Should Government be in the Marriage business?

[JBeukema]

so those trying to support their family should have their taxes raised or the billionaire playboy should have his taxes lessened because he's being taxed to death?

The government shouldn't be taxing people to death regardless of their marital status.

So you agree that to expect the working man who supports his children to pay the same percentage as the billionaire is able to is insane?

 

[JBeukema]

Marriage is contract law. When two people get married, in the eyes of the state a new 'entity' is created. States license marriage and states have a whole system of courts to dissolve that contract: divorce courts.

Churches sanctify marriages. Some churches hold marriage as a sacrament.

States create the license, churches sanctify to union.

If a church choses not to sanctify a marriage, the couple has other options like a civil ceremony. It still makes their marriage legal in the eyes of the state.

Yet who may enter into that contract is still determined based on the religious beliefs of the majority of churches.

The government determines who can enter into that contract, the churches have no say in it.

Yet they spend money to defeat homosexual marriages and politicians cite the popularity of religious homophobia as a reason to deny equal status under the law.

 

[DiveCon]

Yet who may enter into that contract is still determined based on the religious beliefs of the majority of churches.

The government determines who can enter into that contract, the churches have no say in it.

Yet they spend money to defeat homosexual marriages and politicians cite the popularity of religious homophobia as a reason to deny equal status under the law.

my solution and the one that has been supported in this thread would eliminate that

 

[Sky Dancer]

It's a bit too late. The government issues licenses for marriage. Gays ought to be able to get them too.

That is a very negative attitude. Just because the government is doing something it should not be is no reason to accept that there is nothing we can do about it.

We all choose our battles. I'm committed to marriage equality.

 

[JBeukema]

We could just kill everyone and be done with all the bullshit...

 

[asterism]

It's a bit too late. The government issues licenses for marriage. Gays ought to be able to get them too.

That is a very negative attitude. Just because the government is doing something it should not be is no reason to accept that there is nothing we can do about it.

We all choose our battles. I'm committed to marriage equality.

Me too.

The government needs to equally get out of the marriage business and treat households equally.

 

[asterism]

We could just kill everyone and be done with all the bullshit...

Why do you hate gay people?

 

[JBeukema]

We could just kill everyone and be done with all the bullshit...

Why do you hate gay people?

Because they're people.

 

[THE LIGHT]

so those trying to support their family should have their taxes raised or the billionaire playboy should have his taxes lessened because he's being taxed to death?

The government shouldn't be taxing people to death regardless of their marital status.

So you agree that to expect the working man who supports his children to pay the same percentage as the billionaire is able to is insane?

I agree that the government shouldn't be taxing anyone to death. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yet who may enter into that contract is still determined based on the religious beliefs of the majority of churches.

The government determines who can enter into that contract, the churches have no say in it.

Yet they spend money to defeat homosexual marriages and politicians cite the popularity of religious homophobia as a reason to deny equal status under the law.

No, some groups affiliated with some churches exercise their first amendment rights to speak up about an issue they feel strongly about, just like some groups associated with gay rights exercise their rights to characterize that stance as bigotry.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's a bit too late. The government issues licenses for marriage. Gays ought to be able to get them too.

That is a very negative attitude. Just because the government is doing something it should not be is no reason to accept that there is nothing we can do about it.

We all choose our battles. I'm committed to marriage equality.

Maybe the best way to get that is to get government to redefine its participation in marriage.

 

[syrenn]

Marriage is a legal contract issue and that means the government is involved. I NEED the government to recognize my martial state. I do not however NEED any religious recognition of being married.

 

[DiveCon]

Marriage is a legal contract issue and that means the government is involved. I NEED the government to recognize my martial state. I do not however NEED any religious recognition of being married.

then you would get a civil union contract
quite simple

 

[syrenn]

Marriage is a legal contract issue and that means the government is involved. I NEED the government to recognize my martial state. I do not however NEED any religious recognition of being married.

then you would get a civil union contract
quite simple

Exactly and a civil union contract means government involvement .

 

[jillian]

That is a very negative attitude. Just because the government is doing something it should not be is no reason to accept that there is nothing we can do about it.

We all choose our battles. I'm committed to marriage equality.

Maybe the best way to get that is to get government to redefine its participation in marriage.

the best way to get that is to stop discriminating

 

[frazzledgear]

I say no. I think that for the Christians sake, marriage is between a man and a woman and their Creator. While at the same time, homosexuals should be able to have whatever unions they choose on their own as well.

I just don't think the gov. should be involved in telling either side what to do.

What say you?

Government does have a proper role in ENCOURAGING those things KNOWN for a fact to contribute to stable, prosperous societies. The notion that everyone else must be forced to pretend the definition of marriage must be changed to suit a tiny minority is ludicrous. Marriage has meant the same thing for a LOOOONG time and I see no valid justification for redefining it EXCEPT narcissistic self-indulgence and self interest and that is just not sufficient justification.

The same people who believe in biological evolution like a religion fail to understand that the one area that has INDISPUTABLY evolved over time -is human institutions. And failing to appreciate or understand the process by which they evolved to where they are now is nothing but arrogance with no foundation under it -a puffbag. I get tired of those people who are basically insisting that all previous generations got it wrong and THEY -the "enlightened" ones are so much better, smarter, wiser etc. etc. than all previous generations -that they don't need to look past what will make Bob and Joe happy before upending something that took thousands of years to evolve to the institution it did. First of all the current generation is arguably one of THE most historically ignorant and the most self-centered at the same time compared to previous generations. That is a dangerous combination in my opinion because it is one that thinks satisfying and wallowing in their own self-indulgence even at the expense of future generations is all that matters. They don't have the temperament, maturity or wisdom to even see past their instant gratification to even imagine there really might be unwanted and unintended consequences that are far worse than the fact Bob and Joe aren't happy because they can't call their relationship a marriage.

Marriage evolved to what it is because it is undeniably and repeatedly PROVEN to be THE single most best situation for raising and preparing the next generation to take the reins. PERIOD. It isn't about making Joe and Bob happy or unhappy and it isn't about making John and Sue happy or unhappy either. That doesn't mean every marriage is a good one or that every marriage will succeed -it means exactly what I told you. It is undeniably THE best situation for raising and preparing the next generation to take their place in society as well adjusted, independent, emotionally mature, contributing members of society. And the next best is a distant second. We never make laws to make specific people happy or unhappy but because we believe it is what provides the best good for society itself both now and at least the near future.

Don't get me wrong -I don't care if Bob and Joe are madly in love and I don't care if they want to create a new word to describe their relationship and I don't care if businesses want to offer identical benefits to such relationships. But the word MARRIAGE is taken and it does NOT mean "any group of people who want to shack up for a while". Even when people who had an agenda and were specifically trying to disprove it -they ALL came to the same conclusions every single time. Every single study finds the same thing. THE single best situation for raising and preparing the next generation to become independent, contributing members of society is when they are raised by their married mother and father with the next best a far distant second. And in the process that also provides for a more stable society. A stable society is good for you and me and Bob and Joe and John and Sue as well as for those will end up taking the reins in the future -and THAT should carry far more weight than whether Bob and Joe are personally happy about being able to call their relationship a "marriage" -well, at least for those 8 years that is the average time a homosexual "marriage" lasts. We have examples from the past as well as in countries today that have a couple of decades of experimenting with changing the definition of marriage and the unwanted and unintended negative consequences fall on the same people each time -it is the next generation that suffers for it with significantly higher rates of mental illness among children who often describe themselves as having trouble establishing relationships of any kind with others. The very segment of the population we know does better under the traditional definition of marriage are of course going to be the very same who suffer the most by destroying it. And this is what those who favor doing that refuse to accept -by changing the definition of marriage to mean ANYTHING, it ends up meaning nothing and the marriage rate itself sharply drops off. But not the birth rate which means what has really changed is removing what we know for a fact is THE best situation for raising and preparing the next generation and essentially handicapping them in a way our generation was not. Very self centered and there is just no way to pretend those who did it were humane, thoughtful and caring before tampering with something they totally failed to understand in the first place!

But people like you will insist that can't possibly be true, it can't possibly have such a serious negative affect on future generations -because after all, YOU have declared this generation to be the smartest, wisest and most "enlightened" generation over all previous ones and only YOU got it right and billions of your predecessors got it all wrong. But the full and real ramifications it has on future generations should matter far more if they really are wise, caring and understanding.

Homosexual relationships are NOT the only consensual adult relationship that is NOT defined as a marriage by the state and in fact it is just one of MANY adult consensual relationships that are not accepted as a marriage by the state. You'd never know that to listen to gay activists though. NOWHERE has a single person ever been able to come up with any evidence that redefining marriage in order to make Bob and Joe happy by allowing them to call their relationship a "marriage" will provide for the greater good -and plenty of evidence it has and will do the exact opposite instead. The only argument they have is "anyone who loves someone else should be able to marry them" -but THIS is where you totally lose the argument. If it doesn't provide a greater good to society by doing so and instead results in significant and real harm to future generations, then there must be a very powerful argument made showing why it is worth inflicting that kind of harm.

Being in love is NEVER a legal requirement to marry. Marriage is a binding legal contract only and if the two parties are in love, well isn't that nice for them -but it has NEVER been a requirement and it still isn't.

We can all love whoever we want and government isn't telling anyone not to love anyone else. But it is a FACT that not everyone we choose to love is an eligible marriage partner -and that is true for homosexual and heterosexuals alike. What homosexuals are really complaining about is that while they can, have and do marry and have even had long marriages and raised families -the people they feel the greater sexual attraction to and may prefer to love are not eligible marriage partners. Wow, like falling in love with someone who isn't an eligible marriage partner never happens to a heterosexual, huh. Who we may love at any given moment is irrelevant because it is NEVER love that determines who is and is not an eligible marriage partner for anyone.

 

[LuckyDan]

We all choose our battles. I'm committed to marriage equality.

Maybe the best way to get that is to get government to redefine its participation in marriage.

the best way to get that is to stop discriminating

You know what? Screw it. Just end marriage. Problem solved.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We all choose our battles. I'm committed to marriage equality.

Maybe the best way to get that is to get government to redefine its participation in marriage.

the best way to get that is to stop discriminating

Not true.

 

[JBeukema]

Marriage has meant the same thing for a LOOOONG

define: long time

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw]YouTube - Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else[/ame]

The same people who believe in biological evolution like a religion

I get tired of those people who are basically insisting that all previous generations got it wrong and THEY -the "enlightened" ones are so much better, smarter, wiser etc. etc.

yes... stupid founding fathers! Silly abolitionists! Idiotic desegregationists!

Marriage evolved to what it is because it is undeniably and repeatedly PROVEN to be THE single most best situation for raising and preparing the next generation to take the reins. PERIOD.

Really? Many cultures would disagree. Ask an anthropologist.

But the word MARRIAGE is taken

It was taken before you people redefined it, yet that didn't stop you

and it does NOT mean "any group of people who want to shack up for a while"

Yes, it was one man, 300 wives, his sister, a kitchen condiment, and seven-hundred concubines. oh, and his brother when he died.

We can all love whoever we want and government isn't telling anyone not to love anyone else. But it is a FACT that not everyone we choose to love is an eligible marriage partner

Yes, just because you love a ****** doesn't mean you can marry it and destroy society by undermining the best system for rearing good White children- oh, wait, SCOTUS already laughed that shit out of the court.

 

[asterism]

I say no. I think that for the Christians sake, marriage is between a man and a woman and their Creator. While at the same time, homosexuals should be able to have whatever unions they choose on their own as well.

I just don't think the gov. should be involved in telling either side what to do.

What say you?

Government does have a proper role in ENCOURAGING those things KNOWN for a fact to contribute to stable, prosperous societies. The notion that everyone else must be forced to pretend the definition of marriage must be changed to suit a tiny minority is ludicrous. Marriage has meant the same thing for a LOOOONG time and I see no valid justification for redefining it EXCEPT narcissistic self-indulgence and self interest and that is just not sufficient justification.

The same people who believe in biological evolution like a religion fail to understand that the one area that has INDISPUTABLY evolved over time -is human institutions. And failing to appreciate or understand the process by which they evolved to where they are now is nothing but arrogance with no foundation under it -a puffbag. I get tired of those people who are basically insisting that all previous generations got it wrong and THEY -the "enlightened" ones are so much better, smarter, wiser etc. etc. than all previous generations -that they don't need to look past what will make Bob and Joe happy before upending something that took thousands of years to evolve to the institution it did. First of all the current generation is arguably one of THE most historically ignorant and the most self-centered at the same time compared to previous generations. That is a dangerous combination in my opinion because it is one that thinks satisfying and wallowing in their own self-indulgence even at the expense of future generations is all that matters. They don't have the temperament, maturity or wisdom to even see past their instant gratification to even imagine there really might be unwanted and unintended consequences that are far worse than the fact Bob and Joe aren't happy because they can't call their relationship a marriage.

Marriage evolved to what it is because it is undeniably and repeatedly PROVEN to be THE single most best situation for raising and preparing the next generation to take the reins. PERIOD. It isn't about making Joe and Bob happy or unhappy and it isn't about making John and Sue happy or unhappy either. That doesn't mean every marriage is a good one or that every marriage will succeed -it means exactly what I told you. It is undeniably THE best situation for raising and preparing the next generation to take their place in society as well adjusted, independent, emotionally mature, contributing members of society. And the next best is a distant second. We never make laws to make specific people happy or unhappy but because we believe it is what provides the best good for society itself both now and at least the near future.

Don't get me wrong -I don't care if Bob and Joe are madly in love and I don't care if they want to create a new word to describe their relationship and I don't care if businesses want to offer identical benefits to such relationships. But the word MARRIAGE is taken and it does NOT mean "any group of people who want to shack up for a while". Even when people who had an agenda and were specifically trying to disprove it -they ALL came to the same conclusions every single time. Every single study finds the same thing. THE single best situation for raising and preparing the next generation to become independent, contributing members of society is when they are raised by their married mother and father with the next best a far distant second. And in the process that also provides for a more stable society. A stable society is good for you and me and Bob and Joe and John and Sue as well as for those will end up taking the reins in the future -and THAT should carry far more weight than whether Bob and Joe are personally happy about being able to call their relationship a "marriage" -well, at least for those 8 years that is the average time a homosexual "marriage" lasts. We have examples from the past as well as in countries today that have a couple of decades of experimenting with changing the definition of marriage and the unwanted and unintended negative consequences fall on the same people each time -it is the next generation that suffers for it with significantly higher rates of mental illness among children who often describe themselves as having trouble establishing relationships of any kind with others. The very segment of the population we know does better under the traditional definition of marriage are of course going to be the very same who suffer the most by destroying it. And this is what those who favor doing that refuse to accept -by changing the definition of marriage to mean ANYTHING, it ends up meaning nothing and the marriage rate itself sharply drops off. But not the birth rate which means what has really changed is removing what we know for a fact is THE best situation for raising and preparing the next generation and essentially handicapping them in a way our generation was not. Very self centered and there is just no way to pretend those who did it were humane, thoughtful and caring before tampering with something they totally failed to understand in the first place!

But people like you will insist that can't possibly be true, it can't possibly have such a serious negative affect on future generations -because after all, YOU have declared this generation to be the smartest, wisest and most "enlightened" generation over all previous ones and only YOU got it right and billions of your predecessors got it all wrong. But the full and real ramifications it has on future generations should matter far more if they really are wise, caring and understanding.

Homosexual relationships are NOT the only consensual adult relationship that is NOT defined as a marriage by the state and in fact it is just one of MANY adult consensual relationships that are not accepted as a marriage by the state. You'd never know that to listen to gay activists though. NOWHERE has a single person ever been able to come up with any evidence that redefining marriage in order to make Bob and Joe happy by allowing them to call their relationship a "marriage" will provide for the greater good -and plenty of evidence it has and will do the exact opposite instead. The only argument they have is "anyone who loves someone else should be able to marry them" -but THIS is where you totally lose the argument. If it doesn't provide a greater good to society by doing so and instead results in significant and real harm to future generations, then there must be a very powerful argument made showing why it is worth inflicting that kind of harm.

Being in love is NEVER a legal requirement to marry. Marriage is a binding legal contract only and if the two parties are in love, well isn't that nice for them -but it has NEVER been a requirement and it still isn't.

We can all love whoever we want and government isn't telling anyone not to love anyone else. But it is a FACT that not everyone we choose to love is an eligible marriage partner -and that is true for homosexual and heterosexuals alike. What homosexuals are really complaining about is that while they can, have and do marry and have even had long marriages and raised families -the people they feel the greater sexual attraction to and may prefer to love are not eligible marriage partners. Wow, like falling in love with someone who isn't an eligible marriage partner never happens to a heterosexual, huh. Who we may love at any given moment is irrelevant because it is NEVER love that determines who is and is not an eligible marriage partner for anyone.

Reality differs.

We as a society should encourage households, not wife beater/passive aggressive wife marriages. We should not discriminate against those who take on neighbor kids who have only the house they live in and the empty burned out lot next door where their parents died. We should not discriminate against any two parent household that picks up where fate left off by agreeing to make a lifetime commitment to an orphan.

For every "husband and wife and that's the natural law" argument I can find multiple divorces, 53 hour marriages, and non-procreating unions that negate that premise - and you can't find any harm in taking a worthy human child out of foster care and foisted upon a non conventional family that puts that child at the forefront of priorities.

Go find me some gay folk that actually have kids who are bad parents if you disagree. Go find me someone that you think would be be better off in the hands of a government social worker.