Gay Marriage Proposal

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by jwoodie, Nov 5, 2012.

  1. jwoodie
    Offline

    jwoodie Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,764
    Thanks Received:
    1,287
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,912
    Civil marriage is a statutory contract whose only legitimate purpose is the protection and welfare of children. (The government has no legitimate interest in relations between consenting adults.) As such, civil marriage should not be:
    a. a civil rights issue;
    b. a religious issue; or
    c. a tradition issue.

    The biggest social problem in our country is the breakdown of the nuclear family, as evidenced by increasing divorce and illegitimacy rates. Any changes to marriage and/or family laws should be considered in this context. I am not opposed to gay marriage per se. However, I am concerned that it will further undermine the concept of civil marriage in this country unless it is accompanied by other changes to our laws which promote marriage.

    Therefore, I propose that we expand the definition of civil marriage to include gay couples, but limit the tax benefits to married couples (or widows/widowers) with children under 18. Despite the politically correct defense of Murphy Brown, children growing up in single parent/fractured homes are statistically much more likely to have personal problems and become a drag on society.

    Despite good intentions, or current policy of supporting/rewarding this situation only makes the problem worse. Our policy should be that, if you want children, get married first and stay married (at least until they turn 18). Furthermore, No Fault divorce should not be available to people with children under 18, and those who do divorce should not get further tax preferences for future children.

    This may sound judgmental, but what other solutions exist?
     
  2. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    If marriage hadn't already been damaged by a skyrocketing divorce rate, we might not be discussing gay marriage today at all. First the destruction of marriage had to happen.
     
  3. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    15,648
    Thanks Received:
    1,877
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +4,299
    1. You are welcome to propose improvements to custody/marriage laws on a state level, but trying to push on a national level is likely too much of a hassle. It is hard enough to resolve personal issues locally. But I believe this could be done, even if you have to break it down to an ordinance level per district to handle family and community issues with school and welfare/health service funding etc. Local is better for issues like these.

    2. As for global policy, I would not recommend using the term marriage in both the state/civil context and the religious/church context. This has caused confusion and rejection where it was not necessary to fight over terminology. People who associate and reserve the term marriage for the spiritual/religious sacrements object to state policies adding or removing conditions that depend on personal/religious decisions what conditions people agree or don't agree on.

    I would strongly urge states/advocates to agree on common terms such as civil contracts or unions, and quit using "marriage" in mixed contexts that is causing half the problem.

    The other half, the actual social issues and jursidiction/tax/funding responsibility, is what the focus should really be on, and that is best handled locally to avoid fighting on a federal scale.

    Since marriage inevitably involves personal beliefs and decisions, your best bet for reaching an agreement on policy is local; if you can't get it federally, then go by state; if you can't reach agreement by state, then localize it by district or community. And if you can't get agreement there, it should be democratized completely by religious or political affiliation and keep the state out of it, which is supposed to represent the entire public, not fringe groups.
     
  4. 4Horsemen
    Offline

    4Horsemen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,205
    Thanks Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +116
    Agreed. and Gay parents raise Gay kids. it's a fact.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2012
  5. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
    i bet you're a small govt guy
     
  6. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    You have proof of this?
     
  7. Nightson
    Offline

    Nightson Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    134
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    The Benighted Sun
    Ratings:
    +22


    No amount of legislating will ever take the qualifier of "Religious Issue" out of popular consideration or majority definition of what marriage is. As for marriage viewed as a "traditions" issue, I for one hope it always shall be. Cultural tradition is the invaluable foundation of American moral and ethical reasoning. Take away our collective moral compass, we all get lost.

    You forward protection and welfare of children as the only legitimate aspects of marriage. How and from what calculation did you derive that conclusion? But let's run with your assertion. If the sole legitimate purpose of marriage in America today is the protection of children--and I presume you mean psychological health as well financial security--then what happens to that sole legitimate purpose when you allow gays to marry, to adopt and raise children in "hybrid" households where alternate lifestyles are taught to be and accepted as norm? If protecting children is the sole purpose of your model, then allowing gays to marry legally is completely counterproductive to that end.

    As for the government dictating to the people when and when not they can have children, or forcing them to remain married for specific time periods if they have children--all highly counterproductive to both the institution of marriage and the health and security of our children. Imagine a child growing up in a household with a mother and father who hate each other, but legally must remain married until said child turns eighteen. That's a breeding ground for all manner of psychological issues to say the least.

    What I take away from your post, and it sounds like you're really searching for good solutions to this issue, is that while you think government ought not play a role in the nuances of relationships between consenting adults, it should regulate qualifications for when a couple can have children and how long they must remain married if children are involved?
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2012
  8. 4Horsemen
    Offline

    4Horsemen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,205
    Thanks Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +116
    Yes. the neighbors 2 houses down. 2 gay dudes with an adopted son. and he's a real flamer at only 9 years old. Life will be hard for him.
     
  9. 4Horsemen
    Offline

    4Horsemen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    Messages:
    1,205
    Thanks Received:
    116
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +116
    Everybody should be for small government.. but ignorance is bliss.
     
  10. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    Okay, so you don't have any actual proof. Got it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page