• 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!

Should The Government Be In The Marriage Business?

Should the Government be in the Marriage Business?

  • Yes, we need standards and structure or society will fall

    Votes: 12 30.0%

  • No, I know what's best for me. Government should serve as a register only

    Votes: 28 70.0%
  • Total voters
    40
eellis285 said:
i think this is rediculous the problem is government shouldn't even know if you are or aren't married that should be between you god (or your god) and your spouse i am very opposed to homosexuality as an act not to the people as we are supposed to love the sinner and hate the sin but i am not going to vote for gay marriage to be outlawed because i don't want the gov. in anyones business
Click to expand...

Yet, when a marriage is dissolved, and one party or both parties are aggrieved, over property or custody of children, the government is brought in to settle and then enforce the decision when they can't themselves. It then behooves the government to have laws and a framework in place to facilitate that. Why should a judge have to unknot the mess two people have made of their partnership and the custody and support of their progeny without having some sort of structure available to establish who and when the union "incorporated"? (I use "available" because lots of people don't partake of marriage these days.) Marriage protects the rights of the couple as well as those of the children.

This structure should be extended to SS couples as well for the same purpose. No couple, no matter their orientation, is immune from legal issues after the dissolution.
 
Perotista said:
Marriage throughout European and American history has for the most part been a chruch affair. Churches performed and kept records of who was married. It wasn’t until the middle 1800’s that some states started to keep records on who was married and if memory serves me right, Kentucky around 1916 became the last state to keep records on marriage.

If it weren’t for the passage of the income tax amendment and the federal government starting to use the tax code to enforce, no, not enforce but to use the tax code to achieve certain personal behavior among it citizens, this discussion would be for the most part moot. One can draw up a will and leave anything to anyone regardless of being married or not. It is the tax advantages be it income, inheritance and other benefits since derived since the passage of the 16th amendment that has made who can or can’t be married into an divisive issue.

Personally, I see no problem with letting the church’s and religion if that is what you want to call it to maintain their place in history and marriage. All other marriages outside the church, you can call them civil unions for tax and benefit resolution and let’s move on.
Click to expand...

(bold mine)

I feel it is necessary, every now and again, to remind certain people that the above is just a fantasy and will never, ever happen.

Carry on.
 
yes for any children that might be involved.
 
Cardinal said:
(bold mine)

I feel it is necessary, every now and again, to remind certain people that the above is just a fantasy and will never, ever happen.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I hear more and more talk about as time goes by. This idea was not originally mine. But it does make sense. ttwtt is right about our tax code. It is not just to bring in revenue to the fed anymore, it is to encourage behavior. We will reward you if you buy a house or get married. We will subsidize you business, but if you smoke we will increase the taxes on tobacco ten fold if not twenty. From what I hear, there has been a couple of states where civil unions has been proposed, it hasn't gone very far, but the first step is the proposal and time will tell whether civil unions catches on or not.
 
Perotista said:
Perhaps, but I hear more and more talk about as time goes by. This idea was not originally mine. But it does make sense. ttwtt is right about our tax code. It is not just to bring in revenue to the fed anymore, it is to encourage behavior. We will reward you if you buy a house or get married. We will subsidize you business, but if you smoke we will increase the taxes on tobacco ten fold if not twenty. From what I hear, there has been a couple of states where civil unions has been proposed, it hasn't gone very far, but the first step is the proposal and time will tell whether civil unions catches on or not.
Click to expand...

I understand, but the uphill battle you face is that once you bring that proposal to the courts or to legislation, you're actually going to have to argue why a fairly large percentage of the nation is now going to have to give up their marriages in favor of "civil unions" instead, and vague assertions of freedom ain't gonna cut it.
 
Cardinal said:
I understand, but the uphill battle you face is that once you bring that proposal to the courts or to legislation, you're actually going to have to argue why a fairly large percentage of the nation is now going to have to give up their marriages in favor of "civil unions" instead, and vague assertions of freedom ain't gonna cut it.
Click to expand...

People do get hung up in semantics. Whether it is marriage, civil union or some other name, it is the love and the work between two people that ultimately make it work or not. Marriage has religious connotations, civil unions do not. But you are most likely correct. I would suspect that if gays were given all the rights of a marriage but having it called a civil union they wouldn’t for the most part agree to it. I wouldn’t have a problem at all calling my marriage a civil union. We were not married in a church, at least a Christian one, so it would fall under the civil union category here in the states.

But we shall see, it is said a journey of a thousands miles begins with the first step.
 
Perotista said:
People do get hung up in semantics. Whether it is marriage, civil union or some other name, it is the love and the work between two people that ultimately make it work or not. Marriage has religious connotations, civil unions do not. But you are most likely correct. I would suspect that if gays were given all the rights of a marriage but having it called a civil union they wouldn’t for the most part agree to it. I wouldn’t have a problem at all calling my marriage a civil union. We were not married in a church, at least a Christian one, so it would fall under the civil union category here in the states.

But we shall see, it is said a journey of a thousands miles begins with the first step.
Click to expand...

The problem is that by attempting to specifically deny "marriage" to everybody but yourself, and letting them have "civil unions" instead, you're being pretty up-front that civil unions are "Marriage Lite." It's exactly like when my brother gave me the Gobot and kept Optimus Prime for himself.

You feel that marriage is religious, and that's fine of course, but a lot of other people have different feelings about marriage that are not related to religion at all.
 
Absolutely. It should be used to encourage the society we desire, with stability and greater success for its children.
 
Cardinal said:
The problem is that by attempting to specifically deny "marriage" to everybody but yourself, and letting them have "civil unions" instead, you're being pretty up-front that civil unions are "Marriage Lite." It's exactly like when my brother gave me the Gobot and kept Optimus Prime for himself.

You feel that marriage is religious, and that's fine of course, but a lot of other people have different feelings about marriage that are not related to religion at all.
Click to expand...

Ah, In today’s world you are correct. For the most part people have taken what was a religious ceremony, church defined and turned it into a one size fits all institution and for the most part, absent the religious aspect. Marriage Lite, a very nice way to put it and one that most people who are married outside of a church would come to view it. So marriage has taken on over time a completely different meaning than that of a hundred years ago going back throughout history.

Words and meanings change over time; I can remember when gay meant happy instead of a homosexual meaning. But to me a civil union would bestow the same rights when it comes to benefits, taxes, health insurance etc. the same as a marriage. After all a marriage is nothing more than a union, a joining of two people. In the past this was done in a church, today more marriages occur outside of the church. A civil union is the same thing, a joining, a union of two people. Whether or not a church or a religion sanctions it, when it comes to being recognized by government, who should care?

Perhaps civil unions could be the first step to bring everyone up to equal footing with the change done later from civil union to marriage. Maybe the question is, what is more important? Ensuring our partner in life will be taken care of along if any off spring or whether it is called marriage or civil union?
 
No they shouldn't, all legal benefits can be retained without the legal institution.
 
Perotista said:
People do get hung up in semantics. Whether it is marriage, civil union or some other name, it is the love and the work between two people that ultimately make it work or not. Marriage has religious connotations, civil unions do not. But you are most likely correct. I would suspect that if gays were given all the rights of a marriage but having it called a civil union they wouldn’t for the most part agree to it. I wouldn’t have a problem at all calling my marriage a civil union. We were not married in a church, at least a Christian one, so it would fall under the civil union category here in the states.

But we shall see, it is said a journey of a thousands miles begins with the first step.
Click to expand...

Howdy !
 
Looks like Liberals are getting closer to realizing their goal of marrying their girlfriends, all named, apparently, "Baaaa Baaaa...."

Don't be sheepish about it, Libs......
 
Perotista said:
And a good day to you too, wayno.
Click to expand...


Like old times around here.....

Polgara and Bubba are on another thread, Bonzai here tonight..........

BTW, I'm going to paraphrase your signature for a moment...........

All the problems this nation face were caused by people with Ivy League Degrees. Why would anyone with a lick of common sense continue to vote for the same graduates that have caused all of our present predicaments?
 
Wayno said:
Like old times around here.....

Polgara and Bubba are on another thread, Bonzai here tonight..........

BTW, I'm going to paraphrase your signature for a moment...........

All the problems this nation face were caused by people with Ivy League Degrees. Why would anyone with a lick of common sense continue to vote for the same graduates that have caused all of our present predicaments?
Click to expand...

yes, getting more like home everyday. Yes you changes would apply a while back when it seemed everyone in government came from the IVY League colleges. The problem is a lot of them were book smart and lacked common sense or how to deal with reality outside the campus area.
 
Wayno said:
Like old times around here.....

Polgara and Bubba are on another thread, Bonzai here tonight..........

BTW, I'm going to paraphrase your signature for a moment...........

All the problems this nation face were caused by people with Ivy League Degrees. Why would anyone with a lick of common sense continue to vote for the same graduates that have caused all of our present predicaments?
Click to expand...

Because the elites are better than the regular person. I'm more of a Henry Stimson man than I am a Joe Six-Pack, sorry.
 
Fiddytree said:
Because the elites are better than the regular person. I'm more of a Henry Stimson man than I am a Joe Six-Pack, sorry.
Click to expand...

Couldn't disagree more.

The children of the rich, who use those institutions to remain the "elite," I'd argue are LESS intelligent than let's say the average Notre Dame graduate.

First, there's grade inflation.

Then there's the fact that, because SO much money is involved, you'd probably actually have to KILL someone to get thrown out.

We now have a President who can't properly pronounce the word corpsman, and weho thinks HAwaii, where he lived, is in Asia.

We have a former VP who, based on ONE Ivy League science course, thinks the sun doesn't have the greatest effect on Earth's temperatures.

And how many MORE people have to talk about what idiots Bush and Kerry were?

I think the elites are far less capable in most cases, at this day in time.

And as far as "being better than the average person," these are LYING POLITICIANS for Christ's sake..........

Or, more accurately, people who couldn't make it in the legal profession for the most part, so looked for an easier gig.
 
Wayno said:
Couldn't disagree more.

The children of the rich, who use those institutions to remain the "elite," I'd argue are LESS intelligent than let's say the average Notre Dame graduate.

First, there's grade inflation.

Then there's the fact that, because SO much money is involved, you'd probably actually have to KILL someone to get thrown out.

We now have a President who can't properly pronounce the word corpsman, and weho thinks HAwaii, where he lived, is in Asia.

We have a former VP who, based on ONE Ivy League science course, thinks the sun doesn't have the greatest effect on Earth's temperatures.

And how many MORE people have to talk about what idiots Bush and Kerry were?

I think the elites are far less capable in most cases, at this day in time.

And as far as "being better than the average person," these are LYING POLITICIANS for Christ's sake..........

Or, more accurately, people who couldn't make it in the legal profession for the most part, so looked for an easier gig.
Click to expand...

What's strange is, if you remove two lines, this would have sounded like it came straight from the mouth of a liberal. The Lying politician line is particularly priceless.
 
Fiddytree said:
What's strange is, if you remove two lines, this would have sounded like it came straight from the mouth of a liberal. The Lying politician line is particularly priceless.
Click to expand...

I'm a Conservative, which is far different from being a Republican....

I realize we have the best government money can buy, BOTH parties..........

For every dollar spent on "K" street, a business sees a return of 220 dollars, on average.

And our President, who had the White House PURCHASED for him by the big banks he railed against?

He's going to APPOINT one of those "big bankers", who have banks with record profits, and record fees, as our new Treasury Secretary.......

After having an Administrion that looks, at every level, like a "Who's Who" at Goldman Sachs.....

Welcome to the world of illusion, my friend........
 
Wayno said:
I'm a Conservative, which is far different from being a Republican....

I realize we have the best government money can buy, BOTH parties..........

For every dollar spent on "K" street, a business sees a return of 220 dollars, on average.

And our President, who had the White House PURCHASED for him by the big banks he railed against?

He's going to APPOINT one of those "big bankers", who have banks with record profits, and record fees, as our new Treasury Secretary.......

After having an Administrion that looks, at every level, like a "Who's Who" at Goldman Sachs.....

Welcome to the world of illusion, my friend........
Click to expand...



And let's not forget, not one of them has gone to jail....

Not even former N.J. Governor Corzine, who quickly ripped off a few billion dollars after leaving office, and who's now PROTECTED by the political elites....
 
Ever considered that I thought, by large, it was a good thing?
 
Perotista said:
Ah, In today’s world you are correct. For the most part people have taken what was a religious ceremony, church defined and turned it into a one size fits all institution and for the most part, absent the religious aspect. Marriage Lite, a very nice way to put it and one that most people who are married outside of a church would come to view it. So marriage has taken on over time a completely different meaning than that of a hundred years ago going back throughout history.
Click to expand...

Marriage has been shown to be a big enough tent. We all fit under it before and we'll all fit under it tomorrow.

Words and meanings change over time; I can remember when gay meant happy instead of a homosexual meaning. But to me a civil union would bestow the same rights when it comes to benefits, taxes, health insurance etc. the same as a marriage. After all a marriage is nothing more than a union, a joining of two people. In the past this was done in a church, today more marriages occur outside of the church. A civil union is the same thing, a joining, a union of two people. Whether or not a church or a religion sanctions it, when it comes to being recognized by government, who should care?
Click to expand...

We shall see. My prediction, though, is that given a choice the overwhelming majority of people will pick marriage over civil unions any day of the week, just as I never picked the Gobots over the Transformers.

Maybe the question is, what is more important? Ensuring our partner in life will be taken care of along if any off spring or whether it is called marriage or civil union?
Click to expand...

Having both has never been a problem in the past, and I don't see why it should be now.
 
Having both has never been a problem in the past, and I don't see why it should be now.
Click to expand...

Because homosexuals are seen as not deserving it. I love the old dance though: "I don't hate gays, but I don't want them to have the word marriage" (even though this is government work).
 
“No, I know what's best for me. Government should serve as a register only.” 30
“Yes, we need standards and structure or society will fall.” 12
Wow! So when a 40 year old man marries his second 14 year old wife that is what you want the government to register?
 
OhIsee.Then said:
“No, I know what's best for me. Government should serve as a register only.” 30
“Yes, we need standards and structure or society will fall.” 12
Wow! So when a 40 year old man marries his second 14 year old wife that is what you want the government to register?
Click to expand...

Well, not to open up another can of worms but if you want to play devil's advocate, I'll jump right in too.

A 40 year old man marrying his second wife who happens to be 14.

I don't have a problem with polygamy.
I do have a problem with the age, however the appropriate age of marriage is a social norm issue. The general belief in academic circles puts Mary at 12 when she had Jesus, so....What ya trying to say about the Big Guy,eh?:eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom