• 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's an 'ideal,' Rivv.

When you took civics, government, even sociology..... didn't you study the differences between "ideas, ideals, and implimentation?"
Click to expand...

I also studied discrimination and equality. Our government generally works to eliminate legal discrimination and inequality.
 
obvious Child said:
According to some on the anti-gay marriage side, marriage is for making babies. Therefore, do you believe that those who either cannot or will not procreate should have their marriages dissolved?
Click to expand...

So should people that stop having babies also have their marriages dissolved?
 
Chuz Life said:
That's true, they have to follow the guidelines set by the Constitution (article 1, section 8)
Click to expand...

Which says absolutely nothing about marriage so how does keeping state recognition of gay marriage illegal contribute to the general welfare of the US?
 
rivrrat said:
I also studied discrimination and equality. Our government generally works to eliminate legal discrimination and inequality.
Click to expand...

So,... let me get this right.

The government has the right to define the criteria for personhood, de humanize and disqualify a human child from 'personhood.'

But that same government does not have the right to define 'marriage' in a way that you think denies someone their rights....

Mirror?
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
And you said it did not contribute to the general welfare of the US keeping gay marriage illegal.
Click to expand...

Nice try at another wild spin.

Defining marriage as between one man and one woman does not automatically make same sex 'marriages' illegal.
 
Chuz Life said:
So,... let me get this right.

The government has the right to define the criteria for personhood, de humanize and disqualify a human child from 'personhood.'
Click to expand...
The government has whatever rights we allow it to have. And yes, it has the ability to grant legal personhood to a turnip if it wants to or deny it to a turnip (or first term fetus, pretty much the same thing).

But that same government does not have the right to define 'marriage' because in a way that you think denies someone their rights....
Click to expand...
Is it the government's "right" to define LEGAL marriage? Sure, who said it isn't?

But there is no doubt that it denies rights. There is no doubt that the current definition of marriage discriminates and is not equal. No doubt whatsoever.

Mirror?
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?
 
Chuz Life said:
Nice try at another wild spin.

Defining marriage as between one man and one woman does not automatically make same sex 'marriages' illegal.
Click to expand...

Say what? Legally defining marriage as one man one woman doesn't make state recognition of gay marriage illegal?
 
Chuz Life said:
Nice try at another wild spin.

Defining marriage as between one man and one woman does not automatically make same sex 'marriages' illegal.
Click to expand...

DOMA invalidates same-sex wedded couples' marriages when they move to a state that doesn't recognize their marriage or are even just visiting a state that doesn't recognize their marriage, while they are in that state. That is against the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the 14th Amendment. If they were an opposite sex wedded couple, there are no such restrictions, no matter why they are married or even if they do or can have children with each other. That is unequal treatment and wrong according to the 14th Amendment. All heterosexual couples must have their marriage recognized by other states, even if the couple would not have been allowed to legally marry in that other state. Congress should have to show why it is promoting the "general welfare" by making such a restriction.
 
roguenuke said:
Congress should have to show why it is promoting the "general welfare" by making such a restriction.
Click to expand...

Again.

It's not a matter of restricting it's a matter of recognition.

It's not a matter of criminalizing or discriminating against all the other forms of marriages, unions or contracts,.... it's a matter of recognizing the one most essential to the fabric of our familes, lives, culture, society, etc. our 'general welfare' if you will.

And I'll ask again,...

"How is it that you (no you personally rogue) are all ok with the government defining 'personhood' in a way that excludes pre-natal children and denies them their rights and personhood,.... makes it legal to KILL them,..... But you are appaled at the thought of that same government defining 'marriage' as it sees fit to 'promote the general welfare?"
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
Using your logic, incest, bigamy, poligamy.... all should be recognized.

Oh!

And our pets.

We love our pets and demand the right to claim them as our spouses. (for legal purposes only)
Click to expand...

Whenever someone trots out these pathetic "arguments," I instantly know I'm dealing with someone who is either (a) hopelessly ignorant, (b) a sad little bigot on the losing end of the gay marriage argument, or (c) both.

:2wave:
 
rivrrat said:
Is it the government's "right" to define LEGAL marriage? Sure, who said it isn't?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dittohead not! said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
rivrrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
Dittohead not! said:
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."
Click to expand...

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?
 
rivrrat said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dittohead not! said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
rivrrat said:
No, provided does not imply any sort of financial responsibility. It simply means provided. Allow works as well.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dittohead not! said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
No! Not all people want little brats and that is their right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom