• 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!

True equality

Which candidate will create equality?


  • Total voters
    24
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.

so you explain that government will never get out of marriage because they have a stake in it and then explain how that plan isn't working very well in the same post? Hmm.....
 
I don't want the government to recognize marriage OF ANYONE, hetro, homo, multiple, incestual or otherwise. That's equality.

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.
 
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?

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 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?

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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.

you means like the reality of a ban on alcohol? That was overturn. Have faith and press on. crazy **** happpens.
 
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.
 
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.
 
No it just isn't "normal". Kind of like the dvorak keyboard is better but the qwerty is "normal". People don't like change.

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.
 
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.
and therein lies the problem. greed trumps reason.
 
No it just isn't "normal". Kind of like the dvorak keyboard is better but the qwerty is "normal". People don't like change.

The change I don't like is people becoming so open-minded that their brains have fallen out.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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?

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.
 
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!
 
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!

Indeed. I noticed that none of those options including anything like "decouple the religious ideas from the legal one" without jamming in those pesky buzzwords like "redefine" to suggest that it's wrong to do so. None of the options are "repeal the stupid law that tangles religion and law together". That, of course, is the correct option, and it is the one that we are pursuing.

Here's another good hypothetical. A whole bunch of Muslims move into the US, and begin to outnumber the Christians here. They pass a law that Christians can't marry other Christians. They even vote in amendments to state constitutions enforcing this. "You have the same rights as everyone else", they say, "to marry a non-Christian. We define marriage as a fundamentally Muslim thing. You can't ask us to redefine marriage to suit your tastes. This is a democracy, where people vote on how they want the country to be."

Suddenly, you are in the exact same situation gays are in right now. Doesn't feel too good, does it?
 
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.

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.

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.
 
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.
Legal Marriage requires the government to define "marriage". That definition inevitably excludes someone from participating in the institution of marriage.

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.

Legal marriage is a legal contract. Legal contracts happen between groups of people all the time.

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.
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.
 
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.

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?


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.

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.

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.
 
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?
You are talking about a specific contract. Many business partnerships have more than two members all with equal ownership / rights.


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 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?

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.
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?
 
You are talking about a specific contract. Many business partnerships have more than two members all with equal ownership / rights.

And the marriage contract is a specific contract between two people in a relationship. There are different types of contracts. The marriage contract is just one of those different types.

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?

You can do that. You do realize that people have first say in the terms of their divorce in most states, right? And if you want to cover it prior to the marriage, it's called a prenup. There still is no discrimination. You have every right to only devote as much time and resources to each other as you like. That is well within your rights.


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?

Legal marriage is a legal contract between two people who are not otherwise closely enough related in order to make them legal family. Along with that legal kinship, they also agree to be each other's closest relative (barring a POA or will by either of them that says otherwise). Due to this arrangement, which has been shown to benefit society due to its stability and increased likelihood of an already existing stable environment to raise children in, the government offers certain incentives beyond just those they offer to blood relations.
 
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.

At least then those against SSM would know what it's like, thanks to the wise all-knowing voters, to go from being unmarried, to married, to unmarried like your life and relationship means nothing. But no i don't want this either, very few do, don't worry.

As I've said, I don't find it practical for government to abandon marriage entirely. True, there'd be far fewer marriages and this would almost be a non-issue if you disentangled government from the complexities of tax breaks, inheriting of benefits, other financial incentives. This currently discriminates against singles. There's something i think that isn't being taken into account.

There's usually an emotional attachment that government recognition facilitates, that does the rest of us no harm to leave in place. Even something like getting your mail, seeing the same last name is nice. There's no reason to take this frustration out on everyone, and it makes us look like petty haters ourselves. In addition there are practical reasons for government to be involved, like if one partner is a foreigner. How else are they supposed to immigrate quickly? What about adoption in some cases, where prejudiced southern states would deny a gay couple? I mean, if they don't have any document to say they're a couple...In my experience any technicality will be used, thus the need for marriage. Two of those on that poll however don't remotely fit the definition of equality.
 
The government will not willingly extract itself from marriage. There is a legitimate state interest in marriage and as long as there a legitimate state interest, the government will continue to regulate. Seeing as government won't be leaving the institution, the remaining question is to equality. The only equality available under the current system is to permit same-sex marriage. Separate but equal is not equal.
 
I 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....
http://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?p=1060481392&noquote=1

I can't understand why the government doesn't advocate for the removal of government from marriage. It is obviously unconstitutional. It's 2012 and the government still inches it's way toward realizing it's own claims in the Constitution.
 
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.
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom