View Poll Results: Marriages without children should be dissolved

Voters
62. You may not vote on this poll
  • Agreed, dissolve them!

    2 3.23%
  • Disagree, marriage ain't just about children

    60 96.77%
Page 12 of 21 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 203

Thread: Marriages without children should be dissolved

  1. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    If the government has the duty to provide incentives for opposite marriages, does that mean that the government has the power to take away such incentives to prevent opposite marriages should the need to arise?
    The government (United States) has only the power and authority that we (the people) consent to.

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Layla_Z View Post
    Here's my problem. My daughter looked much like the baby in the picture in you signature. She looked like that and spent the first 4 months of her life in the hospital because her married to a man biological mother used drugs and in other ways didn't take care of herself so she went into labor 4 months early. Why in the world would we think that this married woman is a better place for that baby than a gay couple who could and would take excellent care of her. I know I am getting off topic here, but I have a very low tolerance for bigotry and denying gay couples any of the rights allowed for straight couples is nothing more than bigotry. You can state whatever reason you wish but we all know what the real reason is. If a person can't be fair and tolerant they should at least be truthful.
    Show me where I have ever denied gays the right to anything.

    You are so angry that you are loosing the ability to convey your thoughts or to see anything other than what you want to see.

    I feel sorry for you.

  3. #113
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    You make the mistake of assuming that the government actually decided that it should have a say in marriage because it saw marriage as a benefit to society due to procreation and the best interest of children.
    I don't make that assumption at all.

    Your allegation is false.

    I read the Constitution (article 1, section 8) myself and have decided (for myself) that the government has a legitimate responsibility to define marriage as it sees fit to suit the "general welfare" aspects of the nation,.... specifically as it pertains to naturalization. But I submit that the "general welfare" aspects extend beyond the needs for clarity as it applies to naturalization.

    Marriage is one of the keystones of our society and government.

  4. #114
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-22-17 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,154

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    I don't make that assumption at all.

    Your allegation is false.

    I read the Constitution (article 1, section 8) myself and have decided (for myself) that the government has a legitimate responsibility to define marriage as it sees fit to suit the "general welfare" aspects of the nation,.... specifically as it pertains to naturalization. But I submit that the "general welfare" aspects extend beyond the needs for clarity as it applies to naturalization.

    Marriage is one of the keystones of our society and government.
    Yet the government has not officially put out why marriage is a keystone to our society. And it does not treat marriage that way. It treats marriage pretty much like it is just something that it should regulate and restrict due to traditional views of marriage. This wouldn't be a bad thing necessarily, except that we have been changing those traditional views of marriage, mainly with legal battles and more socially accepted views on divorce and who should marry, for about 60 years or so now. The best thing the government could do would be to put out some agreed upon reasons for its endorsement of marriage, and actually ensure that a) those reasons meet Constitutional muster for fair and equal treatment and b) the states and federal government be required to ensure marriage rules are consistent in their treatment of couples with regards to those reasons.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #115
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Yet the government has not officially put out why marriage is a keystone to our society. And it does not treat marriage that way. It treats marriage pretty much like it is just something that it should regulate and restrict due to traditional views of marriage. This wouldn't be a bad thing necessarily, except that we have been changing those traditional views of marriage, mainly with legal battles and more socially accepted views on divorce and who should marry, for about 60 years or so now. The best thing the government could do would be to put out some agreed upon reasons for its endorsement of marriage, and actually ensure that a) those reasons meet Constitutional muster for fair and equal treatment and b) the states and federal government be required to ensure marriage rules are consistent in their treatment of couples with regards to those reasons.
    I believe that you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

    In my view, the government has already done as you think it should with the "defense of marriage act" and the existing immigration and naturalization laws. And with the articles of the uniform code of military justice as well.

    The fact that 'marriage' is traditionally between 'one man and one woman' is neither a tradition that happened over night or without government involvment.
    Last edited by Chuz Life; 06-21-10 at 11:03 AM.

  6. #116
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-22-17 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,154

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    I believe that you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

    In my view, the government has already done as you think it should with the "defense of marriage act" and the existing immigration and naturalization laws. And with the articles of the uniform code of military justice as well.

    The fact that 'marriage' is traditionally between 'one man and one woman' is neither a tradition that happened over night or without government involvment.
    DOMA does not give reasons why marriage is defined as "one man and one woman", it simply says that it is and then states the government's views on what is affected with it. If DOMA were put under true Constitutional scrutiny, it wouldn't pass. There is no reasoning behind the defining of marriage in such a way. The argument is why the government defines marriage this way, not that it does.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    DOMA does not give reasons why marriage is defined as "one man and one woman", it simply says that it is and then states the government's views on what is affected with it. If DOMA were put under true Constitutional scrutiny, it wouldn't pass. There is no reasoning behind the defining of marriage in such a way. The argument is why the government defines marriage this way, not that it does.
    I don't see how there can be any confusion.

    1: The Constitution gives congress the authority to define marriage as it sees fit (article 1, section 8 - specifically towards naturalization).

    2: Article 1, section 8 requires congress to write laws, policy etc. as it sees fit to meet the "general welfare" needs of the nation.

    3: The Congress so enacts "the defense of marriage act" and you are confused as to WHY?

    I believe the answer is obvious; that the "one man one woman" model best fills the bill for the "general welfare" requirments set forth by the Constitution.

    Where's the confusion?

  8. #118
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-22-17 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,154

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    I don't see how there can be any confusion.

    1: The Constitution gives congress the authority to define marriage as it sees fit (article 1, section 8 - specifically towards naturalization).

    2: Article 1, section 8 requires congress to write laws, policy etc. as it sees fit to meet the "general welfare" needs of the nation.

    3: The Congress so enacts "the defense of marriage act" and you are confused as to WHY?

    I believe the answer is obvious; that the "one man one woman" model best fills the bill for the "general welfare" requirments set forth by the Constitution.

    Where's the confusion?
    Just assuming that it meets some "general welfare" requirement does not mean that it does. We should hold the government accountable for telling us why things are put into place. And it has been proven that same sex marriage contributes to the "general welfare" of our country, and there is no proof that it harms the "general welfare" of the country or its citizens, nor the institution of marriage itself. As a government endorsed institution it is necessary that it should meet fair and equal treatment requirements of the Constitution, and that if there is a reason to make restrictions, that those restrictions are for some purpose and with good reason, not just "its traditionally been this way". Age restrictions and limiting the number of people who can enter into a marriage contract have good reasons, although it would be good for those reasons to be actually stated. Limiting marriage by race or because of the gender of the partners have no good reasons behind them, or at the very least none that have been proven.

    If we allow the government to make such restrictions on the marriage institution, then what prevents them to limiting marriage to other criteria, without explanations? Should we all just assume that it is for the "general welfare" that we are being limited on who we can marry?
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #119
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nun-ya-dang Bidness
    Last Seen
    02-19-11 @ 03:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,981

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Just assuming that it meets some "general welfare" requirement does not mean that it does. We should hold the government accountable for telling us why things are put into place. And it has been proven that same sex marriage contributes to the "general welfare" of our country, and there is no proof that it harms the "general welfare" of the country or its citizens, nor the institution of marriage itself. As a government endorsed institution it is necessary that it should meet fair and equal treatment requirements of the Constitution, and that if there is a reason to make restrictions, that those restrictions are for some purpose and with good reason, not just "its traditionally been this way". Age restrictions and limiting the number of people who can enter into a marriage contract have good reasons, although it would be good for those reasons to be actually stated. Limiting marriage by race or because of the gender of the partners have no good reasons behind them, or at the very least none that have been proven.

    If we allow the government to make such restrictions on the marriage institution, then what prevents them to limiting marriage to other criteria, without explanations? Should we all just assume that it is for the "general welfare" that we are being limited on who we can marry?
    The defense of marriage act has been challenged and DOMA was upheld on a Constitutionality basis.

    I believe further challenges will be upheld as well (again due to Article 1, section 8 specifically)

    You are well within your rights to disagree,... however, I think you should know that the government is not charged by the Constitution to validate every conceivable variation that supports the "general welfare."

    But you have to agree (don't you?) that the government has the right to draw the line "somewhere."

    I believe in a minimalistic, more efficient government.

    One man one woman is the most basic definition of marriage that automatically provides for any children created,... a male and female role model, has the inherent means to create those children and the design to ensure future generations as well.

    "In general"
    Last edited by Chuz Life; 06-21-10 at 12:02 PM.

  10. #120
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-22-17 @ 12:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,154

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    The defense of marriage act has been challenged and DOMA was upheld on a Constitutionality basis.

    I believe further challenges will be upheld as well (agains due to Article 1, section 8 specifically)

    You are well within your rights to disagree,... however, I think you should know that the government is not charged by the Constitution to validate every conceivable variation that supports the "general welfare."

    But you have to agree (don't you?) that the government has the right to draw the line "somewhere."

    I believe in a minimalistic, more efficient government.

    One man one woman is the most basic definition of marriage that automatically provides for any children created,... a male and female role model, has the inherent means to create those children and the design to ensure future generations as well.

    "In general"
    I have already provided proof that the government is not in marriage for the benefit of children produced from that marriage. The fact that six states have laws that prevent certain heterosexual couples from being able to have children in order to get married proves that. And DOMA does not mention children at all. So it is logical to assume that if the federal government was trying to limit marriage to couples who might be able to conceive children, without getting into the private medical records of couples, then it would have mentioned that and also included those state laws in that reasoning.

    Also, when has DOMA been put up to Constitutional review? I know there is a case currently waiting to be heard by the SCOTUS that challenges DOMA, Gil v. Office of Personnel Management. I'm pretty sure there hasn't been an actual challenge to DOMA before now.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Page 12 of 21 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •