>end of fag month
>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.

@LukeAlmighty @SpurgAnon

> 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)

@roboneko @LukeAlmighty @SpurgAnon There is no secular argument for placing "gay marriage" on equal footing with actual marriage, because society has no interest in gays getting married in the first place. It has an interest in normal people getting married, because it in theory creates good and stable conditions for bringing up children, and replacement-levels of fertility and quality child rearing are something we all have a vested interest in. Gays playing house is only about them pretending that they and their relationships are equal to those of normal people, it's of no benefit to anyone else, and not deserving of recognition, let alone positive incentives.

@ChristiJunior @LukeAlmighty @SpurgAnon I guess baest is having technical difficulties

> 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?

@LukeAlmighty @ChristiJunior @SpurgAnon

> 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.