Gay Marriage Proposal

[Katzndogz]

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?

This is the perfect solution. I've been telling people this for years. It's a simple fix in the tax code and what is called a language change. It would fully seperate church from state. Now if we can get our politicians to pick up on this and put the partisan crap aside, this would become a dead "issue." Strong work.

It goes way further than a separation of church and state. It's a separation of the individual from the state. Will photographers be allowed to decline to provide services to gay couples? Will the baker be able to say he doesn't bake wedding cakes for gay weddings? Will relationship counselors have the freedom to say their religion prevents them from providing those services? How about parents who tell their children that homosexuality is wrong and they should avoid homosexuals? That's where the real problem is, it's not language, it's behavior and control of that behavior.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It goes way further than a separation of church and state. It's a separation of the individual from the state. Will photographers be allowed to decline to provide services to gay couples? Will the baker be able to say he doesn't bake wedding cakes for gay weddings? Will relationship counselors have the freedom to say their religion prevents them from providing those services? <<snip>> That's where the real problem is, it's not language, it's behavior and control of that behavior.

Those aren't problem's with Same-sex Civil Marriage, those are problems with Public Accommodation Laws.

Take for example Bed & Breakfast that refused to hold a gay wedding/civil union ceremony in 2005. There was no Same-sex Civil Marriage in Vermont at the time, the owners ran afoul of Public Accommodation laws. Those are where the real issue lies.

Should a photographer be allowed to refuse a gay wedding? Yes
Should a baker be allowed to refuse Christian weddings? Yes
Should a Restaurant be allowed to refuse Asians? Yes
Should a Strip Club be allowed to refuse women (customers)? Yes
Should a Lawn Service be allowed to refuse Arabs? Yes
etc.
etc.


As private businesses, not affiliated with government contracts, they should (IMHO) have to right to determine who they will provide services to for whatever reason, whether it be race, religion, gender, national origin, or sexual orientation. That's the problem with big government types on the left and the right. However in this case someone only want special privileges based on religion in one very narrow area. The true problem is the fundamental idea that government should be dictating it to private business in the first place and the acceptance of that principle.

How about parents who tell their children that homosexuality is wrong and they should avoid homosexuals?

Parents can do that now in all states, even those that recognize Same-sex Civil Marriage.



>>>>

 

[4Horsemen]

Homosexuality is not a lifestyle anymore than blonde hair is a lifestyle.

^This is the ignorance I'm talking about.

Homosexuality is just as much of a lifestyle and running, swimming, parasailing. you CHOOSE to do it.

It's not genetic since there is no such thing as a gay gene. So it must be a personal choice lifestyle. Because if it was genetic, we would all be gay.

Gay people that say "I came out the closet" made a choice. or why would they need to say that?

When did you choose to be heterosexual? The answer is never. Homosexuals cannot control their same sex attraction anymore than heterosexuals can control their opposite sex attraction.

Who says one gene has to determine one's sexuality? Furthermore, the fact that one has not been discovered does not mean one does not exist. That is an appeal to ignorance, which is a completely fallacious argument. The notion that if it were genetic then everyone would be gay is even more absurd. Blue eyes are genetic. Do we all have blue eyes? No. Does that mean blue eyes are a person choice? No.

Gay people do make a choice--they choose honesty over dishonesty. They don't choose their feelings, they choose to be honest about them. I consider a life of honesty to be a far more moral and socially beneficial choice than a life of lying, deceit, and pretend.

So how do heterosexuals control their attractions to the opposite sex? THEY CHOOSE.

Why do Gays continue to make "being Gay" something that so uncontrollable.

It's not like breathing. you can control your urges you know?

Gays do what they do out of sheer and utter choice. gay guys like to wear panties because they had someone in their lives that told them that wearing panties was ok..

Gayism is taught and practiced. not hereditary and natural.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So how do heterosexuals control their attractions to the opposite sex? THEY CHOOSE.

Why do Gays continue to make "being Gay" something that so uncontrollable.

It's not like breathing. you can control your urges you know?

You confuse sexual orientation with performing a sex act. Sorry not the same.

Gays do what they do out of sheer and utter choice. gay guys like to wear panties because they had someone in their lives that told them that wearing panties was ok..

Gayism is taught and practiced. not hereditary and natural.

I'm sure Lynne and Dick Cheny raised their daughter to be a lesbian.


>>>>

 

[4Horsemen]

So how do heterosexuals control their attractions to the opposite sex? THEY CHOOSE.

Why do Gays continue to make "being Gay" something that so uncontrollable.

It's not like breathing. you can control your urges you know?

You confuse sexual orientation with performing a sex act. Sorry not the same.

Gays do what they do out of sheer and utter choice. gay guys like to wear panties because they had someone in their lives that told them that wearing panties was ok..

Gayism is taught and practiced. not hereditary and natural.

I'm sure Lynne and Dick Cheny raised their daughter to be a lesbian.


>>>>

Kids don't just learn from their parents. genius.

 

[ThomasPaine1776]

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?

ALL the world's great civilizations have progressed through this sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
from spiritual faith to great courage;
from courage to liberty;
from liberty to abundance;
from abundance to selfishness;
from selfishness to complacency;
from complacency to apathy;
from apathy to dependence;
from dependence back again into bondage.

 

[varelse]

It is incorrect to say the government hasthe government has no it's just me no legitimate interest in relationship between consenting adults, at the purpose of government is to further the interest and wellbeing of society, which rest upon the fitness and form of the family unit and the nature of ths culture and relationship between personof the nations constituting the population of the nation

 

[midcan5]

I'm always fascinated by people who feel the need to bring gay marriage into the contemporary marriage arena. Why? Marriage is tough enough for lots of people due to all sorts of issues and gay marriage is irrelevant. Marriages are all sorts of wacky outside any consideration of granting the same right to gays. When gays acquire marriage rights on a federal level the issue will not be over. Is anyone naive enough to believe that will change heterosexual marriage one iota?

It may be that long term sane marriage is for the few. Maybe we need to accept this reality and make sure rules rights and regulations are supportive of all families regardless of what loonies occupy the parent position. I say this from what I see, and I see all levels of society. I often think (see) the second or third time works best for some. (I say this after having been married longer than most here have existed.)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/50615-know-what-really-causes-homosexuality.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/215264-need-dear-god-submission-letters.html#post5042591

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-are-being-denied-a-right-9.html#post5253151

 

[Charles_Main]

Frankly I could care less, Let them marry. But I draw the line at 2 people. When the inevitable push for Polygamy starts after we make Gay Marriage legal. I will not be on board.

lol

 

[daphillenium]

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?

This is the perfect solution. I've been telling people this for years. It's a simple fix in the tax code and what is called a language change. It would fully seperate church from state. Now if we can get our politicians to pick up on this and put the partisan crap aside, this would become a dead "issue." Strong work.

It goes way further than a separation of church and state. It's a separation of the individual from the state. Will photographers be allowed to decline to provide services to gay couples? Will the baker be able to say he doesn't bake wedding cakes for gay weddings? Will relationship counselors have the freedom to say their religion prevents them from providing those services? How about parents who tell their children that homosexuality is wrong and they should avoid homosexuals? That's where the real problem is, it's not language, it's behavior and control of that behavior.

I see what you're saying. The truth is stuff like this is going to go on even if government were to regulate it. I'm pretty liberal and believe my views shouldn't be forced on anyone else no matter who it is. And to be honest with you, in my opinion I don't see how people that own those types of businesses could discriminate like that if something like this happened nation wide. It would be a business killer for them.

All I am saying is for now, to fix the gay marriage debate....Take the term married/marriage out of EVERY SINGLE piece of tax code/federal/state law. Convert that to the term civil union. Problem solved. Language change. Bam. No more debate on whether governments allow gay "marriage." Now, a gay couple could become fully unionized as far as the state goes and not be a shred different from a man and a woman.

As far as marriage goes regarding the sacrament. It would be upon the gay couple to choose which Church or priest they would like to have them marry. Of course there will be churches that refuse, but that is that Church's right to do so. Just like it is the gay couples right to marry who they see fit.

As far as the discrimination thing you mention though, I think that is something that comes through education, acceptance, and time. Racism still exists, but discrimination based upon race is, even though still present in ways, nothing like it was immediately after civil rights movement.

Peace.

 

[ShackledNation]

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?

This is the perfect solution. I've been telling people this for years. It's a simple fix in the tax code and what is called a language change. It would fully seperate church from state. Now if we can get our politicians to pick up on this and put the partisan crap aside, this would become a dead "issue." Strong work.

It goes way further than a separation of church and state. It's a separation of the individual from the state. Will photographers be allowed to decline to provide services to gay couples? Will the baker be able to say he doesn't bake wedding cakes for gay weddings? Will relationship counselors have the freedom to say their religion prevents them from providing those services? How about parents who tell their children that homosexuality is wrong and they should avoid homosexuals? That's where the real problem is, it's not language, it's behavior and control of that behavior.

Yes to all of the above. Nobody is required to provide any service or product to anyone. And I am saying that as a strong supporter of gay marriage. Controlling behavior like that is just as wrong and authoritarian as prohibiting gay marriage in the first place. A disrespect or hatred towards gay people is a cultural and moral problem. You can never legislate morality, and trying to do so does far more harm than good.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This is the perfect solution. I've been telling people this for years. It's a simple fix in the tax code and what is called a language change. It would fully seperate church from state. Now if we can get our politicians to pick up on this and put the partisan crap aside, this would become a dead "issue." Strong work.

It goes way further than a separation of church and state. It's a separation of the individual from the state. Will photographers be allowed to decline to provide services to gay couples? Will the baker be able to say he doesn't bake wedding cakes for gay weddings? Will relationship counselors have the freedom to say their religion prevents them from providing those services? How about parents who tell their children that homosexuality is wrong and they should avoid homosexuals? That's where the real problem is, it's not language, it's behavior and control of that behavior.

Yes to all of the above. Nobody is required to provide any service or product to anyone. And I am saying that as a strong supporter of gay marriage. Controlling behavior like that is just as wrong and authoritarian as prohibiting gay marriage in the first place. A disrespect or hatred towards gay people is a cultural and moral problem. You can never legislate morality, and trying to do so does far more harm than good.

See, this is why I repeated say that Same-sex Civil Marriage is not the problem, as that applies to the government. The real "problem" is a class of laws known as Public Accommodation Laws whereby the government makes it illegal for private businesses to discriminate (contrary to the above post, the ARE required to provides goods and services to those they don't want to). The idea that a business can refuse service for any reason is flat out wrong under these laws. Since you are from California, the Public Accommodation law is known as the "Unruh Civil Rights Act" and is reflected in the California Civil Code Section 51:

"51. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh
Civil Rights Act.
(b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and
equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic
information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to
the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities,
privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind
whatsoever."

CA Codes (civ:43-53)​

>>>>

 

[DavidS]

XXXXX_MeisterThere is absolutely no reason to restrict marriage or to in any way, shape or form limit the amount of freedom on a gay or transsexual couple. It's disgusting that we live in a world today where people actually still think this.

 

[varelse]

XXXXXX There is absolutely no reason to restrict marriage or to in any way, shape or form limit the amount of freedom on a gay or transsexual couple. It's disgusting that we live in a world today where people actually still think this.

The purpose of marriage and its recognition by the state is to shape the form of the family unit which is the foundation upon which society is built. The purpose of the state is to maintain and perpetuate that same society. Ergo the state must pursue such policies as serve the greater interest of society

 

[jillian]

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.

that is not borne out by reality...

 

[jillian]

XXXXXX There is absolutely no reason to restrict marriage or to in any way, shape or form limit the amount of freedom on a gay or transsexual couple. It's disgusting that we live in a world today where people actually still think this.

The purpose of marriage and its recognition by the state is to shape the form of the family unit which is the foundation upon which society is built. The purpose of the state is to maintain and perpetuate that same society. Ergo the state must pursue such policies as serve the greater interest of society

no... the purpose of marriage is to protect property rights and has always been a function of the state.

there are over 1,000 rights and obligations which attach to the status of marriage.

 

[varelse]

You do not need to recognize any form of marriage in order to recognize or protect property rights. State recognition of marriage is always has been and always will be social engineering . Hence laws against polygamy miscegnation or divorce. That is also the reason why child marriage is now illegal. None of these things have anything to do with property rights - they are all social engineering


Gays know this; that is why they are so adament about demanding MARRIAGE and not 'civil unions'- they wish for their sexual orientation to be included in the popular conception American society

 

[Meister]

XXXXXX There is absolutely no reason to restrict marriage or to in any way, shape or form limit the amount of freedom on a gay or transsexual couple. It's disgusting that we live in a world today where people actually still think this.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this issue.

 

[jillian]

You do not need to recognize any form of marriage in order to recognize or protect property rights. State recognition of marriage is always has been and always will be social engineering . Hence laws against polygamy miscegnation or divorce. That is also the reason why child marriage is now illegal. None of these things have anything to do with property rights - they are all social engineering


Gays know this; that is why they are so adament about demanding MARRIAGE and not 'civil unions'- they wish for their sexual orientation to be included in the popular conception American society

damn... there's so much wrong in that statement i barely know where to start.

no one has the power to perform a marriage absent the state giving them the power to do so.
and while marriage equality should be a federal issue because it deals with constitutional rights, states have always had the right to determine status issues.

married people own property differently. they have different entitlements. married people share each others pensions and social security and make decisions for each other in life-threatening circumstances..

i could go on, but there really isn't any reason to do so.

no one wants to say 'we got civil unioned' and they ARE entitled to say "we are married".

 

[varelse]

There is no constitutional right to have the government bless your marriage

The fact that you say entitled says much