Would you dissolve your marriage over the SSM issue?

[Papa bull]

1) I know it's not a X-mas party - that's called an example of a form of protest

2) How would I have heard about it? Do divorces make national news?

I believe most of those against SSM believe that battle isn't over yet. It hasn't been lost.

They don't see themselves as being on the Titanic.

I think marriage is going down eventually but we're not there, yet. Divorces would make national news if they were "protest divorces". Even if they didn't make national news, they'd be all over the internet like everything else. If you don't think you'd have heard about it if this was happening, then you're just not thinking about it.

 

[roguenuke]

It's not about religion. Marriage is a natural union between a man and a woman and was only necessary, in the first place, for the sake of procreation. That's why the Supreme Court Justice called it "fundamental to our existence and survival". there's nothing fundamental to our existence or survival about homosexual unions. Homosexual relationships are an alternative to the norm (heterosexual relationships). As such, they shouldn't be perplexed by the fact that they really need an alternative to marriage. An alternative to marriage for the alternative lifestyle seems like exactly the right thing to set up for them.

And since that time, have ruled that it isn't really for procreation. That is an outdated belief, even within SCOTUS rulings.

See Turner v Safley.

 

[roguenuke]

Contracts can replace all of that or allow individuals to designate their own benifiecuaries in all matters. As to the question of why marriage it is more of a religious ceremony that a legal one to us.

And having one contract, the marriage license, that replaces all those other ones is just simply more efficient. There is no reason to change that.

It always amazes me how some want the government and life to work less efficiently for no good legal reason.

 

[roguenuke]

Well, then the Supreme Court decision in Loving Vs. Virginia was wrong in saying such a thing. I'm surprised you'd take that position. It negates the only statement that "marriage is a right" in the Virginia vs. Loving decision.

The decision itself was not wrong at all. The reasoning for the decision was. This was corrected in at least one future decision, but really several different decisions.

 

[Papa bull]

And since that time, have ruled that it isn't really for procreation. That is an outdated belief, even within SCOTUS rulings.

See Turner v Safley.

Until such time as the supreme court rules that the very definition of marriage "impermissably burdens" anyone's right to choose a partner of the same sex, the case has no bearing on this. There has never been any such ruling that marriage is clearly something other than a state sanction and joining of a man and a woman. The fact that homosexuals don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex means they want something that isn't a marriage and that's not the fault of the state.

 

[Papa bull]

And having one contract, the marriage license, that replaces all those other ones is just simply more efficient. There is no reason to change that.

It always amazes me how some want the government and life to work less efficiently for no good legal reason.

There are different types of corporate legal structures because there are different types of corporations with different structures. There are different types of domestic partnerships and, as such, it is reasonable for there to be different legal frameworks for them, as well.

 

[roguenuke]

Nonsense. You don't have a driver's license revoked because you never drove after you got it. Driving isn't a requirement for a Driver's license any more than procreating is a requirement for a marriage license. Still driving was the purpose of a driver's license as much as procreating was the purpose for a marriage license. Same thing with a liquor license. You can get a liquor license and subsequently never server alcohol. You can get licensed as a doctor and decide never to practice medicine. You can get licensed as an attorney and never practice law. The fact that you don't have to bear children as a condition of marriage doesn't in any way give you an argument that marriage wasn't established for establishing and supporting families, which boils down to procreation.

I can just see you arguing that "practicing medicine isn't a requirement for getting a medical license, so the government shouldn't discriminate by only letting people who go to medical school become doctors".

You are trying to link two different things. The name of a marriage license is "marriage license", not "procreation license". And the laws pertaining to a driver's license are directly related to its purpose, driving. The laws pertaining to a marriage license are directly related to its purpose, getting married (which then converts a marriage license to a contract which deals with two people being spouses, not procreation). No part of marriage laws relate to procreation directly.

You continue to fail in your argument because every license you point to says what it is for directly, which is what the marriage license says too, it is for marriage, not procreation. If it were a license for procreation it would say/be called "procreation license", not marriage license.

More proof that your argument fails. If you drive without a driver's license, you get in legal trouble. If you sell alcohol without a liquor license, you get into legal trouble. If you practice medicine without a doctor's license, you get into legal trouble. If you procreate without a marriage license though you face no legal trouble for that action.

 

[roguenuke]

Until such time as the supreme court rules that the very definition of marriage "impermissably burdens" anyone's right to choose a partner of the same sex, the case has no bearing on this. There has never been any such ruling that marriage is clearly something other than a state sanction and joining of a man and a woman. The fact that homosexuals don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex means they want something that isn't a marriage and that's not the fault of the state.

It is just as relevant as you trying to bring up the ruling of Loving trying to relate marriage to procreation.

 

[roguenuke]

There are different types of corporate legal structures because there are different types of corporations with different structures. There are different types of domestic partnerships and, as such, it is reasonable for there to be different legal frameworks for them, as well.

And that has nothing to do with what was being responded to. Only one contract currently exists to recognize a person as another person's legal spouse. That is marriage. It is a specific contract and some want to dissolve it for no other reason than they believe that for some reason this would make the society better. They either don't want to have to share the word marriage or they are so far libertarian that they protest anything the government is involved in and want to change that involvement.

 

[Papa bull]

You are trying to link two different things. The name of a marriage license is "marriage license", not "procreation license". And the laws pertaining to a driver's license are directly related to its purpose, driving. The laws pertaining to a marriage license are directly related to its purpose, getting married (which then converts a marriage license to a contract which deals with two people being spouses, not procreation). No part of marriage laws relate to procreation directly.

You continue to fail in your argument because every license you point to says what it is for directly, which is what the marriage license says too, it is for marriage, not procreation. If it were a license for procreation it would say/be called "procreation license", not marriage license.

More proof that your argument fails. If you drive without a driver's license, you get in legal trouble. If you sell alcohol without a liquor license, you get into legal trouble. If you practice medicine without a doctor's license, you get into legal trouble. If you procreate without a marriage license though you face no legal trouble for that action.

The fact that you don't get into specific legal trouble for having a child out of wedlock, anymore isn't proof that marriage wasn't created for the sake of creating a new family and producing children. Seriously, the fact that bastards are "illegitimate" should clue you in on this. For some reason, you got it into your head that marriage had nothing to do with procreation and you're sticking to it no matter how wrong you are. It's obvious to anyone that cares more about reality than their progressive agenda, but seriously... I can't waste any more time today trying to refute your progressive agenda. I've got to do something productive. That's what keeps me from whining about how unfair the world is treating me like progressive tend to do.

Maybe I'll catch you later if you post something more compelling than what I've seen from you so far on this.

 

[Dragonfly]

So......... back on topic here.......

I don't smoke. I think it's dangerous, deadly, and a gigantic waste of money.
I support smoke free work places, smoke free restaurants, and generally any enclosed place where people gather being smoke free.

However, I'm not militantly against it enough to think it should be illegal for a person to smoke.

Some people think SSM will be the down-fall of society and possibly the end of 'Merika.

It's one thing if you're opposed to gay marriage, but don't really care enough to fight it, and quite another if you're so opposed to it you're willing to sacrifice something you hold sacred in order to make a stand.

Is anyone here willing to sacrifice something sacred or valuable in order to make a stand against SSM?

 

[Gipper]

If I was married, I'd say hell yeah I would. Of course, it's not like the wife (or any wife) would agree to it.

 

[Papa bull]

So......... back on topic here.......

I don't smoke. I think it's dangerous, deadly, and a gigantic waste of money.
I support smoke free work places, smoke free restaurants, and generally any enclosed place where people gather being smoke free.

However, I'm not militantly against it enough to think it should be illegal for a person to smoke.

Some people think SSM will be the down-fall of society and possibly the end of 'Merika.

It's one thing if you're opposed to gay marriage, but don't really care enough to fight it, and quite another if you're so opposed to it you're willing to sacrifice something you hold sacred in order to make a stand.

Is anyone here willing to sacrifice something sacred or valuable in order to make a stand against SSM?

Typically, people don't go there. Someone usually will not do something like kill their child to make a point about abortion. You don't have to sacrifice something sacred. Just donating time and/or money usually gives you better results, anyway. Getting a divorce to make a statement about same-sex marriage being wrong would be a lot like becoming a prostitute to make a statement about promiscuity being wrong.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No, this is not accurate. Marriage has never been "necessary" because of procreation. Procreation can and does happen without marriage.

Undeniably, it is better for procreation to take place within marriage, with each child being assured this legal connection to and between his mother and his father. Just look at the circumstances that are growing far too common, of one single mother with several children by several different deadbeat “baby daddies”, and it should be obvious that such arrangements are not in the best interests of those directly involved, or of the society in which this occurs.

One of the most essential purposes of marriage is to form a stable family in which to produce children, and to assure that the parents are able and compelled to fulfill their responsibilities to each other and to their children.

 

[Papa bull]

Undeniably, it is better for procreation to take place within marriage, with each child being assured this legal connection to and between his mother and his father. Just look at the circumstances that are growing far too common, of one single mother with several children by several different deadbeat “baby daddies”, and it should be obvious that such arrangements are not in the best interests of those directly involved, or of the society in which this occurs.

One of the most essential purposes of marriage is to form a stable family in which to produce children, and to assure that the parents are able and compelled to fulfill their responsibilities to each other and to their children.

Yep. It's easy enough to see that if one doesn't have one's head buried in.... the sand. We'll go with "the sand" on this one so that no one feels all butt hurt. Marriage is the structure created to support the family unit. It wasn't designed just to give people who want to have sex and play house tax together the right to file joint taxes.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I was wondering just how opposed to SSM some people might be?

Are they simply griping about it, or is there a much stronger passion behind their thoughts?

How far would they go to show their opposition to SSM?

If SSM were to become legally and socially acceptable, even "morally acceptable" by the general public, would anyone feel so passionately "wronged" that they'd protest by formally dissolving their marriage?

I know a guy where I work who won't attend our company party in December because the name of the party was changed from the X-mas party, to the Holiday Party.

Is there anyone so passionately against SSM they'd rather not be married than share the same word with "the gays, fags, and homos"?

How strong is their conviction to the issue?
How far would they go?

I'm just curious.

Your entire premise is simply wrong.

I have never claimed, nor am I aware of anyone else who is opposed to the vulgar mockery that SSM represents, that my own marriage, or anyone else's genuine marriage, will be affected in any way of the institution is mocked and degraded by extending the term to cover homosexual unions or other sick perversions. None of this will have any effect on the relationship between me and my wife.

My concern is for society as a whole. Marriage is the foundation of a stable society. Putting forth a degraded mockery of marriage, and forcing society to accept that as being in any way equivalent to the real thing; allowing this mockery to take the place of genuine marriage in the foundation of a society, can only be destructive to the society.

Most modern houses are built on a foundation that consists of a solid slab of concrete. What would happen if you built a house, whose foundation consisted of some scattered small slabs of concrete, mingled randomly with patches of mud, sandstone, compost, and other materials? You would build a house that would not stand. Those who live in that house might be injured or killed as it collapses; at the very best, they'd be left homeless.

That's what we are doing to our society, by allowing genuine marriage as its foundation to be undermined and adulterated. And all of us who live in this society stand to be harmed by the inevitable collapse.

 

[Dragonfly]

Your entire premise is simply wrong.

I have never claimed, nor am I aware of anyone else who is opposed to the vulgar mockery that SSM represents, that my own marriage, or anyone else's genuine marriage, will be affected in any way of the institution is mocked and degraded by extending the term to cover homosexual unions or other sick perversions. None of this will have any effect on the relationship between me and my wife.

My concern is for society as a whole. Marriage is the foundation of a stable society. Putting forth a degraded mockery of marriage, and forcing society to accept that as being in any way equivalent to the real thing; allowing this mockery to take the place of genuine marriage in the foundation of a society, can only be destructive to the society.

Most modern houses are built on a foundation that consists of a solid slab of concrete. What would happen if you built a house, whose foundation consisted of some scattered small slabs of concrete, mingled randomly with patches of mud, sandstone, compost, and other materials? You would build a house that would not stand. Those who live in that house might be injured or killed as it collapses; at the very best, they'd be left homeless.

That's what we are doing to our society, by allowing genuine marriage as its foundation to be undermined and adulterated. And all of us who live in this society stand to be harmed by the inevitable collapse.

#1) It was just a question.

#2) I 100% disagree with you on every aspect of what SSM does, will do, or might do to society as a whole.

#3) Your fear is noted.

 

[Cephus]

By the way some people talk about it it's not that absurd.

Then they can let us know when they actually get divorced over it because I don't think for a second it's happening.

 

[Cephus]

It's not about religion. Marriage is a natural union between a man and a woman and was only necessary, in the first place, for the sake of procreation. That's why the Supreme Court Justice called it "fundamental to our existence and survival". there's nothing fundamental to our existence or survival about homosexual unions. Homosexual relationships are an alternative to the norm (heterosexual relationships). As such, they shouldn't be perplexed by the fact that they really need an alternative to marriage. An alternative to marriage for the alternative lifestyle seems like exactly the right thing to set up for them.

There's nothing "natural" about it, no other creature in nature gets married. It has everything to do with religion, that's why Scalia's whole rant came off as highly religious. That's the only thing that makes heterosexual marriage mean anything. Get rid of all the idiotic religions and there ceases to be a problem.

 

[Cephus]

Engaged

Says the hypocrite...

 

[Cephus]

I've never taken the position that marriage is a right.

It's a right insofar as society decides that it ought to be a right, but if they do decide that, as they have for heterosexual marriage, then it becomes a right that ought to be shared by all.

 

[Papa bull]

There's nothing "natural" about it, no other creature in nature gets married. It has everything to do with religion, that's why Scalia's whole rant came off as highly religious. That's the only thing that makes heterosexual marriage mean anything. Get rid of all the idiotic religions and there ceases to be a problem.

I disagree. State sanctioned marriage was designed to be a "support contract" for the family. No matter how much you want to screw around, you don't. No matter how much you want to ditch the wife and kids, you don't. No matter how much you want to kick your wife or husband to the curb a d take their money, you don't. No matter how much you don't want to support the kids or even admit they are the fruit of your loins, you agree to do the right thing. In return, society sanctions (approves) and supports your pairing.

It's got a lot less to do with religion than you think, apparently. Marriage of a man and a woman has been socially sanctioned in virtually all cultures, religious or secular, primitive or modern.

 

[Cephus]

I disagree. State sanctioned marriage was designed to be a "support contract" for the family. No matter how much you want to screw around, you don't.

Because there's no infidelity in marriage, right? :roll:

No matter how much you want to ditch the wife and kids, you don't.

Because more than 50% of marriages don't end in divorce, right? :roll:

No matter how much you want to kick your wife or husband to the curb a d take their money, you don't.

Happens all the time, especially in marriages with prenups, right? :roll:

No matter how much you don't want to support the kids or even admit they are the fruit of your loins, you agree to do the right thing.

Because there are no deadbeat dads or moms, right? :roll:

In return, society sanctions (approves) and supports your pairing.

No, in return, society gives you all kinds of benefits and tax breaks, mostly because being part of a stable pairing gives you more free money to spend on the local, state and federal economy.

It's got a lot less to do with religion than you think, apparently. Marriage of a man and a woman has been socially sanctioned in virtually all cultures, religious or secular, primitive or modern.

Oh, marriage has never had anything significantly to do with religion, it's been about property and inheritance rights. It's just that the religious seem to think they own the word and they just don't.

 

[Papa bull]

Because there's no infidelity in marriage, right? :roll:



Because more than 50% of marriages don't end in divorce, right? :roll:



Happens all the time, especially in marriages with prenups, right? :roll:



Because there are no deadbeat dads or moms, right? :roll:

On the contrary. Marriage can't cure these problems even though it does encourage and sanction better behavior If you want to argue that marriage does nothing to reduce the incidence of infidelity and deadbeat parents, go for it. To argue that it can't be intended to reduce "problem-x" unless it is 100 percent effective isn't very honest.

 

[Cephus]

On the contrary. Marriage can't cure these problems even though it does encourage and sanction better behavior If you want to argue that marriage does nothing to reduce the incidence of infidelity and deadbeat parents, go for it. To argue that it can't be intended to reduce "problem-x" unless it is 100 percent effective isn't very honest.

You're arguing that it's "intended" to do any of these things, I don't think you can back that up with anything but rhetoric. You're just assuming that whatever you believe is valid without being able to verify a thing.