• 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
It appears to me that a lot of people are looking at this aspect of the issue back-asswards.

The government is charged with making laws and such (article 1, Section 8) as it sees fit for the "general welfare" needs of the nation.

When the government (or anyone) objectively looks at the idea of "marriage" which one naturally comes to mind as the union that best suits the 'general welfare' needs for the nation?

I suibmit that it's the "one man one woman" union that GENERALLY benefits the nation most.

The government, interested ONLY in the general welfare aspect,... is not charged with validating or recognizing anything more than what is fitting for our "general welfare."

In general,... from the governments perspective,... "marriage" is about the nucleus of a family, families (generally speaking) are for making and rearing children. The family model which naturally provides them (children) with a male and female role model,... which by extension forms our societies,... etc?

One man one woman.

It's not a "requirment" that a marriage is for the creating of children.

It's a recognition.
 
Chuz Life said:
It appears to me that a lot of people are looking at this aspect of the issue back-asswards.

The government is charged with making laws and such (article 1, Section 8) as it sees fit for the "general welfare" needs of the nation.

When the government (or anyone) objectively looks at the idea of "marriage" which one naturally comes to mind as the union that best suits the 'general welfare' needs for the nation?

I suibmit that it's the "one man one woman" union that GENERALLY benefits the nation most.

The government, interested ONLY in the general welfare aspect,... is not charged with validating or recognizing anything more than what is fitting for our "general welfare."

In general,... from the governments perspective,... "marriage" is about the nucleus of a family, families (generally speaking) are for making and rearing children. The family model which naturally provides them (children) with a male and female role model,... which by extension forms our societies,... etc?

One man one woman.

It's not a "requirment" that a marriage is for the creating of children.

It's a recognition.
Click to expand...
History disagrees. Just sayin'
 
The government is charged with making laws and such (article 1, Section 8) as it sees fit for the "general welfare" needs of the nation.
Click to expand...

You mean the federal government.

Marriage is not within the purview of the federal government.

Actually, marriage should be left up to the individuals involved, and the churches that perform the ceremonies, not any government.

Should septuagenarians be allowed to marry even though there is no possibility of procreation?
 
Toothpicvic said:
History disagrees. Just sayin'
Click to expand...

History is full of enough data to support just about anyones claim of anything.

History is in many cases somewhat subjective and open to interpretation.

But when you start with a blank sheet of paper,.... then read article 1, section 8.... and you consider what form of marriage best fills the criteria for the "general welfare" needs of the nation,... you will inevitably have to rule the one man one woman relationship as number one and every other 'union' or relationship comes up short.

"I'm jest sayin"
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
You mean the federal government.

Marriage is not within the purview of the federal government.

Actually, marriage should be left up to the individuals involved, and the churches that perform the ceremonies, not any government.

Should septuagenarians be allowed to marry even though there is no possibility of procreation?
Click to expand...

Again,... it's not that creating children is a requirement.

The government recognition, definition etc... is a incentive of sorts.

It's the way government works.

You tax or punish the things you need to slow or discourage and you provide incentives of rewards for the things which you want to encourage.

Much like a parent does with a child (only we are not the children of our government),.... a good parent rewards or provides incentives for the behavior they want to see,.. and they give punishment and use other means to discourage behaviors they don't. And they often treat the middle ground with indifference.
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
It appears to me that a lot of people are looking at this aspect of the issue back-asswards.

The government is charged with making laws and such (article 1, Section 8) as it sees fit for the "general welfare" needs of the nation.

When the government (or anyone) objectively looks at the idea of "marriage" which one naturally comes to mind as the union that best suits the 'general welfare' needs for the nation?

I suibmit that it's the "one man one woman" union that GENERALLY benefits the nation most.

The government, interested ONLY in the general welfare aspect,... is not charged with validating or recognizing anything more than what is fitting for our "general welfare."

In general,... from the governments perspective,... "marriage" is about the nucleus of a family, families (generally speaking) are for making and rearing children. The family model which naturally provides them (children) with a male and female role model,... which by extension forms our societies,... etc?

One man one woman.

It's not a "requirment" that a marriage is for the creating of children.

It's a recognition.
Click to expand...

Oh my, one minute the religious right doesn't want the government anywhere near their lives and the next they want them deciding what marriage should or should not be. It's a wonder they don't get confused their positions change so much. I also don't accept your suibition(sic) that a man/woman marriage is best. I don't believe that the loving stable marriage of a man and a woman is inherently better than the loving stable marriage of two men or two women. With 50% of marriages ending in divorce I don't think straight people have been doing such a great job of marriage. With all the kids in foster care I don't think straight people have been doing such a great job raising kids.
 
Last edited:
Here's what I think about gay marriage. NO. Marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman. There is not a single religion in the world that recognises anything else. If you want a secular civil union then fine, go right ahead. But to call it a marriage it must be religiously based. There is a point to be made for making the religious ceremony separate from the secular contractual benefits however.
You could make them have a secular contract for both types and then simply not recognise marriage in the law at all.
This is where that whole "separation of church and state " breaks down completely.
What a mess that would be to make divorces a completely church oriented thing. No government involvement at all.
 
theunbubba said:
Here's what I think about gay marriage. NO. Marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

Come again? Islam recognizes Polygamy and Mormonism did for quite some time. Further Paganism had for thousands of years recognized same sex Hand Fasting which is their equivalent of marriage.

There is not a single religion in the world that recognises anything else.
Click to expand...

See above.

If you want a secular civil union then fine, go right ahead. But to call it a marriage it must be religiously based.
Click to expand...

So why is the law code devoid of religious requirements then?

There is a point to be made for making the religious ceremony separate from the secular contractual benefits however.
Click to expand...

Which would be the best option entirely. No Government Marriage.

You could make them have a secular contract for both types and then simply not recognise marriage in the law at all.
Click to expand...

Winner Winner, Chicken Dinner!

This is where that whole "separation of church and state " breaks down completely.
What a mess that would be to make divorces a completely church oriented thing. No government involvement at all.
Click to expand...

Not at all. In the eyes of the legal contract, you have no civil union. What you call marriage is up to you to decide after and since there are no legal rights to a religious marriage, no problems with its seperation from the state.
 
Chuz Life said:
History is full of enough data to support just about anyones claim of anything.

History is in many cases somewhat subjective and open to interpretation.

But when you start with a blank sheet of paper,.... then read article 1, section 8.... and you consider what form of marriage best fills the criteria for the "general welfare" needs of the nation,... you will inevitably have to rule the one man one woman relationship as number one and every other 'union' or relationship comes up short.

"I'm jest sayin"
Click to expand...
That's an ignorant generalization. I mean, a "one man, one woman couple" who are unemployed, mooch off of welfare, and have an obsese 13-year old teen who plays video games and eats cheetos 8 hours a day don't really help the "general welfare" of the population as much as, say, a single gay person who works long hours at a center for abused children and volunteers in their spare time.
 
theunbubba said:
Here's what I think about gay marriage. NO. Marriage is a religious institution
Click to expand...
Throughout most of history it's been a legal or political insitution, not a religious one.

between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...
Not true. Many nations recognize same sex couples as married. And for that matter, it was originally a polygamical institution, not a monogamous one.

There is not a single religion in the world that recognises anything else.
Click to expand...
Not true. Plenty of religions recognized poligamy (some also recognized women having more than one husband).

[/quote]
If you want a secular civil union then fine, go right ahead. But to call it a marriage it must be religiously based.
[/quote]
Uh uh.

There is a point to be made for making the religious ceremony separate from the secular contractual benefits however.
You could make them have a secular contract for both types and then simply not recognise marriage in the law at all.
This is where that whole "separation of church and state " breaks down completely.
What a mess that would be to make divorces a completely church oriented thing. No government involvement at all.
Click to expand...
Legal marriage isn't even the same thing as as "wedding ceremony", and modern wedding ceremonies didn't exist for most of history (and still don't in most of the world).
 
The Uncola said:
Hiding the real reasons for their bigotry behind smokescreens, is something "conservatives," especially the "religious" variety do as second nature.
Click to expand...

Where would you like to draw the line after this one is moved?
And would you not be a bigot for denying anyone the ability to be married?

So, may I call you bigot? Surely there is a line you don't want crossed.

.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Where would you like to draw the line after this one is moved?
And would you not be a bigot for denying anyone the ability to be married?

So, may I call you bigot? Surely there is a line you don't want crossed.

.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes...

.. the old "slippery slope" logical falicy argument.

Fail.

Honestly, I really don't worry much about what you do or don't "call me."
 
Forgive me if this point has already been brought up, but what does it matter HOW the children were conceived or who the biological parents are? Who cares how the children being raised by homosexual couples came to be? What really matters, what SHOULD really matter to anyone who cares about children's welfare and society's welfare is how children are being raised, not how they're being conceived. Many studies have shown that children thrive in a home with two parents who are married to each other, regardless of the parents' gender, sexual orientation or biological link to the child.

Therefore, denying homosexual couples the right to marry for the sole reason that they can't biologically produce offspring makes no sense at all. They are as capable as any heterosexual couple of raising a happy, productive member of society. How that child came to be in their household should be the least of society's concern. What matters is that these children have a stable home environment, recognized, validated and protected by law.
 
Forgive me if this point has already been brought up, but what does it matter HOW the children were conceived or who the biological parents are? Who cares how the children being raised by homosexual couples came to be?
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly.
When it comes to heterosexual couples, it's sort of taboo to mention "how they got" their children: whether it was through adoption, whether they needed fertility treatments in order to conceive them, etc.
It would certainly be in poor taste to imply that they were less of a family because they acquired their children via some means other than just screwing.

How children arrive in a family is the very least important part of what it means to be a family.
Or at least, that's the party line when it comes to heterosexuals.
 
Layla_Z said:
Oh my, one minute the religious right doesn't want the government anywhere near their lives and the next they want them deciding what marriage should or should not be. It's a wonder they don't get confused their positions change so much. I also don't accept your suibition(sic) that a man/woman marriage is best. I don't believe that the loving stable marriage of a man and a woman is inherently better than the loving stable marriage of two men or two women. With 50% of marriages ending in divorce I don't think straight people have been doing such a great job of marriage. With all the kids in foster care I don't think straight people have been doing such a great job raising kids.
Click to expand...

1: Show me where I said one ****ing thing about religion

2: Show me a 'merital' relationship between anything other than one man and one woman that best fits the 'general' welfare needs of the nation and provides for the child both a male and a female role model.

As far as the divorce rates and all the other noise about it,.... I don't think you understand the differences between making policy and laws based on an "ideal" as opposed to an "idea."

The "ideal" for the general welfare needs of the nation,... is that familys (the basic unit of a society) have a solid nucleus, a means of reproducing itself (much like an organism) and a self contained model that can be followed for generations to come.

The one man one woman marriage fits that template.

Religion doesn't have a ****ing thing to do with it.
 
Homosexuals can have families too. In fact they already do in spite of the government holding their head in the sand about it.
 
Arcana XV said:
Therefore, denying homosexual couples the right to marry for the sole reason that they can't biologically produce offspring makes no sense at all. They are as capable as any heterosexual couple of raising a happy, productive member of society. How that child came to be in their household should be the least of society's concern. What matters is that these children have a stable home environment, recognized, validated and protected by law.
Click to expand...

I think this is an area where there is a lot of confusion, Arcana.

I (speaking only for myself) am not seeking to deny anyone anything.

I have consistantly said that anyone of legal age should be able to enter a marital contract with just about anyone else.

My opposition (if you even want to call it that) is where people feel that every variation we can come up with should be 'recognized' or validated by the government,... with benefits and all that.

And I'm sorry,... but those benefits and incentives (in my opinion) should only be reserved for the criteria for marriage that meets the 'general welfare' needs of the nation.

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.
 
Chuz Life said:
And I'm sorry,... but those benefits and incentives (in my opinion) should only be reserved for the criteria for marriage that meets the 'general welfare' needs of the nation.

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.
Click to expand...

It isn't about the life or death of the nation. It would be an improvement to the general welfare. The government has an interest in promoting families. Gays can have families. The government treats gay families differently.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
It isn't about the life or death of the nation. It would be an improvement to the general welfare. The government has an interest in promoting families. Gays can have families. The government treats gay families differently.
Click to expand...

Using your logic, and and all marriages should be so validated,... Bigamy, Poligamy, Incestuous, etc. Because they all love each other and just want the benifits of marriage.

But the "ideal" needs of the nation is not that each and every conceivable union be recognized.

The ideal for the nation is that the one that most suits the 'general welfare' be recognized and even incentivized.

If you started with a blank sheet (as I said before) and tried to determine what 'marriage' would best start as a foundation for American societies,... you would (in my opinion) inevitably arrive at the conclusion that it is the "one man one woman" model that inherently has a male and female role model,.. and the (in general) means to reproduce itself,... etc.

Everyone else can still get 'married',... But the government (in my opinion) need only recognize and provide incentives for the model that best serves the 'general welfare' needs of us all. (collectively)
 
Chuz Life said:
My opposition (if you even want to call it that) is where people feel that every variation we can come up with should be 'recognized' or validated by the government,... with benefits and all that.

And I'm sorry,... but those benefits and incentives (in my opinion) should only be reserved for the criteria for marriage that meets the 'general welfare' needs of the nation.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the thing, I really think that the criteria you speak of is changing. People no longer view marriage in the same way they did in the past. Society is changing. Reconstructed or single parent families have become the norm and along with that comes a whole new vision of what "marriage" is and what role it's supposed to play in society.

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.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things we don't "need", but have put in place anyway, simply because they're the right thing to do. Today's society is very reluctant to put up with the "separate but equal" solution of civil unions. And a growing number of people are having a hard time justifying that the wishes of a minority should be completely disregarded just because society has no need for them.

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.
Click to expand...

As I said before, the "general welfare needs of the nation" are no longer as clear-cut as they once were.

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...

Things change. Appeals to tradition are seldom successful. ;)
 
Arcana XV said:
As I said before, the "general welfare needs of the nation" are no longer as clear-cut as they once were.

Things change. Appeals to tradition are seldom successful. ;)
Click to expand...

Conservatives typically are reluctant to change what works for the sake of a want or a change for the sake of change.

It will take more than a bunch of whining and complaining to change my vote for what should be accepted, rewarded and incentivized in the way of 'marriage.'

Despite all the ranker (spelling?) we will always come back to the fact that the one man one woman model best serves the 'general welfare' criteria set by the Constitution.
 
Chuz Life said:
Using your logic, and and all marriages should be so validated,... Bigamy, Poligamy, Incestuous, etc. Because they all love each other and just want the benifits of marriage.

But the "ideal" needs of the nation is not that each and every conceivable union be recognized.

The ideal for the nation is that the one that most suits the 'general welfare' be recognized and even incentivized.

If you started with a blank sheet (as I said before) and tried to determine what 'marriage' would best start as a foundation for American societies,... you would (in my opinion) inevitably arrive at the conclusion that it is the "one man one woman" model that inherently has a male and female role model,.. and the (in general) means to reproduce itself,... etc.

Everyone else can still get 'married',... But the government (in my opinion) need only recognize and provide incentives for the model that best serves the 'general welfare' needs of us all. (collectively)
Click to expand...


After all, the "very conservative position" is that government should always get off the backs of the people and not impose its own views on us, right? The government shouldn't tell us who we can and cannot rent our house to, or who we have to hire -- the best government is the one that stays out of our lives!

The "very conservative position" is also that the government should always get on the backs of the people who have different positions than they do and should impose its own views on them. Gays should not be married, abortion should be illegal, the government should promote Christianity, and so on.

Somehow, the fact that they hold two completely opposite ideologies never occurs to them.
 
Conservatives typically are reluctant to change what works for the sake of a want or a change for the sake of change.
Click to expand...

The change has already occurred.
Conservatives can refuse to acknowledge that it has, but they only make themselves appear more and more anachronistic, obsolete, and out of step by refusing to acknowledge the reality of what's going on around them.
These changes have happened gradually over the past fifty years, which is longer than anyone here has even been alive.
Conservatives have had plenty of time- their entire lives, in fact- to get used to the fact that society is in flux.

Despite all the ranker (spelling?)
Click to expand...

Rancor.


________
 
Chuz Life said:
Everyone else can still get 'married',... But the government (in my opinion) need only recognize and provide incentives for the model that best serves the 'general welfare' needs of us all. (collectively)
Click to expand...

How does letting a married couple comprising of one man and one woman being able to make medical decisions for the the other best serve the general welfare but having a married couple comprising of two men together or a married couple comprising of two women together being denied the ability to make medical decisions for each other best serve the general welfare?
 
Groucho said:
After all, the "very conservative position" is that government should always get off the backs of the people and not impose its own views on us, right? The government shouldn't tell us who we can and cannot rent our house to, or who we have to hire -- the best government is the one that stays out of our lives!

The "very conservative position" is also that the government should always get on the backs of the people who have different positions than they do and should impose its own views on them. Gays should not be married, abortion should be illegal, the government should promote Christianity, and so on.

Somehow, the fact that they hold two completely opposite ideologies never occurs to them.
Click to expand...


An incredibly apt observation.
The arrogance and hypocrisy of this paradoxical ideology makes me truly despise conservatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom