SCOTUS: states cannot ban same sex marriage

[Hutch Starskey]

Do you tolerate the very hetero deviant behavior that brought homosexuals to acceptance? Where are the deviant heteros taking your freedoms? Why do you choose gays to make your stand rather than the deviant heteros who caused this all in the first place? Why has this court decision inspired you all to action? Why did you make so many cakes without question for the deviant heterosexual?

I'll tell you why. Because it's all
bullshit.

You don't believe in freedom in any sense of the word.

I do. Just not in your sense.

No, not in any sense.

If I own a bakery, should I be allowed to not serve a gay wedding?

Not if the PA laws in your state say you must.

I understand what the law says. This isn't an issue of law, this is an issue of freedom. You are claiming you support personal freedom. Yet you support laws that prohibit free association.

The difference in our points of view I think is simple. Your side sees the PA laws as discriminatory toward Christians who wish to deny service to those they feel morally conflicted with. Fine. You take a principled stand that I can understand. My side believes the law is the arbitor and not faith.
I believe your position is wrong for only one reason. Our society follows the rule of law and not the rule of any one citizen's understanding of morality given by their God.
I don't see this as an affront to your religious beliefs as much as I see it as deferring to those who don't share your beliefs. The public sphere must be secular and generic. Freedom of religion allows all viewpoints and exercise of faith. Just not in public affairs.
How can the law properly ejudicate if it were allowed to consider the concerns of every faith all of the time? It couldn't. That would be a mess. The only realistic way of doing it is not to hold religious beliefs above the rights of the individual. Does that make sense?

 

[Syriusly]

Well it's clearly not a viable economic option, nor is apparently working at min wage. Cutting off all welfare is not... an acceptable solution in my mind. We are a wealthy enough country to help folks in need of help out. There needs to be limits of course, and perhaps stronger limits than we have now. However, that does /nothing/ to address the underlying problem that mothers today cannot handle the supervision of their child(ren) while working, it does not address the fact that fathers are abandoning their children and dodging child support. Again, the process of shaming the single parent is not working, and I'll agree neither is just throwing money at them for eternity; we need to find a different method.

The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms, children, and the society as a whole.

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate
.

Divorce Rates Lower in States with Same-Sex Marriage - US News

On July 24, New York will join the league of states that allow gay marriage. Meanwhile, demographic data show that this group is already united in another significant way: lower-than-average divorce rates. Interesting, but does this mean that same-sex marriages in New York will last longer? Are the two characteristics even related? Perhaps, as data show that factors like education level and marriage age tend to be related to both a state's divorce rate and its stance on same-sex marriage.

According to provisional data from the Census Bureau and the Centers for Disease Control's National Vital Statistics System, 5 of the 10 states, plus the District of Columbia, with the lowest divorce rates per thousand people (of the 44 states, plus D.C., that had available data) are also among the nine jurisdictions (a group that includes eight states and the District of Columbia) that currently perform or recognize gay marriages. Of course, states with more marriages naturally have more chances for divorce. But the trend also holds up when one looks at divorces as a share of marriages. In states that recognize or perform gay marriages, the number of divorces in 2009 was 41.2 percent of the number of marriages. In the 36 other states for which 2009 data are available, it was 50.3 percent. Remove the outlier Nevada, the state with by far the lowest divorce rate by this metric (16.3 percent), likely due in part to Las Vegas's status as a wedding hotspot for out-of-state couples who may get married there but divorced elsewhere, and the figure jumps to 53.2 percent.

 

[Syriusly]

Well it's clearly not a viable economic option, nor is apparently working at min wage. Cutting off all welfare is not... an acceptable solution in my mind. We are a wealthy enough country to help folks in need of help out. There needs to be limits of course, and perhaps stronger limits than we have now. However, that does /nothing/ to address the underlying problem that mothers today cannot handle the supervision of their child(ren) while working, it does not address the fact that fathers are abandoning their children and dodging child support. Again, the process of shaming the single parent is not working, and I'll agree neither is just throwing money at them for eternity; we need to find a different method.

The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms, children, and the society as a whole.

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate

Capitalism(the private ownership of the means of production), does not cause women to have sex out of wedlock.

Same-sex divorce rate lower than heterosexual couples

SINCE May 2008 just nine civil unions pledged between members of the same sex as an alternative to marriage have been terminated in the ACT.

It is a 1.1 per cent failure rate with 799 gay unions performed in the capital during the period.

In the same period there were 8711 marriages and 6965 divorces granted in the ACT.

Adjunct Associate Professor of Clinical Psychology at the University of Canberra Amanda Gordon said a straight comparison was not possible as the heterosexual divorce rate would include those married prior to 2008.

According to the Bureau of Statistics, the median length of marriage before separation in the ACT was 9.4 years with most couples divorcing almost 13 years after saying ''I do''.

But the probability that a traditional marriage will end in divorce is about 33 per cent.

Dr Gordon said early indications showed that gay couples were staying together longer. She attributed this to the lack of expectation to getting hitched and the conscious decision to do so.

''There are very few [terminations] because people have thought it through very carefully and understand the implications. … they are actually thinking very hard about the significance and importance of making it work.''

She said many people who were married in the traditional way had less commitment to the whole idea of marriage. ''They didn't have to work for it, if you like. If it ends they can do it again.''

As equality occurs, Dr Gordon said the gay marriage and divorce rate could well mirror heterosexual marriage.

''If homosexual couples slip in to marriage the way we do then I think you will find the same level of distress in a relationship as other people … these figures go some way to prove that if you put hard work into a relationship you can make it work, because these relationships have lasted the five-year distance in a way that is different to traditional marriages,'' she said.

''They don't take it for granted.''

 

[Syriusly]

Well it's clearly not a viable economic option, nor is apparently working at min wage. Cutting off all welfare is not... an acceptable solution in my mind. We are a wealthy enough country to help folks in need of help out. There needs to be limits of course, and perhaps stronger limits than we have now. However, that does /nothing/ to address the underlying problem that mothers today cannot handle the supervision of their child(ren) while working, it does not address the fact that fathers are abandoning their children and dodging child support. Again, the process of shaming the single parent is not working, and I'll agree neither is just throwing money at them for eternity; we need to find a different method.

The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms, children, and the society as a whole.

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate
.

This is my third example of Gay couples having lower divorce rates than straight couples- just to respond to Stein's allegations.
Do Gays Have Lower Divorce Rates Than Straights The Dish

The most recent evidence from the UK Office of National Statistics finds that homosexual couples that joined in 2005 were significantly less likely to have filed for dissolution four years later than heterosexual couples were to have filed for divorce: 2.5% compared to 5.5%. As Hattersley points out, however, male couples were much less likely to dissolve their relationship than were female couples: By the end of 2010, 1.6 % of male civil partnerships had ended in dissolution compared to 3.3 % of female partnerships.

 

[Syriusly]

Do you tolerate the very hetero deviant behavior that brought homosexuals to acceptance? Where are the deviant heteros taking your freedoms? Why do you choose gays to make your stand rather than the deviant heteros who caused this all in the first place? Why has this court decision inspired you all to action? Why did you make so many cakes without question for the deviant heterosexual?

I'll tell you why. Because it's all
bullshit.

You don't believe in freedom in any sense of the word.

I do. Just not in your sense.

No, not in any sense.

If I own a bakery, should I be allowed to not serve a gay wedding?

Not if the PA laws in your state say you must.

I understand what the law says. This isn't an issue of law, this is an issue of freedom. You are claiming you support personal freedom. Yet you support laws that prohibit free association.

Then your problem is the Public Accommodation laws.

Feel free to lead the charge to end Public Accommodation laws- it will be a bold Conservative move to suggest ending the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

 

[Syriusly]

Since gay people are not heterosexuals, I do not see how they affect heterosexual norms. There are also straight couples that have open relationships.

I can't help you if you can't see that the liberalization of sexual norms amongst heterosexuals led to greater toleration of homosexuality amongst significant segments of the heterosexual population.

Not 55% of heterosexual couples.

I don't see what is wrong with having tolerance for them. I really do not understand your objection. You can't go back in time.

I don't see why I should tolerate their deviant sexual behavior(which includes the aforementioned open relationships and high rate of HIV, at 20%), or the overall sexual revolution in general. So I don't understand your support for these lifestyles.
CDC 20 of Gay Men Are HIV-Positive but Nearly Half Don t Know It TIME.com

Social norms shift overtime. Societies go through cycles, from more religious to less so, from more conservative to less so. Societies historically do not go in a linear but instead a cyclical manner.

Well you don't really have to. Just don't associate with them.

Also, I don't really "support" a lifestyle. I support equal rights and privileges for all American citizens because that is what I was raised to believe America stands for.

Not associating with them isn't really an option, you can face very severe legal and financial consequences for refusing to associate with homosexuals, .

As an individual you can not associate with anyone- because they are black or Jewish or Mormon or gay.

But- as a business owner- in states with public accommodation laws- you cannot refuse to serve someone because they are black or Jewish or Gay or Mormon.

If following business laws is too much of a burden for you, you may not want to be in business.

 

[Syriusly]

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals are intertwined, we share a society after all, that is far more interconnected than ever before through social and mass media. It is the hyperliberalization of heterosexual sexual behavior that led to a social climate. The idea there isn't a connection or heterosexuals and homosexuals are isolated and don't share a culture that includes sexual norms is incorrect. It is changing heterosexual norms, and decline in traditional values, that led to toleration of homosexuality among a significant section of the population(not flyover country though where all those hicks live) . Same sex marriage further erodes the idea of conjugal marriage, detaching marriage and sex from procreation in the larger culture. It isn't that homosexuality has wrought a social decline, but toleration and social and political normalization of this anti-social behavior is a manifestation of the decline.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate

Capitalism(the private ownership of the means of production), does not cause women to have sex out of wedlock.

Since gay people are not heterosexuals, I do not see how they affect heterosexual norms. There are also straight couples that have open relationships.

I can't help you if you can't see that the liberalization of sexual norms amongst heterosexuals led to greater toleration of homosexuality amongst significant segments of the heterosexual population.

Not 55% of heterosexual couples.

I don't see what is wrong with having tolerance for them. I really do not understand your objection. You can't go back in time.

I don't see why I should tolerate their deviant sexual behavior(r.

For the same reason I have to tolerate your deviant social attitude.

 

[Syriusly]

The fact remains that religious dogma is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

And it's a fact of law that public accommodations measures in no way 'violate' freedom of association or religious liberty.

Last, public accommodations laws are just, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

I don't care what some geriatrics in black robes say. Forcing a business to serve anyone for any reason violates free association and forcing someone to act against their religious conscience violates the free exercise of their religion.

A court can say up is down and black is white, but it doesn't make it so.

That's too funny. Who cares what you think of the Supreme Court justices in their black robes? Their opinion matters. Yours? Not so much.

They can make their proclamations, and are certainly more powerful than me. They have the guns of the state to back up their views, I don't. But it doesn't change that forcing someone to act against their religious conscience or forcing them to associate with those they don't want to violates freedom of religion and free association.

Again, no one is being forced to go against their religion. The Bible doesn't say baking a cake is a sin.

Participating in a ceremony that celebrates a sin is a sin. As I said, read 1 Timothy 5:22, don't share in the sins of others.

Baking a cake is not a ceremony or participating in a ceremony- but if as a business owner, you have a problem complying with the law because of your religious beliefs, you should either change the law- or get out of business.

Can't refuse to serve Hindu's just because Hindu's live in sin because they worship a false god.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You're 24??!! Holly crap! You don't have much in common with the majority of your peers. That's for sure. Get with it old sport. We are not going back to a society of bigotry and exclusion . Get real dude>>>>Gezeee

Most of my generation are brainwashed idiots that dont have their shit together on any level. They are in prolonged adolescence with shit jobs that just parrot what social media tells them. But not all of us are like this thankfully, a good amount are disgusted by the pc direction of our society.

Its funny how you boomers try to stay young and relevant. The 60s are over old man, and you aren't far away from the grave, and your degeneracy(your "open relationship" and advocating for corporate social fads like gay marriage) won't keep you from it despite what you think.

I might be close to the grave, but you are already in the grave, morally and socially speaking. I am relevant and you are an anachronism in your own time. If you think that we will go backwards to a society that closets homosexuality you are seriously delusional.


At the core of every argument against same sex marriage is the attitude, a belief that gay folks are fundamentally different than other people. There is a refusal to acknowledge the fact that they are real people with real lives and responsibilities and problems like everyone else.

Opponents of equality talk about tradition, about religion, about the law, about procreation, and oh yes, the sex….they love to talk about the sex as though that was all that gay folks do. They bloviate about how kids need a mom and a dad, but cannot explain how banning same sex marriage will result in more children having a traditional home, why that is important, and reject the fact-indeed will not discuss the fact-that denying gays the right to marry harms children.

They promote inane slippery slope to polygamy, incest, bestiality and whatever without any rational basis or logical argument. However, they can never ever talk about the fact that these are human beings who are profoundly affected by discrimination and the denial of the rights and benefits of marriage. They can only deal with the subject using abstract concepts and logical fallacies. If they dare to humanize the subject, even they might come to see how stupid their arguments are and that’s what they fear the most.

And they love to talk about racial equality and how race is different than sexual orientation, as though by doing so they can claim some moral high ground. The fact is that these are people who have a need to hate. In their own self loathing they need to see themselves as better, as more worthy than someone else. My guess is, that the people who claim to be against racial discrimination but who hate gays are the same people who- a couple of decades ago before gay rights came to the forefront- were segregationists, but knowing that they can’t get away with that any longer, have chosen a new target for their bigotry.

No I am not an anachronism. Civilizations rise and fall, and go through periods of decadence and degeneracy. This linear version of history of the progressive, of "social progress", doesn't bare itself out. Social degeneracy and hyperliberalism does not last for long, they are the last gasps of a dying society. A example in a state of anomie, one of nihilism and atomization. The US wont last forever, this liberal global order if you call it that wont sustain itself financially and socially in the long run. You are on the wrong side of history if you look at any empire, and make no mistake, America is an empire. When this economic and social order collapses, people will revert to more traditional values sets, they always do.

The fact is, those in my generation who hold these nihilistic views only hold them because that is what media and school tell them to do. If right wingers, conservative, christians, traditionalists, whatever you want to call us, controlled the institutions, they would agree with us. 90% of people are complete followers and follow the cultural memes of the institutions. Also, a good percent of people my age don't agree with pc, they just don't care or fear repercussions. The true believers are very few in number.

It is pitiful that you had to live a life abandoned from tradition, in order to keep a false sense of youth, with your cuckold "open relationship". You aren't young in spirit or relevant. You are a holdover from the 60s who time is coming to an end. Your views are just a flash in the pan as far as civilization goes. Right wing traditionalism, nationalism, faith, blood and soil are the human state are the natural state of man. Your rebellion against the natural order will not succeed.

Homosexuals are not like heterosexuals, as the HIV numbers, the sexual partner count, the open relationship rate, the meth use rate indicate. They simply aren't the same, and are not "equal". This sounds nice, but it isn't the reality of the situation.

How can you oppose polygamy or incestuous marriage. If they are all consenting adults, and marriage is a right, who are you to deny them this right and on what grounds?

Did I say anything about opposing polygamy and incest?

You said it was an inane slippery slope to suggest marriage rights for polygamists and incestuous couples. You brought it up to begin with.

So you support the right to marry for polygamists and incestuous couples?

To say that it is stupid to suggest that it is a slippery slope is saying just that and nothing but that. It is not taking a stand on it either way. It has nothing to do with the argument for or against gay marriage. And for the record, YOU brought it up.....are you already having memory problems at 24 years old.?

 

[Steinlight]

I don't care what some geriatrics in black robes say. Forcing a business to serve anyone for any reason violates free association and forcing someone to act against their religious conscience violates the free exercise of their religion.

A court can say up is down and black is white, but it doesn't make it so.

That's too funny. Who cares what you think of the Supreme Court justices in their black robes? Their opinion matters. Yours? Not so much.

They can make their proclamations, and are certainly more powerful than me. They have the guns of the state to back up their views, I don't. But it doesn't change that forcing someone to act against their religious conscience or forcing them to associate with those they don't want to violates freedom of religion and free association.

Again, no one is being forced to go against their religion. The Bible doesn't say baking a cake is a sin.

Participating in a ceremony that celebrates a sin is a sin. As I said, read 1 Timothy 5:22, don't share in the sins of others.

Baking a cake is not a ceremony or participating in a ceremony- but if as a business owner, you have a problem complying with the law because of your religious beliefs, you should either change the law- or get out of business.

Can't refuse to serve Hindu's just because Hindu's live in sin because they worship a false god.

It is participating in the ceremony, the cake is an extension of the baker, the product of their labor, same with the florist and their floral arrangement. It is also forced participation when you are forced to use your property, say a private chapel, to host a gay wedding. This violates free association and freedom of religion, the latter being previously guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

I am aware of what the law is now, the law violates the basic principle freedom of association, a common law principle that has existed for centuries in Anglo-Saxon world.

It is a shame for those that claim to support the idea "live and let live", that they can't let those who disagree with them alone and use the power of the state to prosecute them. Then again, this aggressive anti-social behavior is not a surprise given who we are dealing with.

 

[Steinlight]

You don't believe in freedom in any sense of the word.

I do. Just not in your sense.

No, not in any sense.

If I own a bakery, should I be allowed to not serve a gay wedding?

Not if the PA laws in your state say you must.

I understand what the law says. This isn't an issue of law, this is an issue of freedom. You are claiming you support personal freedom. Yet you support laws that prohibit free association.

The difference in our points of view I think is simple. Your side sees the PA laws as discriminatory toward Christians who wish to deny service to those they feel morally conflicted with. Fine. You take a principled stand that I can understand. My side believes the law is the arbitor and not faith.
I believe your position is wrong for only one reason. Our society follows the rule of law and not the rule of any one citizen's understanding of morality given by their God.
I don't see this as an affront to your religious beliefs as much as I see it as deferring to those who don't share your beliefs. The public sphere must be secular and generic. Freedom of religion allows all viewpoints and exercise of faith. Just not in public affairs.
How can the law properly ejudicate if it were allowed to consider the concerns of every faith all of the time? It couldn't. That would be a mess. The only realistic way of doing it is not to hold religious beliefs above the rights of the individual. Does that make sense?

Do you oppose rape?

 

[Steinlight]

The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms, children, and the society as a whole.

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate
.

Divorce Rates Lower in States with Same-Sex Marriage - US News

On July 24, New York will join the league of states that allow gay marriage. Meanwhile, demographic data show that this group is already united in another significant way: lower-than-average divorce rates. Interesting, but does this mean that same-sex marriages in New York will last longer? Are the two characteristics even related? Perhaps, as data show that factors like education level and marriage age tend to be related to both a state's divorce rate and its stance on same-sex marriage.

According to provisional data from the Census Bureau and the Centers for Disease Control's National Vital Statistics System, 5 of the 10 states, plus the District of Columbia, with the lowest divorce rates per thousand people (of the 44 states, plus D.C., that had available data) are also among the nine jurisdictions (a group that includes eight states and the District of Columbia) that currently perform or recognize gay marriages. Of course, states with more marriages naturally have more chances for divorce. But the trend also holds up when one looks at divorces as a share of marriages. In states that recognize or perform gay marriages, the number of divorces in 2009 was 41.2 percent of the number of marriages. In the 36 other states for which 2009 data are available, it was 50.3 percent. Remove the outlier Nevada, the state with by far the lowest divorce rate by this metric (16.3 percent), likely due in part to Las Vegas's status as a wedding hotspot for out-of-state couples who may get married there but divorced elsewhere, and the figure jumps to 53.2 percent.

That doesn't mean anything. That survey doesn't delineate between homosexual and heterosexual couples.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate
.

Divorce Rates Lower in States with Same-Sex Marriage - US News

On July 24, New York will join the league of states that allow gay marriage. Meanwhile, demographic data show that this group is already united in another significant way: lower-than-average divorce rates. Interesting, but does this mean that same-sex marriages in New York will last longer? Are the two characteristics even related? Perhaps, as data show that factors like education level and marriage age tend to be related to both a state's divorce rate and its stance on same-sex marriage.

According to provisional data from the Census Bureau and the Centers for Disease Control's National Vital Statistics System, 5 of the 10 states, plus the District of Columbia, with the lowest divorce rates per thousand people (of the 44 states, plus D.C., that had available data) are also among the nine jurisdictions (a group that includes eight states and the District of Columbia) that currently perform or recognize gay marriages. Of course, states with more marriages naturally have more chances for divorce. But the trend also holds up when one looks at divorces as a share of marriages. In states that recognize or perform gay marriages, the number of divorces in 2009 was 41.2 percent of the number of marriages. In the 36 other states for which 2009 data are available, it was 50.3 percent. Remove the outlier Nevada, the state with by far the lowest divorce rate by this metric (16.3 percent), likely due in part to Las Vegas's status as a wedding hotspot for out-of-state couples who may get married there but divorced elsewhere, and the figure jumps to 53.2 percent.

That doesn't mean anything. That survey doesn't delineate between homosexual and heterosexual couples.

And what the fuck does that have to do with the states right to ban gay marriage.?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I do. Just not in your sense.

No, not in any sense.

If I own a bakery, should I be allowed to not serve a gay wedding?

Not if the PA laws in your state say you must.

I understand what the law says. This isn't an issue of law, this is an issue of freedom. You are claiming you support personal freedom. Yet you support laws that prohibit free association.

The difference in our points of view I think is simple. Your side sees the PA laws as discriminatory toward Christians who wish to deny service to those they feel morally conflicted with. Fine. You take a principled stand that I can understand. My side believes the law is the arbitor and not faith.
I believe your position is wrong for only one reason. Our society follows the rule of law and not the rule of any one citizen's understanding of morality given by their God.
I don't see this as an affront to your religious beliefs as much as I see it as deferring to those who don't share your beliefs. The public sphere must be secular and generic. Freedom of religion allows all viewpoints and exercise of faith. Just not in public affairs.
How can the law properly ejudicate if it were allowed to consider the concerns of every faith all of the time? It couldn't. That would be a mess. The only realistic way of doing it is not to hold religious beliefs above the rights of the individual. Does that make sense?

Do you oppose rape?

WTF?

 

[Steinlight]

The rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms. Women have children out of wedlock because they know they will have a bailout. That isn't to say that all single motherhood will be eliminated. But it will be reduced significantly. At the end of the day, humans are economic actors, and act to maximize their resources. If women know they wont have government resources, and have to pay it all on their own, they are more likely to not get into situations that lead to children out of wedlock.

It may sound mean, but in reality, we shouldn't be expected to pick up the tab for other people's bad decisions, particularly at the federal level. In the long run everyone will be better off when this economic incentive for dysfunctional behavior is removed. It is better off for the moms, children, and the society as a whole.

Do you have data to support your claim that the rise in single motherhood has directly correlated with the rise of the welfare state, and federal assistance for single moms?

In a forthcoming study for the journal Demography, Robert Moffitt, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, details how the poorest single-parent families—80 percent of which are headed by single mothers—receive 35 percent less in government transfers than they did three decades ago. Also, the birth rate to unmarried women has been flat since 2006 and declined in 2014

How Welfare Reform Left Single Moms Behind - The Atlantic

Share of births to unmarried women dips reversing a long trend Pew Research Center

At the same time, the evidence of a link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is overwhelming. There have been 13 major studies of the relationship between the availability of welfare benefits and out-of-wedlock birth. Of these, 11 found a statistically significant correlation. Among the best of these studies is the work done by June O’Neill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Holding constant a wide range of variables, including income, education, and urban vs. suburban setting, the study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.(7) Likewise, research by Shelley Lundberg and Robert Plotnick of the University of Washington showed that an increase in welfare benefits of $200 per month per family increased the rate of out-of-wedlock births among teenagers by 150 percent.(8)

Relationship Between the Welfare State and Crime Cato Institute

But in addition to this data, it is just common sense. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Humans are resource maximizing beings that respond to economic signals. If women knew there wasn't a safety net where their poor decision wasn't subsidized, they would be less likely to make that poor decision. Obviously, such a program will have to phased out overtime, and you can't just cut aid to already born children. At the most, it should be a state issue, but even at my state level, I wouldn't support it because it just creates more of the problem it tries to solve.

It appears that this thread has been run off the rails. How did we get from SCOTUS and same sex marriage to welfare and crime? Let me take a stab at it. The same declining social and sexual morals that allowed gay marriage has resulted in more single parent families and thus more welfare, poverty and crime. Is that it?

If so, it still has NOTHING to do with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage has NO effect on the behavior or values of heterosexual people who will do what they do regardless.

However, same sex marriage WILL have an effect on gay and lesbian families and the well being of their children. Those children will enjoy greater financial security and family stability and be less likely to wind up on welfare. Then there are all of those children who are wards of the state who might be adopted by gay and lesbian couples. We might just come out ahead.

But while we are on the subject of social safety nets, I will finish by saying that it is not those programs that cause the poverty, it is capitalism. With capitalism there are always winners and losers and poverty and unemployment are built in side effects.

I think the idea homosexual relations are "stable" has no basis in reality. You have an incredibly sanitized view of homosexuality that is given to you by mass media. But it isn't really the case. 55% of gay couples are either in an open relationship(47%) or "not sure"(8%).
Many gay couples negotiate open relationships - SFGate

Capitalism(the private ownership of the means of production), does not cause women to have sex out of wedlock.

Same-sex divorce rate lower than heterosexual couples

SINCE May 2008 just nine civil unions pledged between members of the same sex as an alternative to marriage have been terminated in the ACT.

It is a 1.1 per cent failure rate with 799 gay unions performed in the capital during the period.

In the same period there were 8711 marriages and 6965 divorces granted in the ACT.

Adjunct Associate Professor of Clinical Psychology at the University of Canberra Amanda Gordon said a straight comparison was not possible as the heterosexual divorce rate would include those married prior to 2008.

According to the Bureau of Statistics, the median length of marriage before separation in the ACT was 9.4 years with most couples divorcing almost 13 years after saying ''I do''.

But the probability that a traditional marriage will end in divorce is about 33 per cent.

Dr Gordon said early indications showed that gay couples were staying together longer. She attributed this to the lack of expectation to getting hitched and the conscious decision to do so.

''There are very few [terminations] because people have thought it through very carefully and understand the implications. … they are actually thinking very hard about the significance and importance of making it work.''

She said many people who were married in the traditional way had less commitment to the whole idea of marriage. ''They didn't have to work for it, if you like. If it ends they can do it again.''

As equality occurs, Dr Gordon said the gay marriage and divorce rate could well mirror heterosexual marriage.

''If homosexual couples slip in to marriage the way we do then I think you will find the same level of distress in a relationship as other people … these figures go some way to prove that if you put hard work into a relationship you can make it work, because these relationships have lasted the five-year distance in a way that is different to traditional marriages,'' she said.

''They don't take it for granted.''

First off, your inaccurate and manipulated data doesn't disprove the fact that gays are in open relationships at a far higher rate and have far more sexual partners, exposing their dysfunction and deviancy. Also, your study goes by the divorce probability for a marriage, it doesn't delineate by couple. It just calculates the total number of marriages, it doesn't account for the fact that individuals get multiple divorces, and once you get one, you are more likely to divorce again. Far less than 33% of heterosexuals couples divorce. But your data doesn't mention this.

also, homosexuals don't enter committed relationships or marriage at nearly the same rates. Even in the Netherlands, where gay marriage has been legal for years, only 20% of gay couples are married are married.

But back to your inaccurate and manipulated data

The error is subtle, and I learned of it via an email from a demographer, who wrote:

Looking at the way they did things, it seems to me that they understate divorce rates by roughly a factor of two in their calculation. What they want is an occurence-exposure rate, which is obtained by dividing the number events by the person-years of exposure. They have the events (e.g. 132 divorces in Vermont). They then need to estimate the exposure. They do this by dividing by the total number of marriages (about 3,700 for VT) and dividing again by the years that same-sex marriage has been allowed (about 4.33 VT).

A moment’s reflection (or a bit longer in my case) makes it clear that this overstates the person-years of exposure. Since not all of the couples married 4.33 years ago, they should not all be counted as contributing 4.33 years. The average couple married half way through the interval, and so contributed only about 2 years.

So, this means we should double their “Average annual dissolution rate” to get something that is comparable to the divorce rate they are calculating for the general population.

A factor of 2—that’s a lot! In particular, it completely destroys the finding that same-sex marriage dissolution rates are lower than traditional-marriage divorce rates. Once you correct for that factor of 2, you get a rate of 2% per year, same as for traditional marriages.

Same-sex divorce rate not as low as it seemed - The Washington Post

 

[Steinlight]

You don't believe in freedom in any sense of the word.

I do. Just not in your sense.

No, not in any sense.

If I own a bakery, should I be allowed to not serve a gay wedding?

Not if the PA laws in your state say you must.

I understand what the law says. This isn't an issue of law, this is an issue of freedom. You are claiming you support personal freedom. Yet you support laws that prohibit free association.

Then your problem is the Public Accommodation laws.

Feel free to lead the charge to end Public Accommodation laws- it will be a bold Conservative move to suggest ending the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Unfortunately, "civil rights" trump the First Amendment. Sad day for a free society.

 

[Steinlight]

I can't help you if you can't see that the liberalization of sexual norms amongst heterosexuals led to greater toleration of homosexuality amongst significant segments of the heterosexual population.

Not 55% of heterosexual couples.

I don't see what is wrong with having tolerance for them. I really do not understand your objection. You can't go back in time.

I don't see why I should tolerate their deviant sexual behavior(which includes the aforementioned open relationships and high rate of HIV, at 20%), or the overall sexual revolution in general. So I don't understand your support for these lifestyles.
CDC 20 of Gay Men Are HIV-Positive but Nearly Half Don t Know It TIME.com

Social norms shift overtime. Societies go through cycles, from more religious to less so, from more conservative to less so. Societies historically do not go in a linear but instead a cyclical manner.

Well you don't really have to. Just don't associate with them.

Also, I don't really "support" a lifestyle. I support equal rights and privileges for all American citizens because that is what I was raised to believe America stands for.

Not associating with them isn't really an option, you can face very severe legal and financial consequences for refusing to associate with homosexuals, .

As an individual you can not associate with anyone- because they are black or Jewish or Mormon or gay.

But- as a business owner- in states with public accommodation laws- you cannot refuse to serve someone because they are black or Jewish or Gay or Mormon.

If following business laws is too much of a burden for you, you may not want to be in business.

You realize the philosophical inconsistency of your position. You don't stop owning yourself once you enter your place of business.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I do. Just not in your sense.

No, not in any sense.

If I own a bakery, should I be allowed to not serve a gay wedding?

Not if the PA laws in your state say you must.

I understand what the law says. This isn't an issue of law, this is an issue of freedom. You are claiming you support personal freedom. Yet you support laws that prohibit free association.

Then your problem is the Public Accommodation laws.

Feel free to lead the charge to end Public Accommodation laws- it will be a bold Conservative move to suggest ending the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Unfortunately, "civil rights" trump the First Amendment. Sad day for a free society.

Without the rule of law, how could the courts ever rule on a case with two opposing yet equally valid religious disputes?
There must be an applicable statute and not simply a religious disagreement.

 

[Steinlight]

Most of my generation are brainwashed idiots that dont have their shit together on any level. They are in prolonged adolescence with shit jobs that just parrot what social media tells them. But not all of us are like this thankfully, a good amount are disgusted by the pc direction of our society.

Its funny how you boomers try to stay young and relevant. The 60s are over old man, and you aren't far away from the grave, and your degeneracy(your "open relationship" and advocating for corporate social fads like gay marriage) won't keep you from it despite what you think.

I might be close to the grave, but you are already in the grave, morally and socially speaking. I am relevant and you are an anachronism in your own time. If you think that we will go backwards to a society that closets homosexuality you are seriously delusional.


At the core of every argument against same sex marriage is the attitude, a belief that gay folks are fundamentally different than other people. There is a refusal to acknowledge the fact that they are real people with real lives and responsibilities and problems like everyone else.

Opponents of equality talk about tradition, about religion, about the law, about procreation, and oh yes, the sex….they love to talk about the sex as though that was all that gay folks do. They bloviate about how kids need a mom and a dad, but cannot explain how banning same sex marriage will result in more children having a traditional home, why that is important, and reject the fact-indeed will not discuss the fact-that denying gays the right to marry harms children.

They promote inane slippery slope to polygamy, incest, bestiality and whatever without any rational basis or logical argument. However, they can never ever talk about the fact that these are human beings who are profoundly affected by discrimination and the denial of the rights and benefits of marriage. They can only deal with the subject using abstract concepts and logical fallacies. If they dare to humanize the subject, even they might come to see how stupid their arguments are and that’s what they fear the most.

And they love to talk about racial equality and how race is different than sexual orientation, as though by doing so they can claim some moral high ground. The fact is that these are people who have a need to hate. In their own self loathing they need to see themselves as better, as more worthy than someone else. My guess is, that the people who claim to be against racial discrimination but who hate gays are the same people who- a couple of decades ago before gay rights came to the forefront- were segregationists, but knowing that they can’t get away with that any longer, have chosen a new target for their bigotry.

No I am not an anachronism. Civilizations rise and fall, and go through periods of decadence and degeneracy. This linear version of history of the progressive, of "social progress", doesn't bare itself out. Social degeneracy and hyperliberalism does not last for long, they are the last gasps of a dying society. A example in a state of anomie, one of nihilism and atomization. The US wont last forever, this liberal global order if you call it that wont sustain itself financially and socially in the long run. You are on the wrong side of history if you look at any empire, and make no mistake, America is an empire. When this economic and social order collapses, people will revert to more traditional values sets, they always do.

The fact is, those in my generation who hold these nihilistic views only hold them because that is what media and school tell them to do. If right wingers, conservative, christians, traditionalists, whatever you want to call us, controlled the institutions, they would agree with us. 90% of people are complete followers and follow the cultural memes of the institutions. Also, a good percent of people my age don't agree with pc, they just don't care or fear repercussions. The true believers are very few in number.

It is pitiful that you had to live a life abandoned from tradition, in order to keep a false sense of youth, with your cuckold "open relationship". You aren't young in spirit or relevant. You are a holdover from the 60s who time is coming to an end. Your views are just a flash in the pan as far as civilization goes. Right wing traditionalism, nationalism, faith, blood and soil are the human state are the natural state of man. Your rebellion against the natural order will not succeed.

Homosexuals are not like heterosexuals, as the HIV numbers, the sexual partner count, the open relationship rate, the meth use rate indicate. They simply aren't the same, and are not "equal". This sounds nice, but it isn't the reality of the situation.

How can you oppose polygamy or incestuous marriage. If they are all consenting adults, and marriage is a right, who are you to deny them this right and on what grounds?

Did I say anything about opposing polygamy and incest?

You said it was an inane slippery slope to suggest marriage rights for polygamists and incestuous couples. You brought it up to begin with.

So you support the right to marry for polygamists and incestuous couples?

To say that it is stupid to suggest that it is a slippery slope is saying just that and nothing but that. It is not taking a stand on it either way. It has nothing to do with the argument for or against gay marriage. And for the record, YOU brought it up.....are you already having memory problems at 24 years old.?

You brought up the slippery slope about incest and polygamy, not me, I was responding to you bringing it up to begin with.

You said the slippery slope was inane. It is not inane. If marriage is a right, how you prohibit incestuous and polygamous couples from marrying, as long as they are consenting adults?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I don't see what is wrong with having tolerance for them. I really do not understand your objection. You can't go back in time.

I don't see why I should tolerate their deviant sexual behavior(which includes the aforementioned open relationships and high rate of HIV, at 20%), or the overall sexual revolution in general. So I don't understand your support for these lifestyles.
CDC 20 of Gay Men Are HIV-Positive but Nearly Half Don t Know It TIME.com

Social norms shift overtime. Societies go through cycles, from more religious to less so, from more conservative to less so. Societies historically do not go in a linear but instead a cyclical manner.

Well you don't really have to. Just don't associate with them.

Also, I don't really "support" a lifestyle. I support equal rights and privileges for all American citizens because that is what I was raised to believe America stands for.

Not associating with them isn't really an option, you can face very severe legal and financial consequences for refusing to associate with homosexuals, .

As an individual you can not associate with anyone- because they are black or Jewish or Mormon or gay.

But- as a business owner- in states with public accommodation laws- you cannot refuse to serve someone because they are black or Jewish or Gay or Mormon.

If following business laws is too much of a burden for you, you may not want to be in business.

You realize the philosophical inconsistency of your position. You don't stop owning yourself once you enter your place of business.

The same applies to business owners. No?