What's more immoral to you, marriage by family members or gay marriage?

[uscitizen]

...but marriage creates certain legal rights and obligations that are the juristiction of both the states and the feds. Once you enter into a contract created by the states, which is what marriage is, you open up that relationship to governmental action.

Exactly my point. Government can provide the court system to settle any contractual disputes, be it for a marriage or the merging of two giant corporations. However, the "legal rights and obligations" of which you speak are simply examples of government meddling in personal relationships. There need be NO right and obligations outside of the contract into which two consenting adults entered and government need not be involved at all except to provide a civil legal system to help to settle any contractual disputes.

Correct married and single should be taxed the same, the govt should not engage in social engineering by the tax codes.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

I think it's immoral when two Leftist's marry, ie procreation of that species.

 

[uscitizen]

I think it's immoral when two Leftist's marry, ie procreation of that species.

Yes, they should just shack up.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I think it's immoral when two Leftist's marry, ie procreation of that species.

Like people who vote for liberal spenders?

 

[ekrem]

Other than religious doctrine that says it is wrong, there is no good argument against it, especially considering the separation of church and state.

A state claims for it the right of morale authority, that's why they don't let you urinate in the open without a fine. Nature says, that every children has a mother and a father. A state (tax) as well as society in general give certain advantages to a married couple, because possible children of that couple contribute to the general welfare of the country. Be it as soldiers in war or future taxpayers.

What purpose does gay-marriage serve, that it should be treated same way as the classical marriage and considered equal to a marriage between man and woman?

 

[martybegan]

...but marriage creates certain legal rights and obligations that are the juristiction of both the states and the feds. Once you enter into a contract created by the states, which is what marriage is, you open up that relationship to governmental action.

Exactly my point. Government can provide the court system to settle any contractual disputes, be it for a marriage or the merging of two giant corporations. However, the "legal rights and obligations" of which you speak are simply examples of government meddling in personal relationships. There need be NO rights and obligations outside of the contract into which two consenting adults entered and government need not be involved at all except to provide a civil legal system to help to settle any contractual disputes.

If you wanted to avoid government intervention you can make up your own contract between you and your significant other, and the only time the government would intervene is if you disputed the contract in court. You can probably even call it marriage, it just wouldnt be recognized by the government.

If you want government recognition of your union, you have to abide by the governments rules for it.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Other than religious doctrine that says it is wrong, there is no good argument against it, especially considering the separation of church and state.

A state claims for it the right of morale authority, that's why they don't let you urinate in the open without a fine. Nature says, that every children has a mother and a father. A state (tax) as well as society in general give certain advantages to a married couple, because possible children of that couple contribute to the general welfare of the country. Be it as soldiers in war or future taxpayers.

What purpose does gay-marriage serve, that it should be treated same way as the classical marriage and considered equal to a marriage between man and woman?

What purpose does straight marriage serve, that it should be treated the same way as legal gay marriage and considered equal to a marriage between man and man or woman and woman?


A couple can love each other, be committed to each other entirely, and have children without a license issued by gov't.

 

[ekrem]

What purpose does straight marriage serve, that it should be treated the same way as legal gay marriage and considered equal to a marriage between man and man or woman and woman?


A couple can love each other, be committed to each other entirely, and have children without a license issued by gov't.

Laws surrounding the concept of "family" target children. Without the children other laws already apply for the adults and there wouldn't be a need for special "family laws".
Marriage rests on the assumption that offspring is produced, and for this purpose the state grants advantages to a married couple, because the state has a clear interest in further children being produced.

Gays can love each other, but they don't serve a purpose other than their own joy. Why should they be granted the same privileges?

 

[Dr.Drock]

What purpose does straight marriage serve, that it should be treated the same way as legal gay marriage and considered equal to a marriage between man and man or woman and woman?


A couple can love each other, be committed to each other entirely, and have children without a license issued by gov't.

Laws surrounding the concept of "family" target children. Without the children other laws already apply for the adults and there wouldn't be a need for special "family laws".
Marriage rests on the assumption that offspring is produced, and for this purpose the state grants advantages to a married couple, because the state has a clear interest in further children being produced.

Gays can love each other, but they don't serve a purpose other than their own joy. Why should they be granted the same privileges?

I'm against those laws where tax breaks and tax hikes are given to certain types of people based on their marital standing.

Gays can marry, and it would negatively affect no one other than hypersensitive types looking for a reason to be miserable.

 

[eflatminor]

...but marriage creates certain legal rights and obligations that are the juristiction of both the states and the feds. Once you enter into a contract created by the states, which is what marriage is, you open up that relationship to governmental action.

Exactly my point. Government can provide the court system to settle any contractual disputes, be it for a marriage or the merging of two giant corporations. However, the "legal rights and obligations" of which you speak are simply examples of government meddling in personal relationships. There need be NO rights and obligations outside of the contract into which two consenting adults entered and government need not be involved at all except to provide a civil legal system to help to settle any contractual disputes.

If you wanted to avoid government intervention you can make up your own contract between you and your significant other, and the only time the government would intervene is if you disputed the contract in court. You can probably even call it marriage, it just wouldnt be recognized by the government.

If you want government recognition of your union, you have to abide by the governments rules for it.

Of course that is true, but my point remains...the government should not be recognizing anybody's personal relationships. The government rules are unnecessary and wrong...and at the federal level unconstitutional. And to be clear, I do NOT want the government recognizing my personal relationships.

 

[NoNukes]

My in laws were first cousins and there was no problem.

 

[jillian]

Cousin marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Currently 23 states allow first cousin marriages.

Currently 6 states allow gay marriage.

they used to have laws against intermarrying as well.

and?

 

[jillian]

...but marriage creates certain legal rights and obligations that are the juristiction of both the states and the feds. Once you enter into a contract created by the states, which is what marriage is, you open up that relationship to governmental action.

Exactly my point. Government can provide the court system to settle any contractual disputes, be it for a marriage or the merging of two giant corporations. However, the "legal rights and obligations" of which you speak are simply examples of government meddling in personal relationships. There need be NO rights and obligations outside of the contract into which two consenting adults entered and government need not be involved at all except to provide a civil legal system to help to settle any contractual disputes.

marriage was created by government FOR the purpose of disposing of rights.

there are over 1,000 rights and obligations that go with being married. these need to be consistently applied and enforced.

who would you think *should* confer the right to be married? the church? and then what? people married in a civil ceremony aren't married? The high court, in Loving v Virginia and it's predecessor cases, defined marriage as a fundamental right. Once a fundamental right is acknowledged, government can't deny the right to one group while permitting it to another without government having a substantial state interest in abridging the right.

 

[Katzndogz]

Marriage was marriage long before there was government. Marriage is one of the benchmarks of civilization. Marriage is an extension of property rights and the need for property to belong from one generation to the legitimate heirs of the next generation.

What modern times brought was the peculiar concept of love which has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage.

 

[eflatminor]

who would you think *should* confer the right to be married?

The adults choosing to freely engaging in that contract.

 

[jillian]

who would you think *should* confer the right to be married?

The adults choosing to freely engaging in that contract.

in other words, there's no such thing as marriage...

mmmkay.

 

[eflatminor]

Once a fundamental right is acknowledged, government can't deny the right to one group while permitting it to another without government having a substantial state interest in abridging the right.

Correct. So why is government attempting to define what is clearly a right available to everyone? Government should not be denying the right to anyone, nor blessing it for others. They have no need to intervene except where a dispute arises requiring a civil court system.

 

[jillian]

Marriage was marriage long before there was government. Marriage is one of the benchmarks of civilization. Marriage is an extension of property rights and the need for property to belong from one generation to the legitimate heirs of the next generation.

What modern times brought was the peculiar concept of love which has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage.

no. that's a lie. marriage WAS about government. it was about inheritance and lineage and PROPERTY rights.

 

[eflatminor]

who would you think *should* confer the right to be married?

The adults choosing to freely engaging in that contract.

in other words, there's no such thing as marriage...

mmmkay.

That's like saying there would be no such thing as apples if government didn't tell us what apples are. mmmkay???

 

[jillian]

Once a fundamental right is acknowledged, government can't deny the right to one group while permitting it to another without government having a substantial state interest in abridging the right.

Correct. So why is government attempting to define what is clearly a right available to everyone? Government should not be denying the right to anyone, nor blessing it for others. They have no need to intervene except where a dispute arises requiring a civil court system.

they define it to enforce the right.

why does that confuse you?

and you're still making it up as you go along because GOVERNMENT CREATED THE RIGHT