Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage

Most everything these days, it seems.

Either way, it's not even the same thing. Tiger's wife didn't agree with him banging Hooters girls or whatever, which was obvious by the 9 iron she swung at him.

You're not in favor of cheating on your spouse. We get it.

 

It's not the same thing because married people are and should be held to a different standard than single people.

 

Ok.

 

Funny how these "agreements" are never really spelled out in writing. More like the wife, ahem, knows that the husband is fooling around and she grudgingly "accepts" it (because she often has no fucking choice) and they have an "understanding" ("I'm gonna do whatever the hell I want to, and I guess you can, too, for all I care") that "works for them."

 

Yes, a woman who has given up her career to raise the children and is essentially a financial hostage "agrees" to let her husband fuck around.

 

There are a lot of marriages, and how people choose to conduct them varies widely. There are indeed cases of financial or emotional duress where one partner screws around basically by force. There are also marriages where the partners have reached an accommodation and one or both have sex partners outside of the marriage. That can vary from "I don't care who he fucks as long as he leaves me alone" to "He gets a little on the side and so do I". I know personally a couple where the husband was fucked up regarding matters sexual by how he was raised and is largely asexual, and she is basically a sexual free agent with no intent of leaving the marriage. They've been married better than twenty years.

It's a wide world out there.

 

Nobody would care who Tiger fucks either at this point if he wasn't terrible at golf.

 

Yeah, there is some serious ignorance regarding how these relationships work on display here. I also know a couple with an open marriage. They've been that way from the beginning and they are still together after doing it that way for over 15 years. It was her idea and my understanding is she is the one who takes far more advantage of the arrangement.

I know it wouldn't work for my marriage, but it certainly seems to work just fine for theirs.

 

Then the word "marriage" has been rendered meaningless, after all.

 

Outside of immediately family -- and even that reationship is no guarantee -- no one really knows how well someone else's marriage is or is not working. Most people aren't eager to tell even those closest to them that their life is fucked up.

 

Everyone thought it was going to be the homos, but it turned out to be the swingers.

Quite a plot twist.

 

This would seemingly apply to swingers, as well:

Supreme Court gay marriage: John Roberts’ dissent in Obergefell is heartless.

John Stuart Mill in On Liberty drew an important distinction between what he called “self-regarding acts” and “other-regarding acts.” The former involves doing things to yourself that don’t harm other people, though they may be self-destructive. The latter involves doing things that do harm other people. He thought that government had no business with the former (and hence—his example—the English had no business concerning themselves with polygamy in Utah, though they hated it). Unless it can be shown that same-sex marriage harms people who are not gay (or who are gay but don’t want to marry), there is no compelling reason for state intervention, and specifically for banning same-sex marriage.