• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

The government restricting marriage on the basis of sex/gender gives more rights to the government (in restricting marriage) and less to the people. All people have more choices when it comes to marriage if everyone is allowed to marry someone of either the opposite or the same sex.

If you read through any of my writings on gay marriage, you'd know that I have taken a neutral if not supportive position on homosexuals being able to marry. So, I am really for government getting out of telling people who they can marry period.
 
If you read through any of my writings on gay marriage, you'd know that I have taken a neutral if not supportive position on homosexuals being able to marry. So, I am really for government getting out of telling people who they can marry period.

People (the majority) want government in marriage. This isn't going to change because marriage via a single legal document, the legal marriage license, is much more convenient for those who wish to enter into it than having to draw up mounds of legal paperwork via a lawyer or other legal consultant. It is one of the only things in government that actually works for/benefits most people involved. It doesn't really cost the government anything (in fact, marriage has been shown to increase the government's revenue stream to a slight degree), and in fact has been shown in multiple ways to be beneficial to the government and society. It benefits most couples who enter into it through rights, privileges, legal kinship recognition, and so many other things. And it benefits individuals within the marriages through protections when it comes to either losing their spouse (from other legally recognized family members) or if the relationship ends (from the other spouse to a certain degree when it comes to property and even for some custody rights). And all of this is accomplished using one single document for every couple that in most places costs less than $100.
 
People (the majority) want government in marriage. This isn't going to change because marriage via a single legal document, the legal marriage license, is much more convenient for those who wish to enter into it than having to draw up mounds of legal paperwork via a lawyer or other legal consultant. It is one of the only things in government that actually works for/benefits most people involved. It doesn't really cost the government anything (in fact, marriage has been shown to increase the government's revenue stream to a slight degree), and in fact has been shown in multiple ways to be beneficial to the government and society. It benefits most couples who enter into it through rights, privileges, legal kinship recognition, and so many other things. And it benefits individuals within the marriages through protections when it comes to either losing their spouse (from other legally recognized family members) or if the relationship ends (from the other spouse to a certain degree when it comes to property and even for some custody rights). And all of this is accomplished using one single document for every couple that in most places costs less than $100.

Ok, now I want you to couple what I said in post #1151, and what you said here, plus what you accused me of when you said this:

"I'm sorry that you prefer to limit the rights of the people in favor of that of the government."

And tell me who wants more government, and who wants less...? Your posting is inconstant.
 
Ummm maybe because they ARE DIFFERENT?

Not different in any characteristic that matters. Interracial couples are different. Red headed couples are different. Old couples are different than young couples. So why do you draw this distinction with gender and not any other characteristic?
 
Ok, now I want you to couple what I said in post #1151, and what you said here, plus what you accused me of when you said this:

"I'm sorry that you prefer to limit the rights of the people in favor of that of the government."

And tell me who wants more government, and who wants less...? Your posting is inconstant.

The government is involved no matter what when it comes to relationships. There is no removing the government from them because the government runs the courts.

I apologize for assuming that you were saying either no same sex marriage or government out of marriage, but that is the normal reason people want the government out of marriage now. But the government getting out of marriage does not actually do any good. The government out of marriage harms the government, society. It causes so many more problems, that essentially, it puts the government in a worse position and costs them more money overall (given lawsuits and extended cases when it comes to people separating, and welfare benefits, and so many other things).
 
Your words come off sounding downright stupid; you run someone's point to an extreme in order to defeat the strawman you create. You're not really debating anyone, you're just spewing crap.

Signature material right there.
 
The government is involved no matter what when it comes to relationships. There is no removing the government from them because the government runs the courts.

I apologize for assuming that you were saying either no same sex marriage or government out of marriage, but that is the normal reason people want the government out of marriage now. But the government getting out of marriage does not actually do any good. The government out of marriage harms the government, society. It causes so many more problems, that essentially, it puts the government in a worse position and costs them more money overall (given lawsuits and extended cases when it comes to people separating, and welfare benefits, and so many other things).

No way, we should let the free market decide whether or not my child is legally my child if my spouse dies.
 
Back
Top Bottom