I cannot "Move On"...

Post #402,912 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 2:14:17 PM Reply	I cannot "Move On"... "Moving on" means knowingly claiming a falsehood is true. Specifically, that any same-sex marriage will ever be the equal of mine for the simple reason that no same-sex marriage will ever contribute to the State what mine already has, and the contributions mine has made to the State will only multiply in the coming decades. You're asking me to claim something is true that is plainly, flatly false. I didn't do that as a nine year old in the Soviet Union and I'll be damned if I'm going to start doing it now.
Post #402,916 by rcareaga 6/26/15 2:21:27 PM Reply	Your so-called contribution ...did not require a marriage license. And what did the legally married parents of Mr. Dylann Storm Roof "contribute," exactly, to society? less cordially,
Post #402,922 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 2:52:12 PM Reply	Re: ...did not require a marriage license. I think we at last may have found some common ground. I know somewhere in the endless threads about this I've said that my commitment to my wife had nothing to do with our getting married; but a strong desire not to have my children listed as bastards or illegitimate. Knowing that they would be so classified were I not married when they were born, I proposed some 35 years ago only because I had found the woman with whom I wanted to have children. I repeat myself again, but the stigma attached to out-of-wedlock births has largely disappeared in the last 30 years or so. Hence, marriage has about outlived its usefulness, notwithstanding today's ruling. I think the solution that makes the most sense now is that we just stop issuing marriage licenses to anyone. What a marriage is today is little more than a meaningless (to the State - who, after all, is being asked to issue these licenses) intensive issued by two people.
Post #402,926 by rcareaga 6/26/15 3:04:55 PM Reply	I have a relative, shortly to be married ...who was technically a "bastard" when she was born (her parents married a few years later, and went on to have two more children). Her "illegitimacy" (of which she has been long aware) has not so far as I am aware cost her or anyone associated with her so much as a second of sleep these past thirty years. Your then-obsession with "stigma" says much more about the regional cultural climate in which you were raised than it does about the merits of in-wedlock childbirth. As a thought experiment, I imagine one of your daughters coming out as a lesbian and asking your blessing for her marriage to another woman (and I'm thinking fat, butch, crewcut, and with more tattoos'n you could shake a stick at) with whom she's deeply in love. Would you extend your approval, or stand on non-ceremony? cordially,
Post #402,932 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 3:21:09 PM Reply	Regional. That's funny. I was raised in Long Beach, California (ages 4 - 18 ). Of course, I was raised by two people from rural North Carolina and that had greater influence than the "region" I lived in. And there was heavy stigma attached in their thinking and rearing, despite both being college grads and my father holding a Master's degree. With both my daughters being in their early 20's (my youngest is aghast at my views on this subject), I've told them what I've always told them, "There's no point in getting married if you have no intention of having children." So would I object to one (or both) of them making the decision you suggest? No. I'd think it was a stupid decision, but no more so than if they decided to marry a man with no intention of having children. I can't imagine either of them asking for my "blessing" in any case. They know that my view is that it is their decision and, frankly, none of my business.
Post #402,943 by rcareaga 6/26/15 4:11:57 PM Reply	Nor indeed, then, is it any of your business ...if a couple of guys want to tie the knot. Glad we got this settled. cordially,
Post #402,951 by mmoffitt 6/26/15 4:53:45 PM Reply	In the final analysis. You're right. It isn't. But it is stupid.

Welcome to IWETHEY!