Would you dissolve your marriage over the SSM issue?

[notquiteright]

Engaged

So what would you have in marriage's place?

I mean there is more to marriage than last name, a fee and rice. Who decides things if you are too sick to speak for yourself? Inherits at end of life. Shares benefits such as insurance or retirement?

I am always interested in what a libertarian would have in it's stead...

 

[notquiteright]

I'll do that the moment I see you point to the person who said they'd dissolve their marriage if homosexuals were allowed to marry.

The dissolve marriage bit was the OP. You are derailing. Start your own thread if you wish to go on yet another commie rant about the rich and taxes... :roll:

 

[Papa bull]

The dissolve marriage bit was the OP. You are derailing. Start your own thread if you wish to go on yet another commie rant about the rich and taxes... :roll:

It's not a rant. It's a mirror of the OP.

 

[notquiteright]

It's not a rant. It's a mirror of the OP.

A fun house mirror perhaps, it is off topic and nothing to do with your commie crap, poor rich victims rant.

Yes it is a rant... The OP didn't call anyone names... face it, you just love ranting...

 

[poweRob]

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.

Natural?

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.

Thank God for marriage because clearly there'd be absolutely no spermagating going on without it.

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.

Seperate but equal doesn't work. Neither does making an emotional plea to try and argue about why there should be an inequal application of what is a government enforced contract.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If I had any doubts about the quality of your character, this statement certainly put them to rest. :doh

It really doesn't tell us anything that hasn't been obvious for a long time.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So calling your grandfather stupid is an acceptable way to display your displeasure with his beliefs.

Not planning on inheriting from him, I hope.

It's OK to think that a relative is stupid. Some people really are stupid, and it stands to reason that most stupid people have relatives.

Wishing a relative (or anyone, really) to die because of a political disagreement is a rather different thing.

 

[YoungConserv]

So what would you have in marriage's place?

I mean there is more to marriage than last name, a fee and rice. Who decides things if you are too sick to speak for yourself? Inherits at end of life. Shares benefits such as insurance or retirement?

I am always interested in what a libertarian would have in it's stead...

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.

 

[notquiteright]

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.

Yes it is a contract, one codified and until SSM is passed not available to same sex partners. The IRS for example doesn't recognize a survivor clause in a contract. I can see where changing the law so that ALL 'marriages' are considered equally under the law, no matter who the partners are can be done your way (is a bit of throwing out one wheel and inventing it all over again.)

When you say it is more of a religious ceremony that (Than???) a legal one to us... do you mean to you and your intended?

You see my wife and I were married by a Federal Court Judge in his chambers. We have a marriage certificate, not a contract. So it is a commitment ceremony, not a religious one to us. It is a legally binding document that carries weight in all states, at the federal level and in court. It is a contract.

Removing the title of marriage doesn't change anything as by law my wife can sign the medical procedure papers without having to carry a power of attorney with her. She gets my assets upon my death with a nice tax shelter- contracts don't do that unless a law is passed saying these commitment contracts carry the same benefits as.... well as a marriage.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

It's OK to think that a relative is stupid. Some people really are stupid, and it stands to reason that most stupid people have relatives.

Wishing a relative (or anyone, really) to die because of a political disagreement is a rather different thing.

So, the 7 members on the Supreme Court who voted in favor of Roe in RvW deserve to die?

Their hands are certainly not free of the blood of the millions of innocents whose killing they authorized. Yes, I would say that they deserve to die.

You have no problem advocating and defending the senseless killing of thousands of innocent children every day, nor with defending the subhuman vermin who carry out these killings. This leaves you no moral high ground from which to condemn me for advocating that these vermin be treated as the murderers that they are.

You keep busting all of my meters, Bob. How much do you owe me, now?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You keep busting all of my meters, Bob. How much do you owe me, now?

Wishing someone to die who was willfully complicit in the deaths of millions of innocents is not the same as wishing someone to die because of a minor political disagreement.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

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.

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

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.

And the Supreme Court Justice who said this confused procreation and marriage, two concepts that are not synonymous. Fortunately, other Supreme Court Justices corrected him.

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.

Since procreation is not a requirement for marriage, there is no difference between the unions. Therefore, there is no logical reason to term them differently.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Btw... though I understand what the OP is attempting to point out (the irrelevancy of the concerns of those who are married and who claim that calling gay unions, "marriage" harms the term "marriage"), it IS hyperbole. I've never heard anyone claim that if SSM becomes legal with the word "marriage" to be used, that they would dissolve their marriage either out of protest or because they actually believe that it no longer is meaningful.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Wishing someone to die who was willfully complicit in the deaths of millions of innocents is not the same as wishing someone to die because of a minor political disagreement.

Whatever you say, Bob.

You really make it entirely too easy.

 

[Papa bull]

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

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.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

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.

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

 

[Papa bull]

Since procreation is not a requirement for marriage, there is no difference between the unions. Therefore, there is no logical reason to term them differently.

This is wrong. You are confusing "purpose of marriage" with "condition for marriage". We're not going to agree on this because I think it should be perfectly clear to any rational person that the purpose of marriage was for the recognition and support of families/procreation even if there is no REQUIREMENT to procreate. But for procreation, the government would have never gone through the business of establishing "sanctioned marriage" in the first place. You can live with who you want and have sex with who you want without it.

p.s. I forgot to ask you to show me the part of the Loving vs. Virginia decision where the other Supreme Court justices "corrected him" for saying marriage was vital and necessary to our existence.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

This is wrong. You are confusing "purpose of marriage" with "condition for marriage". We're not going to agree on this because I think it should be perfectly clear to any rational person that the purpose of marriage was for the recognition and support of families/procreation even if there is no REQUIREMENT to procreate. But for procreation, the government would have never gone through the business of establishing "sanctioned marriage" in the first place. You can live with who you want and have sex with who you want without it.

The purpose for marriage vs. the condition for marriage argument is an analogy for the philosophy argument vs. the legal argument that I have been discussing. The latter requires that one show evidence that procreation is a requirement for marriage in order to be valid. The former is an appeal to tradition fallacy and does not prove any position. Further, the recognition of marriage was about supporting families, not about procreation. It was instituted so that parents, especially fathers would continue to support their children.

So no, you are wrong.

 

[Papa bull]

The purpose for marriage vs. the condition for marriage argument is an analogy for the philosophy argument vs. the legal argument that I have been discussing. The latter requires that one show evidence that procreation is a requirement for marriage in order to be valid. The former is an appeal to tradition fallacy and does not prove any position. Further, the recognition of marriage was about supporting families, not about procreation. It was instituted so that parents, especially fathers would continue to support their children.

So no, you are wrong.

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".

 

[Dragonfly]

Btw... though I understand what the OP is attempting to point out (the irrelevancy of the concerns of those who are married and who claim that calling gay unions, "marriage" harms the term "marriage"), it IS hyperbole. I've never heard anyone claim that if SSM becomes legal with the word "marriage" to be used, that they would dissolve their marriage either out of protest or because they actually believe that it no longer is meaningful.

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.

 

[Papa bull]

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.

With 13 states now having legalized homosexual marriage, you'd already know if people were getting a divorce to protest in any significant numbers because it would have already happened and would have already been reported. So now you don't have to wonder any more. It's not like a Christmas party.

 

[Dragonfly]

With 13 states now having legalized homosexual marriage, you'd already know if people were getting a divorce to protest in any significant numbers because it would have already happened and would have already been reported. So now you don't have to wonder any more. It's not like a Christmas party.

I don't believe we're anywhere close to having SSM being socially acceptable yet.

 

[Papa bull]

I don't believe we're anywhere close to having SSM being socially acceptable yet.

Nope. Didn't say it was. Just saying that it's just not to be equated to a Christmas party and that if there were "protest divorces", you'd already know about them.

 

[Dragonfly]

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.

 

[DDD]

No way I would dissolve my marriage if my spouse suddenly finds same sex more attractive! Would make matter only more interesting