• 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?


  • Total voters
    40
I am a proponant of traditional marriage.

Which tradition? The one where marriage was arranged between two people whether they liked it or not? The one where marriage was used to bind tribes for power and wealth? The one where it was used solely to determine who the proper heir was? The one where it was acknowledged by common law? The one that was religious? Or the one that is secular and licensed by the government?

I also am an advocate for liberty and freedom.

Ditto.

This means that I will promote traditional family values but have no desire to impose those values over anyone who chooses to oppose or not agree with them. Because I don't agree with lifestyle choices of others doesn't mean that I should have a means to prevent others from living under a value system of their choosing.

Although the "traditional family values" bit is vague, I'm otherwise right on board with you.

Freedom and liberty for all means that people are going to do things you don't like. It isn't anyone's place to use "the machine of terror" to force people into conforming to someone else's value system.

Okay, I feel I owe you an apology. I ass-umed that you were against gay marriage being recognized by the government, but based on the above I can now see that quite the opposite is true.

This is why using the government as a database, a registry to uphold the marriage contract regarding inheritance, property etc, etc... is the only function I believe it should have.

Isn't that largely what it does already?
 
Which tradition? The one where marriage was arranged between two people whether they liked it or not? The one where marriage was used to bind tribes for power and wealth? The one where it was used solely to determine who the proper heir was? The one where it was acknowledged by common law? The one that was religious? Or the one that is secular and licensed by the government?


Well, I think we both know what I'm refering to but, I'll play along -- traditional marriage would be between 1 man and 1 woman.



Ditto.

:cheers:



Although the "traditional family values" bit is vague, I'm otherwise right on board with you.

:cheers:



Okay, I feel I owe you an apology. I ass-umed that you were against gay marriage being recognized by the government, but based on the above I can now see that quite the opposite is true.

No worries...


Isn't that largely what it does already?

Yes, with the exception that the government can deny individuals to be legally recognized. I'm putting the argument into a more palatable context. Don't make it a gay marriage issue. Make it a governmental control issue.

The best way to end government backed discrimination is to take government out of the equation all together.
 
I too agree that the traditional family is the best model to have for raising children to be productive, successful, and happy. Well, after reading what you wrote again you said "role model". That being said, were you speaking on the traditional family or just "role models"?

I absolutely agree that the government should be the last ones to take care of anything.

The traditional marriage would be preferable but since it seems that gay marriage will be accepted there will need to be roll models for the lacking gender in the family. The same could be said for single parent families the missing gender roll model needs to be found. The ideal would be the extended families with aunts and uncles being available to be roll models too.

We have had problems in Oklahoma with foster kids being killed or molested by their foster families and where that did not happen there were a refusals to allow adoptions of kids by foster parents and instead kids were farmed out to different families over several years so the kids get attached and then torn away. This is being reformed now and some DHS personnel were convicted of neglect of duty.
 
In the past, IMO, our government has demonstrated a poor ability to care for children.
Now, IMO again, it is better, and probably a lot better than many "tax paying citizens".

Well now that parents can be sued by the state if they use corporal punishment that lessens the amount of control that parents can implement. Sill, the State is still worse than most parents in their ability to take care of children.
 
Marriage is an institute of religion and should be kept in the churches.

Civil Unions are all that should be recognized by the government for tax purposes (that is for all couples regardless of orientation).
\

I usually agree with you, but on this matter, Marriage is an institute of LAW. Signed on the dotted line and you will be paying someone a long time. Depending on the lawyers. Is that gov't involvement or regulation or is there a difference? I have always presumed it was a clever and subtle victory of women over the unbeknownst.
 
This shouldn't be viewed as a sign that you are for or against gay marriage, polygamy, etc. Only whether or not the government should be the arbiter in moral decisions involving who or what is to be considered a suitable partner(s)

Didn't vote. The way its phrased and the way the poll options are phrased are not neutral and way to partisan.
 
Well, I think we both know what I'm refering to but, I'll play along -- traditional marriage would be between 1 man and 1 woman.

Yes, that is one past custom. One. Of many. And which I have no very good reason for supporting above other historical traditions.

Yes, with the exception that the government can deny individuals to be legally recognized. I'm putting the argument into a more palatable context. Don't make it a gay marriage issue. Make it a governmental control issue.

Sorry, but to ignore that this issue is only brought up as a result of gay marriage is naive. If it weren't for gay marriage nobody would be saying anything about getting government out of marriage. It's a gay marriage issue.

The best way to end government backed discrimination is to take government out of the equation all together.

The best way to end government [insert dysfunctional behavior here] is to take government out of the equation altogether. Cute, but that'll never solve anything.
 
Sorry, but to ignore that this issue is only brought up as a result of gay marriage is naive. If it weren't for gay marriage nobody would be saying anything about getting government out of marriage. It's a gay marriage issue.

You just gotta love it when someone tries to claim or push the idea that their arguement has nothing to do with gay marriage when without gay marriage this subject would never have been brought up in the first place. Note that this happens on other subjects also.
 
Didn't vote. The way its phrased and the way the poll options are phrased are not neutral and way to partisan.


Well, thank you for commenting. I don't know if I agree with your assessment, but thanks for the criticism none the less.
 
No. Marriages should be done by contract between two individuals. Be it between churches or whatever
So if the contract says that the wife shall not leave the house and allows marital discipline, you think the government should just stay out of that and let the church enforce it? Or worse, enforce it themselves?

I really don't think people who argue that "the government should stay out of marriage altogether" have any idea what they are talking about. The government currently doesn't regulate marriage except to prohibit polygamy, incest, molestation, rape, unconscionability like contracts that refuse to provide for child support, etc. Prohibiting gay marriage is the one main thing the government does wrong, and that's because of the influence of the church. So why the hell should we leave marriage altogether to the church?
 
Yes, that is one past custom. One. Of many. And which I have no very good reason for supporting above other historical traditions.

No, I don't suppose you would. Because that old time tradition of clubbing your woman over the head and dragging her back to the cave is just as relevant to today's discussion as any I've seen... I can see where you might get confused.



Sorry, but to ignore that this issue is only brought up as a result of gay marriage is naive. If it weren't for gay marriage nobody would be saying anything about getting government out of marriage. It's a gay marriage issue.

Ok, and what? The issue also could have been past resolved had the term "civil union" been allowed to have replaced the word "marriage". Marriage for some holds religious connotations. What's the matter -- don't want a complete seperation of church and state? By taking government completely out of the marriage business you don't have to worry about word magic. It's cut and dry. Everyone is equal because all you are doing is registering yourselves into a partnership of sorts to ensure hereditary rights and what not are protected.

It's naive to think I don't fully understand why you'd balk at the notion of everyone having full fledged legal protection and equal standing with all the trimmings as I've set the table.




The best way to end government [insert dysfunctional behavior here] is to take government out of the equation altogether. Cute, but that'll never solve anything.

Turn a specific statement into a generality. Cute, but that won't make what I said wrong.
 
You just gotta love it when someone tries to claim or push the idea that their arguement has nothing to do with gay marriage when without gay marriage this subject would never have been brought up in the first place. Note that this happens on other subjects also.

I never said it didn't. I said the poll should be viewed in a particular context. Meaning since the subject of gay marriage has brought to our attention a place where government should have no say, forget how you feel about polygamy or gay marriage, or whatever else and concentrate on whether or not you believe the government has a right to be the decision maker or should they merely be a custodian of records.

Gay marriage has been the catalyst for the debate it doesn't mean that gay marriage has to be the debate.
 
The traditional marriage would be preferable but since it seems that gay marriage will be accepted there will need to be roll models for the lacking gender in the family. The same could be said for single parent families the missing gender roll model needs to be found. The ideal would be the extended families with aunts and uncles being available to be roll models too.

I agree. I believe that while not optimal, same sex marriages can fill the gap on the issue of adoption. I do also believe grandparents, aunts, uncles, close friends and the like, definitely should fill the missing gender's role.

I don't feel religious institutions shouldbe strong armed by the government into complying however, if it means going against the articles of faith or moral teachings of their particular denomination.
 
Last edited:
So if the contract says that the wife shall not leave the house and allows marital discipline, you think the government should just stay out of that and let the church enforce it? Or worse, enforce it themselves?

I really don't think people who argue that "the government should stay out of marriage altogether" have any idea what they are talking about. The government currently doesn't regulate marriage except to prohibit polygamy, incest, molestation, rape, unconscionability like contracts that refuse to provide for child support, etc. Prohibiting gay marriage is the one main thing the government does wrong, and that's because of the influence of the church. So why the hell should we leave marriage altogether to the church?

It's a contract, if the wife doesn't agree then she doesn't have to sign it. As long as she or he voluntary agrees to it then that's their business. Did I say leave marriages altogether to the church? I said it can be between a church if they want or whatever form they see fit....sigh...just read the quote again.
 
Last edited:
Marriage is an entirely civil matter. It is impossible to remove the state from its control and administration. All that can be done is to try to influence it in a wise direction.

Speaking of which, "traditional marriage" is actually between a man and a woman of the same race, religion, nationality, and tribe or clan. We've managed over the years to whittle away the legal barriers to most of those (though attitudes of scorn and rejection may still echo in some recalcitrant quarters), but there is at least one more still to go.
 
No, I don't suppose you would. Because that old time tradition of clubbing your woman over the head and dragging her back to the cave is just as relevant to today's discussion as any I've seen... I can see where you might get confused.

So you see then that old traditions can become irrelevant with time? That things change?

Ok, and what? The issue also could have been past resolved had the term "civil union" been allowed to have replaced the word "marriage".

Except maybe I prefer "marriage" for myself, and not "civil union." You thus far haven't presented any argument for why I would get on board with your proposal. What's in it for me?

Marriage for some holds religious connotations. What's the matter -- don't want a complete seperation of church and state?

This carries the assumption that marriage is the domain of the religious. As I've stated with my previous examples of the varying traditions of marriage, this has not by any definition consistently been the case. So far all you have is a claim that marriage is solely religious, one which you have not substantiated.

By taking government completely out of the marriage business you don't have to worry about word magic. It's cut and dry. Everyone is equal because all you are doing is registering yourselves into a partnership of sorts to ensure hereditary rights and what not are protected.

Government recognizing gay marriage would also solve the issue. On top of that, atheists and gays can still have marriage. More people win this way.

It's naive to think I don't fully understand why you'd balk at the notion of everyone having full fledged legal protection and equal standing with all the trimmings as I've set the table.

I don't balk at this at all. In fact, government recognizing gay marriage deals with that quite well.

Turn a specific statement into a generality. Cute, but that won't make what I said wrong.

Well, why would your automatic solution to a government doing something badly be to get government out of it? Sometimes the solution really is to just make government do that thing better, and as we've seen with an increasing number of states approving gay marriage this is clearly one of those situations.
 
I never said it didn't. I said the poll should be viewed in a particular context. Meaning since the subject of gay marriage has brought to our attention a place where government should have no say, forget how you feel about polygamy or gay marriage, or whatever else and concentrate on whether or not you believe the government has a right to be the decision maker or should they merely be a custodian of records.

Gay marriage has been the catalyst for the debate it doesn't mean that gay marriage has to be the debate.

Marriage is a right. As such the Government should become involved to protect that right.
 
Well, thank you for commenting. I don't know if I agree with your assessment, but thanks for the criticism none the less.

"we need standards and structure or society will fall" this is what makes your poll partisan. It takes out any other reason to say "yes" and imposes your own view of what "yes" should be. Likewise the same applies to your option for "no". "I know what's best for me. Government should serve as a register only" There may well be other reasons to say "no" other than thinking that a person knows whats best for themselves, indeed they may want to say no period and completely leave out the "register only" part.
 
Speaking of which, "traditional marriage" is actually between a man and a woman of the same race, religion, nationality, and tribe or clan. We've managed over the years to whittle away the legal barriers to most of those (though attitudes of scorn and rejection may still echo in some recalcitrant quarters), but there is at least one more still to go.
I mean, if we really care that much about tradition, all christian churches should be prohibited from granting marriages and anybody who wants to get married should have to trek to Mesopotamia and be married by a priest of Nanna.
 
So you see then that old traditions can become irrelevant with time? That things change?

Oh, so all this to teach me a lesson, huh? LOL and this was to do what I suuppose? I was using the terminology for distinction, nothing else.


Except maybe I prefer "marriage" for myself, and not "civil union." You thus far haven't presented any argument for why I would get on board with your proposal. What's in it for me?

Splendid, you are able to choose for yourself your own identity not have it bequeathed upon you from up high. I've presented an argument that ends the entire issue, it just doesn't have the alterior agenda attached to it. What's in it for you is self evident.


This carries the assumption that marriage is the domain of the religious. As I've stated with my previous examples of the varying traditions of marriage, this has not by any definition consistently been the case. So far all you have is a claim that marriage is solely religious, one which you have not substantiated.

I don't know what you think you've shown but if you want to look at history, clearly the definition and purpose of marriage has been 1 man and 1 or multiple women forming social contracts so as to secure lineage. That was its function I won't stop you if you would like to think otherwise, have at it, but just know that mountains of anthropological evidence is available to prove you wrong. I won't be providing any of this evidence, no, no, fool's errands are for fools. I'm no fool and you can google just as easy as I can.

What's further, the only mention of religion that I've presented to you I believe was that some people of religious claim take issue with same sex marriage. My method pulls their teeth leaving them only a bark with no bite.

To say all I have is a claim one of which I haven't substanciated is a strawman. I've made no claim therefore nothing needs to be substantiated.


Government recognizing gay marriage would also solve the issue. On top of that, atheists and gays can still have marriage. More people win this way.

and here's the onion... Governmental recognition. LOL. Why is there a need for outside validation? Whether it is Jack and Jill or Jack and Bill all the government needs to recognize is who gets to control the purse strings upon death or how the purse is split upon divorce. I mean really, you're coming close showing honesty of agenda but still are holding back, why?




I don't balk at this at all. In fact, government recognizing gay marriage deals with that quite well.

Oh you do, you're just not being honest as to the reason why. I won't repeat myself regarding the recognition schpeal, the answer is the same as above.


Well, why would your automatic solution to a government doing something badly be to get government out of it? Sometimes the solution really is to just make government do that thing better, and as we've seen with an increasing number of states approving gay marriage this is clearly one of those situations.[/QUOTE

I would ask why you have the overwhelming desire to be lorded over?

The main and only pertinent reason advocates of gay marriage have is that they seek the same custodial and property rights as those who are freely allowed to marry today. Terminating the government's authority to dictate who can have these rights is the best solution.

Of course there is the other agenda that goes unsettled, but again that also should reside outside the government's domain.
 
"we need standards and structure or society will fall" this is what makes your poll partisan. It takes out any other reason to say "yes" and imposes your own view of what "yes" should be. Likewise the same applies to your option for "no". "I know what's best for me. Government should serve as a register only" There may well be other reasons to say "no" other than thinking that a person knows whats best for themselves, indeed they may want to say no period and completely leave out the "register only" part.

and you found taking the time to critique the poll was a better way of doing things rather than just vote and comment on that other reason?


Thanks again for your input.
 
Marriage is a right. As such the Government should become involved to protect that right.

My way would protect it. Where it counts. The right also would be protected from the government by removing its authority to decide whom can form the social contract.
 
I don't understand why being married entitles one to a tax break. I would be totally on board with gay marriage if it weren't for the government giving a benefit based on one's promises of monogamy. Why does saying "I promise not to bang anybody else" give someone tax benefits? I don't find anything wrong with being gay, but letting the government "allow" this group or that group to do whatever just empowers the government even more. Be gay. Be monogamous. Have a religious ceremony. I don't care. But I don't think that entitles one to anything other than hospital visitation and survivor's benefits (which can be taken care of with a simple power of attorney).
 
Last edited:
and you found taking the time to critique the poll was a better way of doing things rather than just vote and comment on that other reason?

You did say that you were not sure how your poll was partisan right? Since you said you didn't know I figured that it was my duty to show you so as to help you avoid such mistakes in the future.


Thanks again for your input.

You're welcome. :)
 
My way would protect it. Where it counts. The right also would be protected from the government by removing its authority to decide whom can form the social contract.

No it wouldn't. Yours would open it up to local and state governments taking control of it. And if they didn't then your local pastor or some other "prominent" person would step in and try to force you to follow their way. And they need not use violence or anything illegal to do so. The only way that your idea would work is if every single person minded their own buisness. And that just simply is not going to ever happen.
 
Back
Top Bottom