Phoenix
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,808
- Reaction score
- 622
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Government will never be out of marriage.........They have a stake in it...That is to have a man and woman married for the sake of any children that may come from it...........In black society 3 ot of 5 children are born out of wedlock...Chidren born out of wedlock don't have that father to influence them.......That is why crime is so hig in the black neighborhood.
I don't want the government to recognize marriage OF ANYONE, hetro, homo, multiple, incestual or otherwise. That's equality.
I don't agree with any bans on marriage. I think the recent NC deal is completely stupid. That is exactly my point. If we aren't going to restrict marriage at all IE everyone can marry, what's the point of having it at all (in reference to government)? Government shouldn't be giving economic benefits to anyone to influence their behavior. All other things are currently adjudicated in this day and age without marriage. So why have it?Except it's not because government recognition affects a million other things like economic recognition, parental benefits etc. Now, since marriage is here to stay and the government has recognized it in one form or another since the Code of Hammurabi was written, why don't we move on and live in reality. States banning gay marriage is not somehow better than federal bans.
I don't agree with any bans on marriage. I think the recent NC deal is completely stupid. That is exactly my point. If we aren't going to restrict marriage at all IE everyone can marry, what's the point of having it at all (in reference to government)? Government shouldn't be giving economic benefits to anyone to influence their behavior. All other things are currently adjudicated in this day and age without marriage. So why have it?
I don't agree with any bans on marriage. I think the recent NC deal is completely stupid. That is exactly my point. If we aren't going to restrict marriage at all IE everyone can marry, what's the point of having it at all (in reference to government)? Government shouldn't be giving economic benefits to anyone to influence their behavior. All other things are currently adjudicated in this day and age without marriage. So why have it?
I AM. I am currently in a discourse with not only my state senator but also my county counsel man to have marriage disbanded in the state of SC and my county. I believe I actually have some traction. both are old and not worried about reelection, sympathetic to my cause and fed up with arguing about a frivolous matter.If you don't agree with the benefits of marriage, fight to have them revoked from the laws. Work to get them removed. I won't wish you luck because I personally think many of them are based on very good principles. I highly doubt I have to worry about it though since the chances of you actually getting many of the benefits removed from marriage are about as high as getting the government out of marriage, which is extremely small.
But the government recognizes families and therefore must have a legal means of also allowing a chosen adult who the person wants to have those benefits/rights to become a legal part of their family and vice versa.
I don't understand why everyone thinks "get the government completely out of marriage" is a good argument. The government really isn't that far into marriage to begin with. And the fewer restrictions there are about getting married the less government will be involved in it. It is just a contract making people family. This is just as important to many people in the US as education is. It may be under-appreciated and disrespected by some or even many, but that doesn't mean the majority are ready to give it up. And it is highly unlikely the majority will be ready to do so within any of our lifetimes.
In your views, government shouldn't but it does, and that is the reality we have to deal with. Now, I dont really about a return to caveman understandings of individual relationships or the connections they have to your personal feels on marriage. I care about that which is a reality being dealt with.
I AM. I am currently in a discourse with not only my state senator but also my county counsel man to have marriage disbanded in the state of SC and my county. I believe I actually have some traction. both are old and not worried about reelection, sympathetic to my cause and fed up with arguing about a frivolous matter.
Don't count on it holding up or going far. It just isn't practical or reasonable and the majority of the country knows this.
No it just isn't "normal". Kind of like the dvorak keyboard is better but the qwerty is "normal". People don't like change.
and therein lies the problem. greed trumps reason.Any proposal to get out of civil marriage, at least for the foreseeable future, will end in laughter. No one is going to willingly give up the rights and benefits that come from just one simple contract that is marriage.
Hell, I'd bet that most Christians would rather allow same sex couples the right to marriage if the only alternative was giving up marriage altogether.
No it just isn't "normal". Kind of like the dvorak keyboard is better but the qwerty is "normal". People don't like change.
and therein lies the problem. greed trumps reason.
Or the fact that we live in a world where some people will take advantage of any situation? Oh, and let us not forget that people need to be able to take care of their families and that might require a little extra legal protection without a ****load of paperwork that really does nothing more than a single marriage contract does.
You sure seem bitter. I imagine you're not married.
I can't remember if I asked you or someone else, but I'll ask again. Do you feel that your rights are somehow being violated with legal marriage being in place? If yes, could you please explain exactly why you feel this way?
I hate when the right answer is not available.
How about a government that honors its own constitution and bill of rights? Very simple. You don't need to redefine anything as same-sex marriages were around before our modern-day concept of marriage which allows a women to have a say in the union--that concept is less than 300 years old.
Bam!
Not bitter at all and happily married. Yes, I feel my rights are violated with legal marriage in place. Especially as it stands now. If I decide I want to marry a man I don't get the same benefits that I get in my current marriage. If I want to marry another person, that illegal unless I divorce the one I have now.
Legal Marriage requires the government to define "marriage". That definition inevitably excludes someone from participating in the institution of marriage.We are fighting to get the ability for anyone to marry a member of the same sex, so that is kind of a moot point.
You cannot get legal recognition for that third or subsequent people even without any marriage. Even with POAs, you could only leave the decisions up to one person in most cases. If you wish to have more people make those decisions, there may be a way to write that into a POA that they have to both or all agree, but that would sort of defeat the purpose of having such a thing in the first place. And I am all for some arrangement that gives a way for additional adults to be able to enter into some legal agreement, even called marriage, that could give them family standing as a legal spouse.
No, you specifically asked if I thought my rights were violated BY LEGAL MARRIAGE and I was answering you question. I believe the government should not provide any acknowledgement or benefit to a person deciding to cohabitate with another.But what you are arguing doesn't make sense because it requires legal marriage to be in place anyway in order for you to get those things.
Legal Marriage requires the government to define "marriage". That definition inevitably excludes someone from participating in the institution of marriage.
Legal marriage is a legal contract. Legal contracts happen between groups of people all the time.
No, you specifically asked if I thought my rights were violated BY LEGAL MARRIAGE and I was answering you question. I believe the government should not provide any acknowledgement or benefit to a person deciding to cohabitate with another.
You are talking about a specific contract. Many business partnerships have more than two members all with equal ownership / rights.All legal contracts have to have definitions and reasons for their existence. They also have limitations. It all depends on the type and purpose of the contract. I'm in a legal contract with the Navy. No one else can be involved in this contract but me and the government, specifically the US Navy, because more people would complicate the terms of the contract. For in loco parentis contracts, only one person is allowed to be named as a guardian in place of the parents because more would cause issues. Is that discriminating against someone else?
Why should the government decide that any partner relationship I enter into must be a 50/50 partnership? Maybe I only want to devote 25% of my time and resources to a particular individual. As long as we are two consenting adults, why is that a problem?And you have not shown how, legally, your rights are being violated with merely the existence of legal marriage. It is your choice to enter into the marriage with another person, therefore taking on certain legal and financial responsibilities and accepting the fact that your relationship will have to be dissolved legally prior to you being able to enter into another such contract or absolve some of that financial or legal responsibility for the other person. In return for that commitment and accepting those responsibilities, the government offers benefits and rights. Some of those rights come from just being legal family (usually by blood) with another person anyway. The rest are given as basically an incentive to a) encourage stable relationships and b) help to try to protect each person from some abuse by the other.
Why in the world would I push for FURTHER assine recognition of my relationships? It's interesting I think that the Pro SS marriage crowd often touts "keeping government out of the bedroom" when it's exactly the opposite they are asking for.If you want to have some recognition given to a relationship you may be in, such as friendship, roommate, or less-than-marriage serious relationship, you need to push for that in your government. Otherwise, your rights are no more being violated by having legal marriage exist than they are from business contracts existing or in loco parentis's (as an actual legal document) existing.
You are talking about a specific contract. Many business partnerships have more than two members all with equal ownership / rights.
Why should the government decide that any partner relationship I enter into must be a 50/50 partnership? Maybe I only want to devote 25% of my time and resources to a particular individual. As long as we are two consenting adults, why is that a problem?
Why in the world would I push for FURTHER assine recognition of my relationships? It's interesting I think that the Pro SS marriage crowd often touts "keeping government out of the bedroom" when it's exactly the opposite they are asking for.
I can have a roommate agreement with whomever and however many people I want. Why not marriage? That is my point. By government defining a marriage they discriminate.
How would you define legal marriage in the United States?
No. Civil marriage is practical and reasonable as a way to track who is married and to ensure that legal relationships, particularly ones people choose to enter into, are given high priority with little fuss in our legal system.
Any proposal to get out of civil marriage, at least for the foreseeable future, will end in laughter. No one is going to willingly give up the rights and benefits that come from just one simple contract that is marriage.
Hell, I'd bet that most Christians would rather allow same sex couples the right to marriage if the only alternative was giving up marriage altogether.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?p=1060481392&noquote=1I really don't understand why more people don't advocate removing government from marriage altogether. From a government stand point it is an antiquated practice. Since people have kids out of wedlock these days like it's nothing what's the point of a marriage license? To keep people from marrying their cousin? Why? they can screw anyway and make babies.
The other problem I have is people that will scream separation of church and state to justify not outlawing SS marriages BUT have no problem with most marriages being performed by a member of clergy and accepted by the state. Hello....
Wow, I've never agreed with someone as much as you on a topic. Just a note that you assert then omit. Marriage will exist with or without government involvement. All organized religions also define marriage, but not uniformly. Married in the governments POV should be accepting a specific contract, government defined, between two people. To keep it rational and workable the government only allows an individual to enter one of these contracts at a time. It's unfortunate that we call what the government does a marriage, it's not, it's a standard contract like you say. It saves huge amounts of time and money for everyone. Having each state come up with different contracts wastes everybody's time and money. Without a standard country wide contract it will waste the governments money also. Just limit it to two adults. Thanks for your cogent posts.No. Civil marriage is practical and reasonable as a way to track who is married and to ensure that legal relationships, particularly ones people choose to enter into, are given high priority with little fuss in our legal system.
Any proposal to get out of civil marriage, at least for the foreseeable future, will end in laughter. No one is going to willingly give up the rights and benefits that come from just one simple contract that is marriage.
Hell, I'd bet that most Christians would rather allow same sex couples the right to marriage if the only alternative was giving up marriage altogether.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?