Gay Marriage Proposal

[jwoodie]

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?

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

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.

 

[4Horsemen]

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.

Agreed. and Gay parents raise Gay kids. it's a fact.

 

[del]

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?

i bet you're a small govt guy

 

[Luissa]

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.

Agreed. and Gay parents raise Gay kids. it's a fact.

You have proof of this?

 

[Nightson]

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?

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?

 

[4Horsemen]

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.

Agreed. and Gay parents raise Gay kids. it's a fact.

You have proof of this?

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.

 

[4Horsemen]

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?

i bet you're a small govt guy

Everybody should be for small government.. but ignorance is bliss.

 

[Luissa]

Agreed. and Gay parents raise Gay kids. it's a fact.

You have proof of this?

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.

Okay, so you don't have any actual proof. Got it.

 

[Luissa]

Straight couples can make gay babies. Fact! Lol

 

[4Horsemen]

You have proof of this?

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.

Okay, so you don't have any actual proof. Got it.

I saw it with my own eyes. enough for me.

Get outside more and you may see it for yourself too

TV holding you hostage.

 

[4Horsemen]

Straight couples can make gay babies. Fact! Lol

You are correct. "Fruityness" can be taught in any family. but Gays are masters at it. that's where you see it the most obvious.

 

[Katzndogz]

Agreed. and Gay parents raise Gay kids. it's a fact.

You have proof of this?

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.

I didn't believe that either. A gay couple had the same percentage of gay children than straight couples. Then I looked it up.

Study: Gay Parents More Likely to Have Gay Kids

I have helped form hundreds of gay families with children and had an opportunity to follow these children into adulthood. What I have personally seen is that at the very best, children raised in single sex households have the same kinds of dysfunctions as children raised in single sex households. The most successful of children raised in single sex households have parents that made a special point of providing opportunities to interact with the opposite sex. A heterosexual boy raised by gay men perhaps are the worst off because they simply never learn how to interact with women. They are unhappy, cannot form a stable relationship with a woman and generally either do not marry, or marry and divorce frequently, even if they do not become gay themselves.

 

[jwoodie]

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?

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?

1. Children are the only basis for civil (government sponsored) marriage. Religious marriage is a private concern.

2. I would only restrict "No Fault" divorce where minor children are involved. Otherwise, who represents them? Divorce for cause and Legal Separation would remain available.

3. The government can't prevent people from having children, but it should not reward having children in unfavorable conditions.

4. Gay couples already have children, so why not encourage a stable family for them?

 

[4Horsemen]

1. Children are the only basis for civil (government sponsored) marriage. Religious marriage is a private concern.

2. I would only restrict "No Fault" divorce where minor children are involved. Otherwise, who represents them? Divorce for cause and Legal Separation would remain available.

3. The government can't prevent people from having children, but it should not reward having children in unfavorable conditions.

4. Gay couples already have children, so why not encourage a stable family for them?

1. WRONG

2. ???

3. a Gay parental home environment is already an unfavorable condition.

4. Because "being gay" is a taught choice, not a natural occurance like plants growing. Nothing stable about it. Everything perverse.

 

[jwoodie]

1. Even historically, marriage was a legal device to establish paternity. Modernly, why should the government care whether two people without children are married?

2. "No fault" divorce allows the parents to decide to end the marriage without any consideration for the interests of the children. Traditional divorce requires some justification beyond "we just don't love each other any more." In the absence of actual abuse, the children of unhappy marriages are statistically better off than those of divorces.

3. So not being married improves this condition?

4. So should the children be removed from that environment?

 

[Luissa]

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.

Okay, so you don't have any actual proof. Got it.

I saw it with my own eyes. enough for me.

Get outside more and you may see it for yourself too

TV holding you hostage.

I do get out plenty, I tend not to judge a group by one case. If I did, I guess I would say they didn't make their children gay. The two friends I have that were raised by a same sex couple turned out straight. So by using your logic I could say gay couples don't make their children gay.

And a tv holding me hostage?

 

[4Horsemen]

1. Even historically, marriage was a legal device to establish paternity. Modernly, why should the government care whether two people without children are married?

2. "No fault" divorce allows the parents to decide to end the marriage without any consideration for the interests of the children. Traditional divorce requires some justification beyond "we just don't love each other any more." In the absence of actual abuse, the children of unhappy marriages are statistically better off than those of divorces.

3. So not being married improves this condition?

4. So should the children be removed from that environment?

1. People were having babies long before the instrument of marriage. and since the inception of the idea of marriage, it was based on a sacred bond between a male and female in the eyes of God. So basically, Gays shouldn't want to even have the tag of "marriage" since most of the ones I talk to don't even believe in God.

So I say just stick to "Civil Unions" it works and doesn't gray the lines between what is marriage and what is a
romp-sack relationship.

2. Ok...and? your point?

3. Having kids worsens this condition.

4. They should never be allowed to live in such an environment. period.


the sick idea of "Gay Parents" only began to get a foothold in the marriage debate after the Father figure had been totally demonized and belittled as a deadbeat dad who lusts after infidelity. Otherwise, Gays trying to become parents would have no traction whatsoever.

It's all the empty nest feminist gay women that are lonely who trailblazed this bullshit concept. nothing more.

 

[jwoodie]

So would you allow heterosexual atheists to marry?