) nuclear family concept. Not everyone's closest relationship is a spouse or blood relative. It'd be nice for everyone to just be able to have designated people in their life, without the need for a specific preapproved role.

I was single in the military for 7 years so the benefits of married military was stuck in my craw for a long time.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
This is definitely true. It is interesting that benefits are bestowed on people for getting that marriage certificate. I mean why exactly does a military member who is married deserve more money then one who isn't? Why is someone with a certificate allowed to be on another person's insurance but a person who doesn't isn't? That whole concept seems arbitrary to me.
It isn't arbitrary at all. Being married generally speaking entails more overhead and expenses at the conventional level. The requirements (proof) of marriage had been entrenched into this economic system for many years because historically it has been thought of by business and society at large to be one of the most stable groups. That obviously has evolved in the last few decades as the societal make up has changed. My generation as example has witnessed more changes in this country than any other and it has not been easy to witness some areas that for decades were accepted as the norm. Saying all this is an introduction to explain that marriage was the stock and trade for centuries and to be validated as such some certification process almost demanded by business, trade, etc., to substantiate this status. Licensing was an apparent way of doing this and it is so entrenched that it is virtually impossible to validate the status without government involvement. As to why does a married GI need more money, simply because there are others who are part of his service sacrifice and need and that being family and dependents. This may seem to be a diatribe but there are lots of reasons to have a system to validate status and almost all rely on governmental systems to do so. You can say that you can take government out of the car ownership business as an example but try to encompass all the things that are entailed in owning a car and it becomes obvious you cannot operate on without being validated by government.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
As to why does a married GI need more money, simply because there are others who are part of his service sacrifice and need and that being family and dependents.
I think married folks in the military have the benefit of having all the rules made by other married folks. Enlisted military is just one of the most miserable jobs in the country. Married people are miserable for the same reason single people are miserable.

Recognizing one as more special or deserving of reward because of their relationship status is God damned insulting to everyone else.

Especially since they at least have some form of human contact and consistency in their lives.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
I think married folks in the military have the benefit of having all the rules made by other married folks. Enlisted military is just one of the most miserable jobs in the country. Married people are miserable for the same reason single people are miserable.

Recognizing one as more special or deserving of reward because of their relationship status is God damned insulting to everyone else.

Especially since they at least have some form of human contact and consistency in their lives.
The military isn't rewarding him because he/she is married. They recognize married people have costs way beyond a, single GI. Single GIs get free quarters and free food. They live on base for the most part where they can walk a short distance to work just to name a few things. You surley don't think both should be paid the same if a lot of things a single person gets is not available to the married.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
The military isn't rewarding him because he/she is married. They recognize married people have costs way beyond a, single GI. Single GIs get free quarters and free food. They live on base for the most part where they can walk a short distance to work just to name a few things. You surley don't think both should be paid the same if a lot of things a single person gets is not available to the married.
First let me apologize for the very palpable anger I showed there. I still have a deep well of bitterness reserved for the military. (as many vets do I'm sure.)

I did live on base the majority of my time in the military (all but a year out of 7) and let me say, it's the furthest thing in the world from a priveledge. Same with free meals. These are literally amenities offered to convicts, and frankly the level of privacy and respect we get is comparable. Not only that, married military men were perfectly capable of eating on the boat, some chose to, to save money.

Living on Guam I had more than one instance of having my day off interrupted by an E-6 barging into my room and yelling at me because my trash wasn't empty. That's what living on base was, being at work 24-7. Never knowing if you were going to catch the consequences to somebody else's bad day.

When I was training in Great Lakes, as an E-5 I was in a similar circumstance, but worse. Having already served 4 years, I had to share a room that was subject to daily inspection. I literally left my bed made and slept on the top blanket like a prisoner I woke every morning to reveille, even on weekends. Meanwhile married guys who just made their way out of boot camp were given a free house. Women were not allowed inside my room. Civilians weren't allowed inside the barracks building at all (unless they were military wives of course.) Imagine having any kind of relationship during that, it would look a lot like a guy not having any kind of relationship for 18 months.

On Diego Garcia, I met men crafty enough to get married to girlfriends before they left. One guy married someone in New York, so he was given a startling 3000 dollars a month tax free, to pay for her housing. He had been in the military less than a year, and made more than twice as much money as I did. His wife, in the meantime, lived with her mother.

In short, my military experience was often miserable because the military assumed that you were somehow more adult, or more deserving of independence from the military experience if you were married. This was considered more important than actual seniority.
 
Last edited:

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
First let me apologize for the very palpable anger I showed there. I still have a deep well of bitterness reserved for the military. (as many vets do I'm sure.)

I did live on base the majority of my time in the military (all but a year out of 7) and let me say, it's the furthest thing in the world from a priveledge. Same with free meals. These are literally amenities offered to convicts, and frankly the level of privacy and respect we get is comparable. Not only that, married military men were perfectly capable of eating on the boat, some chose to, to save money.

Living on Guam I had more than one instance of having my day off interrupted by an E-6 barging into my room and yelling at me because my trash wasn't empty. That's what living on base was, being at work 24-7. Never knowing if you were going to catch the consequences to somebody else's bad day.

When I was training in Great Lakes, as an E-5 I was in a similar circumstance, but worse. Having already served 4 years, I had to share a room that was subject to daily inspection. I literally left my bed made and slept on the top blanket like a prisoner I woke every morning to reveille, even on weekends. Meanwhile married guys who just made their way out of boot camp were given a free house. Women were not allowed inside my room. Civilians weren't allowed inside the barracks building at all (unless they were military wives of course.) Imagine having any kind of relationship during that, it would look a lot like a guy not having any kind of relationship for 18 months.

On Diego Garcia, I met men crafty enough to get married to girlfriends before they left. One guy married someone in New York, so he was given a startling 3000 dollars a month tax free, to pay for her housing. He had been in the military less than a year, and made more than twice as much money as I did. His wife, in the meantime, lived with her mother.

In short, my military experience was often miserable because the military assumed that you were somehow more adult, or more deserving of independence from the military experience if you were married. This was considered more important than actual seniority.
You may have suffered some undesirable experiences but thats a matter of circumstance. I also served as a single GI so i hear what you are saying but i also understand why there has to be a distinction on how the cost and expenses are allocated.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
You may have suffered some undesirable experiences but thats a matter of circumstance. I also served as a single GI so i hear what you are saying but i also understand why there has to be a distinction on how the cost and expenses are allocated.
I admit that it's especially tough for some military spouses to have a good career when they move where their husband (or wife, in the like one in a million circumstance where she doesn't marry another service member.) Which can frequently cause the couple or family to be dependent on a single income.

Truth be told, I'm glad those benefits were extended to married people. I just wish that single people who are also serving were treated with the same consideration.

In Guam a friend of mine had a girlfriend he lived with, who had to go to the emergency room. He couldn't drive her, because the command would only excuse his absence from PT if it was his wife. (she was a foreign national, so even if they had wanted to get married, he would have to wait several months for a lot of permissions, lest he lose his clearance.) He ended up having to go run a mile and a half while an ambulance took her.

Going full circle back to the gay rights issue. A lot of the gay people I knew had domestic partners that weren't allowed on base. Which is an issue if the military member is overseas for a year and all of her stuff is in her barracks.

So in summation. Everyone in the military deserves the respect married people get. That bullshit certificate, which is frequently signed by people who rush into it, thanks to all the benefits and incentives. Doesn't make someone more worthy of respect than a single service member.

Funny you use the word GI. I certainly plan on using the bill associated with it, but never thought of myself by that term. Maybe it stopped being used so much after GI became the abbreviation for gastrointestinal.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
I admit that it's especially tough for some military spouses to have a good career when they move where their husband (or wife, in the like one in a million circumstance where she doesn't marry another service member.) Which can frequently cause the couple or family to be dependent on a single income.

Truth be told, I'm glad those benefits were extended to married people. I just wish that single people who are also serving were treated with the same consideration.

In Guam a friend of mine had a girlfriend he lived with, who had to go to the emergency room. He couldn't drive her, because the command would only excuse his absence from PT if it was his wife. (she was a foreign national, so even if they had wanted to get married, he would have to wait several months for a lot of permissions, lest he lose his clearance.) He ended up having to go run a mile and a half while an ambulance took her.

Going full circle back to the gay rights issue. A lot of the gay people I knew had domestic partners that weren't allowed on base. Which is an issue if the military member is overseas for a year and all of her stuff is in her barracks.

So in summation. Everyone in the military deserves the respect married people get. That bullshit certificate, which is frequently signed by people who rush into it, thanks to all the benefits and incentives. Doesn't make someone more worthy of respect than a single service member.

Funny you use the word GI. I certainly plan on using the bill associated with it, but never thought of myself by that term. Maybe it stopped being used so much after GI became the abbreviation for gastrointestinal.
Use the benefits afforded you by your military service. It helped me attain two degrees.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
It isn't arbitrary at all. Being married generally speaking entails more overhead and expenses
What? That's not true at all. When you take 2 individuals and give them one dwelling instead of 2. You eliminate a shit ton of expenses and overhead for the 2 people. Nothing about marriage makes life more expensive unless those two people decide they want to make it more expensive.
 
Top Bottom