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 13 of 21 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 203

Thread: Marriages without children should be dissolved

  1. #121
    Devourer of Poor Children
    DrunkenAsparagus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    DC
    Last Seen
    01-20-16 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,496

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Really, what is the harm of treating gay and heterosexual couples equally under the law?
    "Doubleplusungood"

    George Orwell

  2. #122
    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
    IAlso, 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.
    The Wiki article I linked to provides this information.

    I don't have time to cut and paste it for you.

    (here's part)

    "President Barack Obama's political platform included full repeal of DOMA.[12][13] However, on June 12, 2009, the Department of Justice issued a brief defending the constitutionality of DOMA in the case of Smelt v. United States of America, "
    Last edited by Chuz Life; 06-21-10 at 12:27 PM.

  3. #123
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    The Wiki article I linked to provides this information.

    I don't have time to cut and paste it for you.

    (here's part)

    "President Barack Obama's political platform included full repeal of DOMA.[12][13] However, on June 12, 2009, the Department of Justice issued a brief defending the constitutionality of DOMA in the case of Smelt v. United States of America, "
    Smelt v. the United States of America did not make it to the SCOTUS, which has the say on what is Constitutional. The Justice Department does not have the say on what is Constitutional. Gil v. Office of Personnel Management will give us a decision on the Constitutionality of DOMA. However, even the Supreme Court has reversed its decisions before, so even if the current court decides it is Constitutional (although, I guarantee it won't be unanimous either way), a court even a few years from now, may decide it is unConstitutional, if it hasn't already been repealed or replaced by our Congress and/or President.
    "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.

  4. #124
    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
    Smelt v. the United States of America did not make it to the SCOTUS, which has the say on what is Constitutional. The Justice Department does not have the say on what is Constitutional. Gil v. Office of Personnel Management will give us a decision on the Constitutionality of DOMA. However, even the Supreme Court has reversed its decisions before, so even if the current court decides it is Constitutional (although, I guarantee it won't be unanimous either way), a court even a few years from now, may decide it is unConstitutional, if it hasn't already been repealed or replaced by our Congress and/or President.
    Same as it is with regards to any other issue (i.e. Roe v. Wade.)

    I don't have a problem with people challenging the Constitutionality of any law.

    In fact, I agree that they should do so if they are so compelled.

    In the case of marriage, however (sans article 1, section 8) I believe you (those who demand same sex marriage) will have to convince the courts that our naturalization laws and the DOMA are not Constitutional.

    I feel that are lawmakers have the Constitutional right (authority) to draw the line where they have.

    You don't.

    What else is there for me to say about it?

  5. #125
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    Same as it is with regards to any other issue (i.e. Roe v. Wade.)

    I don't have a problem with people challenging the Constitutionality of any law.

    In fact, I agree that they should do so if they are so compelled.

    In the case of marriage, however (sans article 1, section 8) I believe you (those who demand same sex marriage) will have to convince the courts that our naturalization laws and the DOMA are not Constitutional.

    I feel that are lawmakers have the Constitutional right (authority) to draw the line where they have.

    You don't.

    What else is there for me to say about it?
    I am simply looking for your reasoning behind why they choose to draw the line there, eventhough there is nothing besides the gender of both people involved in the couple that separates them from all those other couples that they do endorse. You don't seem to accept that if we allow the government to draw an arbitrary line, with no basis for that line besides gender, then they can move that line to restrict couples even further, without explainations for why.

    Just stating that it is for the "general welfare" is not an expanation of why that line is for the "general welfare". I could say that restricting heterosexual marriage to only those couples who plan to have children is for the "general welfare", and I could even effectively argue this point. It would even be acceptable to me. But the rules of marriage contradict that that is why the government is restricting marriage to only heterosexual couples, with no regard to whether they can or plan to have children.
    "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.

  6. #126
    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
    I am simply looking for your reasoning behind why they choose to draw the line there, eventhough there is nothing besides the gender of both people involved in the couple that separates them from all those other couples that they do endorse. You don't seem to accept that if we allow the government to draw an arbitrary line, with no basis for that line besides gender, then they can move that line to restrict couples even further, without explainations for why.

    Just stating that it is for the "general welfare" is not an expanation of why that line is for the "general welfare". I could say that restricting heterosexual marriage to only those couples who plan to have children is for the "general welfare", and I could even effectively argue this point. It would even be acceptable to me. But the rules of marriage contradict that that is why the government is restricting marriage to only heterosexual couples, with no regard to whether they can or plan to have children.
    Again,... I think the question has to be asked.

    "Are we talking about marriages or the government's recognition and validation of marriages" here?

    They are not the same thing.

  7. #127
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    Again,... I think the question has to be asked.

    "Are we talking about marriages or the government's recognition and validation of marriages" here?

    They are not the same thing.
    We are talking about civil marriages. Why the federal government chooses to recognize and give Full Faith and Credit Clause protection to all opposite sex marriages, no matter what the couple's ability or even view on having and/or raising children is, but refuses that same recognition and protection to same sex marriages? Just stating that it is for the "general welfare" is not a valid reason, because it does not cover why the "line in the sand" was actually drawn where it is between opposite and same sex couples. What specifically makes it in the "general welfare" of the people to recognize and protect all opposite sex marriages, but not same sex marriages?
    "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.

  8. #128
    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
    We are talking about civil marriages. Why the federal government chooses to recognize and give Full Faith and Credit Clause protection to all opposite sex marriages, no matter what the couple's ability or even view on having and/or raising children is, but refuses that same recognition and protection to same sex marriages? Just stating that it is for the "general welfare" is not a valid reason, because it does not cover why the "line in the sand" was actually drawn where it is between opposite and same sex couples. What specifically makes it in the "general welfare" of the people to recognize and protect all opposite sex marriages, but not same sex marriages?
    The answers to your questions are going to depend on who you ask.

    According to the Constitution, Congress gets to decide.

    Are you willing to concede that at the time the Constitution was wriiten,.... that there was no question as to how marriage would be defined either for the purpose of naturalization or anythng else?

    It has taken over 200 years for this to become the issue that it is today. And it still is the exception to the rule.

    Human beings as 'generally' heterosexual.

    Our relationships are 'generally' heterosexual.

    The Congress is charged (where this is concerned) with meeting the "general" needs.

    The Congress is NOT charged with granting "equal benefits to all."

  9. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Public Poll, eh?

    How do we find out who voted 'yes'?

    Where do I click to reveal those two great 'thinkers'...??

  10. #130
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    The answers to your questions are going to depend on who you ask.

    According to the Constitution, Congress gets to decide.

    Are you willing to concede that at the time the Constitution was wriiten,.... that there was no question as to how marriage would be defined either for the purpose of naturalization or anythng else?

    It has taken over 200 years for this to become the issue that it is today. And it still is the exception to the rule.

    Human beings as 'generally' heterosexual.

    Our relationships are 'generally' heterosexual.

    The Congress is charged (where this is concerned) with meeting the "general" needs.

    The Congress is NOT charged with granting "equal benefits to all."
    Actually you are wrong. The Fourteenth Amendment has the Equal Protection Clause in it. This clause states ""no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Since homosexuality is, at the moment, a "suspect class" it is only subject to reasonable basis of a state interest. Although, it can be argued that with present evidence that homosexuality is most likely not a choice, that sexuality as a class, actually deserves at least intermediate scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Either way, the government must at least have a reasonable basis for it being a "state interest" to limit marriage to opposite sex couples only. With the current arguments from the same sex marriage side, it is looking less and less like the "state" has a reasonable argument against same-sex marriage being provided equal protection.
    "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 13 of 21 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... 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
  •