A couple of points. Marriage was definitely created to strengthen and maintain the family unit. Men and women have sex and create children. If those men and women are doing so outside the structure of marriage those children will not be afforded the opportunity to grow up with the love of a committed biological father and mother. In marriage, they are bound to each other by the state, their own vows and whatever religious vows both to each other and later to their children. This is why marriage exists. People of the same sex have sex and they don't have children. They can leave each other whenever and nobody is hurt but themselves. They won't leave anyone behind wondering why they were created and if the people that created them love them. We can talk/argue all day about the incredible variety in family units today some of which are very healthy but physiologically, psychologically, spiritually I think that most people would agree that a family consisting of a committed man and woman and the children they created is the best place for those children to be raised. Marriage was obviously not created for tax and healthcare benefits. All that said, I still believe that same sex couples that are committed to one another and willing to take on the responsibilities of marriage defined by the state should have the benefits of that status. I just don't think the Supreme Court should have used the 14th to force us there. Either way though, the end will be the same.
If you believe that the societal reason for marriage was to protect children you are nuts. Marriage was a societal construct created so men could own a woman and use her body to produce heirs, labor and other child bearing bodies that they could sell to another man who wanted to put his seed in her. We know that the Christian God's version of marriage is not the only way marriage existed because marriage existed in societies that were not touched by the Bible. That doesn't mean that a marriage blessed or ordained by God doesn't fit your concept, but society has never required it be about protecting children or strengthening a family.
50 year old man in unknown land before the coming of Christ. He has a 14 year old daughter that looks good, has perky breasts and a tight body. His 30 year old neighbor wants to ravage her. The 50 year old man gets to use the age old societal view of women as property of their fathers to force a marriage if his neighbor wants to deflower his daughter. In exchange he gets goats, land, agreement to defend each other, etc. Marriage was a contract used to sell women off in order to expand a patriarch's influence, wealth, means of defense, territory, etc. As the years went on the trade off changed, but never was it about creating a strong family that would raise good children. The only value in children was having girls to sell off and boys to work.
It is interesting that you think of forcing us... but never thought about you forcing others. I read your sentence and this is what I hear. You are not ok with the Supreme Court "forcing" the State to give equal opportunity to all marriage, but you are ok with your religion and religious viewpoint "forcing" the State to give unequal opportunity to gays. In one case, people are not being discriminated and the other people are. In both cases, your religion isn't affected. You still can do whatever you want. No one said now you have to be "forced" to be gay, to accept gay, to be happy about gay, to love gay, to do whatever you want to gay. But now, you have just lost your opportunity to discriminate against gay through the State. I don't know how you or us are forced. Maybe you consider that lost opportunity to discriminate as being forced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples That's where I found some information on it. I haven't done a ton of research on it though.
With all due respect, you contradict yourself. LGBT couples can and do have children. I know a couple who happen to have one partner who is a transgender male, and the other partner is a bisexual female. They recently became the proud parents of twins from in vitro fertilization, and I can assure you that they love their children as much as any hetero couple, and would defend those twins with their lives, as any parent would. You are attempting to "pigeon hole" people into boxes that are a creation in your mind. Excepting their sexual orientation, they are just like other couples in a committed relationship, couples that can now, finally, formalize their relationship under the law the same way more "typical' couples do, through the institution of marraige. That gives them the same rights hetero couples have. If their partner is sick and in a hospital fighting for his/her life, they can now visit them there, something that was not permitted in many hospitals, those visits being restricted to "immediate family." They can now include their spouse, regardless of sexual orientation, on their work insurance as a family member. Just a couple of many reasons why this is such a great ruling. You can be against this if you like. That is your right. Someday, however, you will look back on this ruling and wonder why you were so worked up about it, in my humble opinion. Wait and see.
I presume this is sarcastic but to answer it directly since many have brought this up. Legal gay marriage will not reduce the population. Statistically even if every gay got married and didn't breed they don't make up enough of the population to radically reduce it. Further many gay couples have children through surrogacy or from heterosexual relationships before they came out. It's possible that gays who wouldn't have previously considered having children might do so now if they can get married leading to a very slight increase in the population.
Given the liberal majority on this message board, I believe the results are probably skewed somewhat. I assume, and I could be totally wrong, that if this was a blind random poll, that option #2 (I now support gay marriage but was previously against it ) would be the leading vote getter.
This lol at people thinking marriage is some sacred untouchable thing, there has been many versions of this "marriage" practiced differently around the world in history, and way before Jesus ever existed. there are still marriages between one woman with multiple husbands and one husband with multiple wives practiced in difference cultures even today. And of course as you said children being traded off for marriage still exist in places like Yemen. There's never been a permanent definition of what marriage.
I don't think using the word "gay" to describe anything and everything you didn't like during your high school years really count as being against gay marriage.
I forgot to vote earlier but if it makes you feel better I voted for option 2. I can say I've grown since I was a teenager.
I don't know about that, it could happen. Equal treatment under the law really shouldn't be a controversial idea even if you care nothing about the LGBT community in general.
