• 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!

44 to reverse 43's executive orders

Again, why would I? I get more benefits this way and so does she.

It has nothing with making our relationship stronger though, sorry to disappoint you.

Our relationship was just as strong before we were married.
Then it should be just as strong after you're divorced, right?
 
Then it should be just as strong after you're divorced, right?

And the RELATIONSHIP would be, but we would lose benefits, so again why would I get a divorce?
 
I doubt that.

What benes would you lose that are more important that your relationship?

Nothing is more important to our relationship, but being married or not has no impact on it.

You are asking me to get a divorce just to get one. That is beyond stupid.
 
When married, the law of the state defines the rights and privileges enjoyed by each spouse, and how these things interact with other laws.


Sure... but then the obligations and the rights conferred by them are defined by the contract, not the law, and are limited to what can be conveyed by literal contract.. The literal contract cannot convey some of the rights that the law does -- protection against a spouse being forced to testify, tax benefits/penalties, immediate transfer of joint property upon death, etc.

So, while those contracts might be able to convey many of the same benefiots, they cannot convey them all because many of the rights/privliges eminate solely from the state.

I agree. What, then, would be the purpose of the law limiting the ability to enter into these contracts on the basis of gender?

Should not the basis for allowance be something of greater substance than simply the genders of the parties involved?

What is the purpose of the government defining the marriage contract as only being applicable to those unions that are between one man and one woman?



NOTE: I am in favor of an individual state's right to decide the issue at hand, my question is related to actual reasons why the state itself would have a vested interest in keeping with the traditional Judeo-Christian definition of the marriage contract instead of a less gender specific definition.
 
Nothing is more important to our relationship, but being married or not has no impact on it.

You are asking me to get a divorce just to get one. That is beyond stupid.
Now I'm confused. Marriage is of the utmost importance to your relationship, but has no impact on your relationship? :confused:

I'm asking you, for the sake of argument, to consider what a divorce would do to your relationship, not necessarily to get one. My guess is that it would be potentially devastating.
 
I agree. What, then, would be the purpose of the law limiting the ability to enter into these contracts on the basis of gender?

Should not the basis for allowance be something of greater substance than simply the genders of the parties involved?

What is the purpose of the government defining the marriage contract as only being applicable to those unions that are between one man and one woman?
Ultimately?
That's how the people want to define marriage.

NOTE: I am in favor of an individual state's right to decide the issue at hand,
I agree with this, except that it may then create a situation where OH must recognize the laws of CA even if they violate the OH constitution.
 
Then it should be just as strong after you're divorced, right?

In truth, the only reason to get a divorce is if the relationship is already as weak as it can get. The divorce itself does not make it weaker, it only ends the contract.

If I were to divorce my wife for the specific reason of ending the contract, let's say there was a financial reason for this, not an emotional reason such as ending the relationship, there would be no weakening of said relationship.

It would be just as strong as it was prior to the divorce.
 
Now I'm confused. Marriage is of the utmost importance to your relationship, but has no impact on your relationship? :confused:

No, Marriage is not the utmost importance to our relationship. Marriage gets us bonuses. We have lower taxes, our insurance is fantastic, belong to a married couples club that we get free dinners for every now and then, etc.

We are only married, because we get bonuses for being married. Our relationship is the same as it has always been.

To give a good example, when searching for wedding rings, my wife didn't want a diamond ring, she wanted a Cubic Zirconia ring because they were cheaper and we didn't spend very much on the wedding at all.

Marriage is a bonus, our relationship is the same as it has been.

I'm asking you, for the sake of argument, to consider what a divorce would do to your relationship, not necessarily to get one. My guess is that it would be potentially devastating.

It wouldn't do anything but take away the bonuses that we get from getting married. The relationship itself would not change.
 
She strung you along for nine years? Do you think that is typical of married couples?

I dated my husband for six years before we got married and I hardly would say I was 'stringing him along'. We just both wanted to establish our relationship and be sure we would make the right decision as marriage is a huge commitment. And yes, I do think that is typical of smart couples. :cool:
 
Ultimately?
That's how the people want to define marriage.

Why would they want to define marriage as this?


I agree with this, except that it may then create a situation where OH must recognize the laws of CA even if they violate the OH constitution.

Why does the marriage contract need to be different from the commercial contracts? If prostitution is legal in one state and the constitution of anotehr prohibits it, doesnt that mean that if a woman enters a business contract regarding prostitution in Nevada that contract would not recognized by Ohio as a legal and binding contract even if both parties involved in teh contract moved to Ohio?

Why wouldn't it be the same with a marriage contract? Why should OH recognize my Illinois marriage contract? Shouldn't I have to apply for a contract in Ohio just as I had to in Illinois?
 
Why would they want to define marriage as this?
There might be any number of reasons. I cannot speak for the entire group.

Why does the marriage contract need to be different from the commercial contracts? If prostitution is legal in one state and the constitution of anotehr prohibits it, doesnt that mean that if a woman enters a business contract regarding prostitution in Nevada that contract would not recognized by Ohio as a legal and binding contract even if both parties involved in teh contract moved to Ohio?
The difference here is "legal" (as in not criminal) does not mean the same thing as "recognized by the law".

Why wouldn't it be the same with a marriage contract? Why should OH recognize my Illinois marriage contract? Shouldn't I have to apply for a contract in Ohio just as I had to in Illinois?
The FF&C clause forces OH to recognize the IL marriage.
 
She strung you along for nine years?

What do you mean by "strung along"? Our relationship was a committed one from the first day. There have been no changes to our commitemnet since that day, becasue one is either committed to a relationship or they are not committed to the relationship. We were, for all practical purposes, married from the moment we met, as our relationship did not change in any way shape or form by engaging in the ritual or entering into the legal contract of marriage.

Do you think that is typical of married couples?

It is common enough so that I would not say it is atypical.
 
Last edited:
I dated my husband for six years before we got married and I hardly would say I was 'stringing him along'. We just both wanted to establish our relationship and be sure we would make the right decision as marriage is a huge commitment. And yes, I do think that is typical of smart couples. :cool:
It is a huge commitment, which is why its so important for a stable society.
 
There might be any number of reasons. I cannot speak for the entire group.

Are there any reasons you are aware of that you could share?


The difference here is "legal" (as in not criminal) does not mean the same thing as "recognized by the law".

Would there be any other contracts that relate to "recognized by law" but not "legal" that are not recognized in an interstate fashion? Are all business contracts considered binding across state lines?

The FF&C clause forces OH to recognize the IL marriage.

Are there any other contracts that could fit the criteria of where they are recognized by one state, while being expressly prohibited in the constitution of another?
 
We were, for all practical purposes, married from the moment we met, as our relationship did not change in any way shape or form by engaging in the ritual or entering into the legal contract of marriage.
Similar situation, except that the day we met and the day we married was seperated by (almost exactly) 25 years.
 
It is a huge commitment, which is why its so important for a stable society.

I'm sorry, but what does it have to do with a stable society? People either get married or they don't. I have friends who have been together for years but don't want to get married because they feel that their love is strong enough without it having to be written on a piece of paper.
 
Are there any reasons you are aware of that you could share?
I dare not speak for others.

Would there be any other contracts that relate to "recognized by law" but not "legal" that are not recognized in an interstate fashion? Are all business contracts considered binding across state lines?
I really don't know.

Are there any other contracts that could fit the criteria of where they are recognized by one state, while being expressly prohibited in the constitution of another?
Again, I really don't know.
 
No, Marriage is not the utmost importance to our relationship. Marriage gets us bonuses. We have lower taxes, our insurance is fantastic, .
....
actually, your taxes are probably higher than they would be otherwise.

Your insurer gives you better rates because they recognize that you are likely to be a more stable person. Thanks for making may argument for me. :cool:
 
Getting a little testy there. That's the first time I've seen that out of you.

Apparently your marriage is pretty important.

Not testy at all, just curious. I was wondering what the comment meant, or if it was just a joke.


If it was just a joke, then I apologize for not recognizing it as such.



P.S. My relationship with my wife is very, very important to me, but my "marriage" is pretty much nothing to me.

I'd be willing to get divorced tomorrow if there were sufficient financial reasons to go through the hassle of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom