>Scotus announces its cool to say no to fags in regards to compelled speech
>they finally cite religious liberty as a foundational reason why
W E W
@SpurgAnon
End of month, and our government made gay marriage the same entity as straight marriage. For no fucking reason. While we're still suffering from insane inflation.
> For no fucking reason.
wouldn't you need a legal justification to keep them separate? and wouldn't it need to be non-religious in nature? the thing we're talking about here is a legal construct after all, not a religious one (the religious one certainly exists tho)
> There is no secular argument for placing "gay marriage" on equal footing with actual marriage
you seem to be presupposing that there is a distinction. my point is that in order to draw a line the government needs to have a non-religious justification for doing so
you make an interesting point tho. I have to thank you for providing one of the very few (I feel) coherent responses I've ever received on this topic
if we accept that the only point of relationships is having children then I'd agree with you. however there will inevitably be couples who won't have children in the end for whatever reason. you're still going to have most of the same social issues coming up. disputes of ownership, domestic disturbances, hospital visitation, financial dependence, etc etc etc
all of those same issues will apply whether or not a relationship is recognized by the state. common law marriage exists in many states for similar reasons
making any positive incentives dependent on children seems like a reasonable enough idea tho
@roboneko @ChristiJunior @SpurgAnon
> Common law marrige.
So, do you agree, that if you let me live with you for reasons of rent, and we live together long enough to enter a common-law marriage (because, time is a possible trigger), then I can take half of your shit?
Or is there something, that is making the marriage system abusive beyond comprehension, and making it even wider is retarded?
> So, do you agree ...
no? I made no such claim. on top of that you're conflating common law marriage and community property, plus probably some other stuff
I'm quite comfortable claiming that various social dysfunctions can result when people cohabitate regardless of the presence of children or sexual orientation or whatever other distinction you want to make. it is in the interests of broader society to attempt to address these various ills
@roboneko @ChristiJunior @SpurgAnon
No, I meant commonlaw marriage.
Because it isn't your decision if you're married. The judge decides that. That is the entire point of my previous post, and I am quite disappointed you didn't get it.
@roboneko @ChristiJunior @SpurgAnon
I didn't say I would fuck you.
You're such a fucking pervert
@roboneko @ChristiJunior @SpurgAnon
So, gays need no justification, but asexuals are a fucking line for you?
You're an absolut hypocrite.
what distinction is it you think I've made between asexuals versus gays?
to clarify, my intention has generally been to refer to people (regardless of qualifiers) living together or otherwise doing the sorts of things where marriage as a legal construct tends to come up
@roboneko @ChristiJunior @SpurgAnon
Yes.
So, if you agree to split rent with me for an year, can I divorce you?
pretty sure it's more like 7 or 10 years in most states and that one of the parties has to bring the case and present justification for it
@roboneko @ChristiJunior @SpurgAnon
And... you don't see how that's retarded? That a law created to avoid negative outcomes of having kids is now such a bullshit framework, that a case can be made for a guy who lived with you for convenience can take your life savings?
That is what I mean by spreading a broken system into even more broken context.
> a law created to avoid negative outcomes of having kids
I don't think it's specific to kids. I keep listing a bunch of stuff (certainly not exhaustive) of things that apply regardless of children
> for convenience
pretty sure you have to demonstrate a lot more than that to make a claim. but again I'm not a lawyer so
> take your life savings
also pretty sure that there's a lot more nuance to it
the historic non-bureaucratic solution to this was forced marriage, right? no sex before marriage, you fucked that lady, then essentially now you either agree that you're married or we kill you. how is that significantly different from the common law arrangement again?