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 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1018192021 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 203

Thread: Marriages without children should be dissolved

  1. #191
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,589

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Is it the government's "right" to define LEGAL marriage? Sure, who said it isn't?

    I did.

    Defining marriage is not within the purview of the federal government. Where in the Constitution is marriage even mentioned?

    Marriage is a contract. Any contract is valid so long as it is agreed to by two consenting adults.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  2. #192
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    I did.

    Defining marriage is not within the purview of the federal government. Where in the Constitution is marriage even mentioned?


    Marriage is a contract. Any contract is valid so long as it is agreed to by two consenting adults.
    Yes, it is a contract. But it is a specific contract provided by the government that grants specific rights, privileges, and responsibilities to those who sign said contract. Since those rights, privileges, and responsibilities are provided by the government, the government has every right to define the confines of said contract.

    Any people can go get "spiritually" married. And any number of people can go draw up legal contracts establishing any number of things. However, that is not legally recognized marriage. In order for it to be legally recognized marriage with all of the specific rights, privileges, and responsibilities, certain rules must be adhered to. And the government has every right to set up those rules.

    However, they should not be rules that blatantly discriminate and promote inequality.

    And, I personally feel that the government should be out of the marriage business altogether. But as long as they ARE in the marriage business, they have the right to make rules and definitions regarding it.

  3. #193
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,589

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    Yes, it is a contract. But it is a specific contract provided by the government that grants specific rights, privileges, and responsibilities to those who sign said contract. Since those rights, privileges, and responsibilities are provided by the government, the government has every right to define the confines of said contract.

    Any people can go get "spiritually" married. And any number of people can go draw up legal contracts establishing any number of things. However, that is not legally recognized marriage. In order for it to be legally recognized marriage with all of the specific rights, privileges, and responsibilities, certain rules must be adhered to. And the government has every right to set up those rules.

    However, they should not be rules that blatantly discriminate and promote inequality.

    And, I personally feel that the government should be out of the marriage business altogether. But as long as they ARE in the marriage business, they have the right to make rules and definitions regarding it.
    Yes, the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, along with a whole lot of other things that they're in and shouldn't be. That would end the debate once and for all. The churches would decide who they would marry, and the non churchgoing could have a non religious ceremony.

    The government doesn't pay for marriage, after all, so it shouldn't have a say in who gets to be married. The idea that marriage is sanctioned by the state so that the couples can produce children, and therefore a benefit to the state, sounds a whole lot like 1984 where sex was "our duty to the state."
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  4. #194
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Yes, the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, along with a whole lot of other things that they're in and shouldn't be. That would end the debate once and for all. The churches would decide who they would marry, and the non churchgoing could have a non religious ceremony.

    The government doesn't pay for marriage, after all, so it shouldn't have a say in who gets to be married. The idea that marriage is sanctioned by the state so that the couples can produce children, and therefore a benefit to the state, sounds a whole lot like 1984 where sex was "our duty to the state."
    I'm not really sure what you mean. The legal contract of marriage provides a number of benefits to the married couple, so why shouldn't the one providing those benefits have a say in who gets them?

  5. #195
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,589

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    I'm not really sure what you mean. The legal contract of marriage provides a number of benefits to the married couple, so why shouldn't the one providing those benefits have a say in who gets them?
    There are benefits to a marriage contract, to be sure. What benefits are provided by the government?

    Provided by the government implies that the government is paying something, rather than just passing a law allowing certain things. The government doesn't pay anything for married people.

    Married filing jointly, in fact, often pay more in taxes than two filing single. It's called the marriage penalty.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  6. #196
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    There are benefits to a marriage contract, to be sure. What benefits are provided by the government?

    Provided by the government implies that the government is paying something, rather than just passing a law allowing certain things. The government doesn't pay anything for married people.

    Married filing jointly, in fact, often pay more in taxes than two filing single. It's called the marriage penalty.
    No, provided does not imply any sort of financial responsibility. It simply means provided. Allow works as well.

    But, if you want to speak monetarily, then the following applies:

    * Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
    * Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
    * Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
    * Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
    * Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
    * Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
    * Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
    * Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
    * Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
    * Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

  7. #197
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,589

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    No, provided does not imply any sort of financial responsibility. It simply means provided. Allow works as well.
    How does the federal government have the right to allow or not allow adult citizens to live life as they see fit? The feds should not have to "allow" anyone to marry. It should be none of their business.

    The government should not have the right to curtail anyone's freedom, so long as it doesn't impinge on someone else's freedom.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  8. #198
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    How does the federal government have the right to allow or not allow adult citizens to live life as they see fit? The feds should not have to "allow" anyone to marry. It should be none of their business.

    The government should not have the right to curtail anyone's freedom, so long as it doesn't impinge on someone else's freedom.
    I agree that there shouldn't be any "legal" marriage at all. However, since there is legal marriage and all of the legal benefits it entails, it most certainly IS their right to set ground rules. It's not like they're forcing anyone to get married. The only freedom they're infringing on currently is the one allowing women to marry women and men to marry men. But, having legal marriage in and of itself infringes on no freedoms.
    Last edited by rivrrat; 06-23-10 at 12:36 AM.

  9. #199
    Stigmatized! End R Word! Kali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Seen
    08-19-12 @ 12:29 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    13,334
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    No! Not all people want little brats and that is their right.
    ~Following My Own Flow~

  10. #200
    Dispenser of Negativity
    Cold Highway's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
    Last Seen
    12-24-12 @ 11:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    9,596
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Marriages without children should be dissolved

    Personally I think you should only get married if your gonna have children but in answer to the original question no they shouldnt.
    Jackboots always come in matched pairs, a left boot and a right boot.

Page 20 of 21 FirstFirst ... 1018192021 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
  •