• 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!

Marriages without children should be dissolved

Marriages without children should be dissolved

  • Total voters
    54
Chuz Life said:
It doesn't,... but then again, it doesn't have to.

For the umpteeeenth time "indifference and discrimination are not the same thing."

A brother can't marry his brother and expect marital benefits (even in a gay marriage is legal State),.... are those brothers being discriminated against?
Click to expand...

They are if any state actually did allow brothers to get married, and the other states and the federal government weren't recognizing them as legitimately married. An example. In many states, including Arkansas and Delaware, to name a couple, first cousins are not allowed to marry, however, because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution, those states still have to recognize their marriage from other states that do allow them to get married as legal marriages. And the federal government recognizes their marriages as legal marriages as well. That is the difference.
 
roguenuke said:
They are if any state actually did allow brothers to get married, and the other states and the federal government weren't recognizing them as legitimately married. An example. In many states, including Arkansas and Delaware, to name a couple, first cousins are not allowed to marry, however, because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution, those states still have to recognize their marriage from other states that do allow them to get married as legal marriages. And the federal government recognizes their marriages as legal marriages as well. That is the difference.
Click to expand...

If every marriage by law has to be recognized by every other authority, regardless.....

Then no-State or government has any discretion or authority to define it at all.

Thanks for solidifying my confidence that the government should have stuck with 'one manone woman' and should have remained indifferent to everyone else.
 
Chuz Life said:
If every marriage by law has to be recognized by every other authority, regardless.....

Then no-State or government has any discretion or authority to define it at all.

Thanks for solidifying my confidence that the government should have stuck with 'one manone woman' and should have remained indifferent to everyone else.
Click to expand...

Right now, whether a state allows for a particular opposite sex couple to get married or not, if just one state allows that particular opposite sex couple to get married then that marriage must be recognized by all the other states and the federal government. So essentially, you are right, there is really no reason to have separate state laws for marriage, especially when they contradict laws of other states, but we do. Which is one reason that we have the 14th Amendment and the federal government.

Also, to take this a little further, technically the Supreme Court could have left Loving v. Virginia with a ruling that just said that every state had to recognize interracial marriages from other states, without making it required that every state actually had to allow interracial couples to get married. Now, I think that it was completely right for the SCOTUS to decide to make those states legalize interracial marriage, but their really wasn't much in the Constitution, or even precedent, at that time anyway, that required that they had to make that happen. They really, Constitutionally just had to uphold the 14th Amendment and ensure that the laws that actually criminalized being in an interracial relationship of any kind be struck down.
 
Chuz Life said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thanks for putting the important parts of my post in bold. This is so helpful for the other readers.

I don't understand how you don't realize that denying gay couples the chance to get married and have that treated in the same way as a straight couple is denying the rights of the gay couple. You've locked on to this idea that man/woman marriage is the only good marriage. I don't know why you would think that. Many other posters and I have listed reasons this is not true but of course you refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't fit with your belief.

Yes, I am angry. I'm always angry when people are treated unfairly.

I've also tired of the slippery slope argument. You know, the idea that if we allow gay marriage we have to allow incestuous marriages and let pedophile marry a child. Of course there have to be limits. The same limits that logical people always have. The people in the marriage should be consenting adults and do no harm. I do not know why this is so difficult to understand.

You should really avoid saying things that aren't true. You don't feel sorry for me. You said that in a vain attempt to seem somehow better. If you need to do that I guess it's fine, but there is certainly no reason to feel sorry for me.
 
Chuz Life said:
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, "
Click to expand...

Wikipedia is not considered a legitimate source. I thought you might want to know.
 
Layla_Z said:
Wikipedia is not considered a legitimate source. I thought you might want to know.
Click to expand...

I encourage others to use multiple sources (as I do myself in most cases.) That said, Wiki has a built in system (discussion threads) attached to most pages for you or others who question their validity to chime in and effectively improve the sites accuracy.

I thought that you might want to know that as well.
 
Layla_Z said:
You should really avoid saying things that aren't true. You don't feel sorry for me. You said that in a vain attempt to seem somehow better. If you need to do that I guess it's fine, but there is certainly no reason to feel sorry for me.
Click to expand...

I feel sorry for you because you get yourself all worked up convincing yourself that I am doing something that I am not doing.

Gay people can still marry and have their relationships, raise a family, etc. even in the absense of government recognition and incentives.

What you seem to be seeking is legitimacy.

And that's just something which the law can not force people to give you.

Gay marriage, (for all it means to you) simply doesn't serve the general welfare needs on the nation that the one man one women relationship does. But don't feel bad. Neither do bigamist relationships, poligamist relationships or incestuous relationships (no matter how loving),... benefit the country's general welfare in the same way that the one man one woman relationship does.
 
Chuz Life said:
I feel sorry for you because you get yourself all worked up convincing yourself that I am doing something that I am not doing.

Gay people can still marry and have their relationships, raise a family, etc. even in the absense of government recognition and incentives.

What you seem to be seeking is legitimacy.

And that's just something which the law can not force people to give you.

Gay marriage, (for all it means to you) simply doesn't serve the general welfare needs on the nation that the one man one women relationship does. But don't feel bad. Neither do bigamist relationships, poligamist relationships or incestuous relationships (no matter how loving),... benefit the country's general welfare in the same way that the one man one woman relationship does.
Click to expand...

You have decided that gay marriage "doesn't serve the general welfare needs." You've offered no proof of this, because there is none. You don't like gay marriage so you are against it, which is your right. However, luckily, you don't get to decide for everyone. The recognition from the government that gay couples currently lack are not the things that make a marriage; they are the things that make a marriage and family safer. Those things such as survivor benefits, child custody, hospital visitation are rights that they deserve just as much as straight people. In this country, whenever rights are denied to a group of people we need to closely examine the reason why and in almost all case stop denying those rights.
 
Layla_Z said:
You have decided that gay marriage "doesn't serve the general welfare needs." You've offered no proof of this, because there is none. You don't like gay marriage so you are against it, which is your right. However, luckily, you don't get to decide for everyone. The recognition from the government that gay couples currently lack are not the things that make a marriage; they are the things that make a marriage and family safer. Those things such as survivor benefits, child custody, hospital visitation are rights that they deserve just as much as straight people. In this country, whenever rights are denied to a group of people we need to closely examine the reason why and in almost all case stop denying those rights.
Click to expand...

1: Marriage (the government's recognition of a marriage) is not an absolute right. Not even for heterosexuals. (note; laws against incest, poligamy, bigamy, etc.)

2: "It aint about me"

3: I have been consistant in my views regarding the "general welfare" clause and have even made the comment;

Chuz Life said:
We don't need 'gay marriage' for our society to survive in the same way that we 'generally' need one man one woman marriages.

Sorry if it offends,... but it's true. We don't.

I think the best arguements for gay marriages to be recognized is when the cases are made that it is best for the 'general welfare' needs of the nation.
I still disagree with it in the end (as the nation has survived and flourished without it for 200 plus years),.... but it's still the hardest case to defend against.
Click to expand...

"
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
1: Marriage (the government's recognition of a marriage) is not a right. Not even for heterosexuals. (note; laws against incest, poligamy, bigamy, etc.)
Click to expand...

Loving vs Virginia said marriage is a right.
 
Chuz Life said:
We will just have to agree to disagree on that.

I'm curious.

Why do you suppose Obama dropped his challenge to the defense of marriage act?
Click to expand...

Wow, you certainly bounce around quite a bit. Marriage is not a right, wait, marriage is a right if it meets certain criteria that limits it to certain people who believe the way I do.

President Obama wants to seek a legislative change to DOMA - "Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that President Obama “has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) couples from being granted equal rights and benefits," she said. "However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."

I think this is a mistake and a law denying people their rights should be changed as quickly as possible.
 
Layla_Z said:
Wow, you certainly bounce around quite a bit. Marriage is not a right, wait, marriage is a right if it meets certain criteria that limits it to certain people who believe the way I do.

President Obama wants to seek a legislative change to DOMA - "Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that President Obama “has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) couples from being granted equal rights and benefits," she said. "However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."

I think this is a mistake and a law denying people their rights should be changed as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...

But I thought that O'Bummer was a "Constitutional Law Professor."

No?
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
But I thought that O'Bummer was a "Constitutional Law Professor."

No?
Click to expand...

Why in the world would you cite someone you obviously have no respect for?

Perhaps seeing the bigger picture as president he thinks a legislative change is better than a judicial one. Maybe he is right and I am just impatient. Nonetheless, it doesn't change the fact that you are trying to justify, through some convoluted and misguided method, denying rights to consenting adults who are hurting no one. That I cannot abide. You have every right to believe as you do, but that right stops when you try to force that belief to influence the behavior or rights of others. I of course understand that you personally are stopping nothing but what I find repulsive is that any individual would want to deny rights to people in a healthy loving marriage just because they are the same gender.

Frankly, I am done talking about this. Your condescension and holier than thou attitude, when you don't have a leg to stand on, borders on insulting. This entire thread has become this extremely unpleasant. So you can quote me, and for some reason put some of my words in bold. Post your little quip and think you've won, but you and I know the truth. The desire to deny rights to people just because you don't like them or you think they are somehow less than you is bigotry.
 
Layla_Z said:
Why in the world would you cite someone you obviously have no respect for?
Click to expand...

Because I expect you probably do?

As for the rest of your post,... I've already explained it as best I can.

"Marriage" is not an unconditional right.

To have your marriage recognized (licensed) by the government, you have to meet the conditions set for BY the government (hopefully in keeping with the general welfare article 1, section 8).

People whose relationships fall outside that definition can still get 'married' have unions, contracts, whatever.....

But to be 'married' and receive the recognition of the government, you have to meet the conditions that they (congress) Constitutionally have the right to set.

Same as we all do.
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
What you seem to be seeking is legitimacy.
Click to expand...

"Legitimacy" is irrelevant. What people think about it is irrelevant. The only relevant issue is equality within the government and laws. You can marry a woman, so should I be able to. Period.
 
rivrrat said:
"Legitimacy" is irrelevant. What people think about it is irrelevant. The only relevant issue is equality within the government and laws. You can marry a woman, so should I be able to. Period.
Click to expand...

Using your logic, incest, bigamy, poligamy.... all should be recognized.

Sorry,... not all marriages "promote the general welfare."

So, unless and until you can get rid of DOMA,... you can no more marry another woman than I can (giving me two).

Or maybe, I would like to marry my brother and his wife,.... then we could share a lot more wealth and property.

After all,... we all love each other unconditionally.

Oh!

And our pets.

We love our pets and demand the right to claim them as our spouses. (for legal purposes only)
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
Using your logic, incest, bigamy, poligamy.... all should be recognized.
Click to expand...
Yes, they should. But that's irrelevant to this conversation.

Sorry,... not all marriages "promote the general welfare."
Click to expand...
You're right, not all current marriages "promote the general welfare". Which is why the argument is irrelevant.
 
rivrrat said:
You're right, not all current marriages "promote the general welfare". Which is why the argument is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


To you, perhaps.

I believe the defintions, the Constitution and the idea of using the incentives and recognitions and definitions to affect the 'general welfare' is very relevant.

I'm thinking our elected members of Congress would agree as well.
 
Chuz Life said:
We love our pets and demand the right to claim them as our spouses. (for legal purposes only)
Click to expand...

Love is irrelevant to a legal contract. However, all parties being able to understand and accept the terms of said legal contract IS relevant.
 
Chuz Life said:
But to be 'married' and receive the recognition of the government, you have to meet the conditions that they (congress) Constitutionally have the right to set.

Same as we all do.
Click to expand...

Congress does not have the right to set whatever conditions they want to
 
Chuz Life said:
To you, perhaps.
Click to expand...
No, there are plenty of current marriages that do absolutely nothing for the "general welfare" of the United States. In fact, I could go marry the bum on the corner tomorrow and never see him again. So much for the legal contract "promoting general welfare".
 
rivrrat said:
No, there are plenty of current marriages that do absolutely nothing for the "general welfare" of the United States. In fact, I could go marry the bum on the corner tomorrow and never see him again. So much for the legal contract "promoting general welfare".
Click to expand...

It's an 'ideal,' Rivv.

When you took civics, government, even sociology..... didn't you study the differences between "ideas, ideals, and implimentation?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom