Marriages without children should be dissolved

1069 said:

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.

Click to expand...

You have to remember that these people are not conservatives, no matter what they call themselves. They are not acting in a manner characteristic of historic conservatism. These are typically religious zealots who came from a Democratic background, but escaped the Democratic party back in the 50s and 60s over issues such as race and abortion. Much of the modern day so-called conservatives, or neo-cons, are really a mutant mix of liberal ideas and religious zealotry.

It's no wonder they're so screwed up.

So, the reason why old people, who have no intention of having children, get married is what? I don't even need to answer the question to point out two facts: One - Their getting married does no harm to marriages of those people who get married who do intend to have children. And Two - That the reason they get married is the same reason as anyone who wants to get married who doesn't intend to have children, including many gay couples.

This particular argument that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry is disingenuous.

Dezaad said:

So, the reason why old people, who have no intention of having children, get married is what? I don't even need to answer the question to point out two facts: One - Their getting married does no harm to marriages of those people who get married who do intend to have children. And Two - That the reason they get married is the same reason as anyone who wants to get married who doesn't intend to have children, including many gay couples.

This particular argument that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry is disingenuous.

Click to expand...

It is an argument for exactly the opposite.

Marriage is about more than just procreation, as shown by the fact that seniors are allowed to marry. If seniors who are beyond child bearing age can marry, then gays should be able to marry as well. That is the point I've been making: marriage is about more than just having children.

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?

Click to expand...

If there's a practical reason for it, then it's not "bigotry". If the reason is just "ew I don't like gay sex" then, yes that's just blind prejudice. I don't see any practical reason not to give same sex couples marriage licenses, so that slippery slope argument doesn't sway me. There are plenty of practical reasons not to, say, let a man and a horse get married, so that's an apples to oranges comparison.

Chuz Life said:

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.

Click to expand...

1. It looks silly to put "****ing". Either use the word or not, but I think if you have to resort to cursing you must be really upset.


2. Do you mean marital when you say merital? If so, why don't you show me why two men or two women can't make a good home for a child. This nonsense about needing a role model of both genders is silly. Children have so many adults in their lives to be role models that they have plenty of opportunity to build relationships with people of both genders.

Finally, I completely understand the difference between an ideal and an idea. I don't want the government in the position in limiting what can be a family. If a child has a good loving home where they are loved, protected, nurtured, and all the other things they should be, then I could not care less about the gender of the parents. I've seen way too many kids who don't have this kind of life, many who are in that kind of home that you describe as ideal. Also, as an adoptive parent, I find this idea that has been hinted at and sometimes stated out right, that my family is someone how less stupendously insulting. Implying that a child who is being cared for by someone who is not biologically related is not as well off for solely that reason is insane. My ideal is doing what's best for the child. My idea is that bigots who have a problem with homosexuals should mind their own business.

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.

Click to expand...

You do realize that by your "logic" we don't need marriage at all. We can continue the species without marriage, if that is your only goal.

Gee, why would anyone be offended to be told that their marriage is worthless to society. Those gay people can be so sensitive.

Layla_Z said:

You do realize that by your "logic" we don't need marriage at all. We can continue the species without marriage, if that is your only goal.

Gee, why would anyone be offended to be told that their marriage is worthless to society. Those gay people can be so sensitive.

Click to expand...

By defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, and by providing incentives and benefits to those who marry using that criteria,.... the government is cementing into place the basic foundation for our society.

I have no problem with the government doing as it is charged to do by article 1, section 8.

I also do not have a problem with the government remaining indifferent towards all other variations of 'marriage' that the people can come up with.

Chuz Life said:

By defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, and by providing incentives and benefits to those who marry using that criteria,.... the government is cementing into place the basic foundation for our society.

I have no problem with the government doing as it is charged to do by article 1, section 8.

I also do not have a problem with the government remaining indifferent towards all other variations of 'marriage' that the people can come up with.

Click to expand...

Here's my problem. My daughter looked much like the baby in the picture in you signature. She looked like that and spent the first 4 months of her life in the hospital because her married to a man biological mother used drugs and in other ways didn't take care of herself so she went into labor 4 months early. Why in the world would we think that this married woman is a better place for that baby than a gay couple who could and would take excellent care of her. I know I am getting off topic here, but I have a very low tolerance for bigotry and denying gay couples any of the rights allowed for straight couples is nothing more than bigotry. You can state whatever reason you wish but we all know what the real reason is. If a person can't be fair and tolerant they should at least be truthful.

Chuz Life said:

By defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, and by providing incentives and benefits to those who marry using that criteria,.... the government is cementing into place the basic foundation for our society.

I have no problem with the government doing as it is charged to do by article 1, section 8.

I also do not have a problem with the government remaining indifferent towards all other variations of 'marriage' that the people can come up with.

Click to expand...

You make the mistake of assuming that the government actually decided that it should have a say in marriage because it saw marriage as a benefit to society due to procreation and the best interest of children. This simply isn't true. The government initially got involved in marriages mainly to restrict it. That is generally believed to be the reason for the marriage license. The more ideal reason would be for the benefit of the general welfare, but it really isn't what history suggests the reason was.

Now, presently, we do realize that there are good reasons for the government to be involved in marriage and issue licenses for it. This helps to protect those people who do decide to "marry" in a legal manner and provide written documentation of the couple's wishes to be made legal family. The benefits of marriage can also be viewed as important in just promoting marriage, which is considered a more stable family unit, with or without children, and gives the government someone to essentially hold responsible for financial and burial issues after death. It is also for providing a stable home to raise children in, whether biologically the couple's or not, but nowdays, several kinds of couples who couldn't previously have children now can and providing homes for children with no parents/family for whatever reason is important, so we are able to include more types of couples into those who will be raising children.

The argument seems to be that the government decided that it's main interest in marriage should be children and promoting relationships that provide children with a stable family with both their biological mom and dad. This is just not really the government's philosophy. There are at least 6 states that in fact limit marriage to only be legal if a first cousin couple cannot procreate their own children, due to the chance of possible birth defects. And these marriages are required, by the full faith and credit clause to be recognized in every state and by the federal government.

The main issue is that there is no real stated reason by the government for why it is involved in marriage now. The marriage laws of the states and the federal government have too much contradiction to infer why exactly government is involved in marriage. As I've stated, it isn't a bad thing that the government is involved in marriage, but since it is involved, the rules governing marriage must be equally applied and there must be reasoning behind why it is in the government's interests to promote one type of relationship over another, when both are legal relationships and both provide benefits to society.

Chuz Life said:

By defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, and by providing incentives and benefits to those who marry using that criteria,.... the government is cementing into place the basic foundation for our society.

I have no problem with the government doing as it is charged to do by article 1, section 8.

I also do not have a problem with the government remaining indifferent towards all other variations of 'marriage' that the people can come up with.

Click to expand...

If the government has the duty to provide incentives for opposite marriages, does that mean that the government has the power to take away such incentives to prevent opposite marriages should the need to arise?

samsmart said:

If the government has the duty to provide incentives for opposite marriages, does that mean that the government has the power to take away such incentives to prevent opposite marriages should the need to arise?

Click to expand...

The government (United States) has only the power and authority that we (the people) consent to.

Layla_Z said:

Here's my problem. My daughter looked much like the baby in the picture in you signature. She looked like that and spent the first 4 months of her life in the hospital because her married to a man biological mother used drugs and in other ways didn't take care of herself so she went into labor 4 months early. Why in the world would we think that this married woman is a better place for that baby than a gay couple who could and would take excellent care of her. I know I am getting off topic here, but I have a very low tolerance for bigotry and denying gay couples any of the rights allowed for straight couples is nothing more than bigotry. You can state whatever reason you wish but we all know what the real reason is. If a person can't be fair and tolerant they should at least be truthful.

Click to expand...

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.

roguenuke said:

You make the mistake of assuming that the government actually decided that it should have a say in marriage because it saw marriage as a benefit to society due to procreation and the best interest of children.

Click to expand...

I don't make that assumption at all.

Your allegation is false.

I read the Constitution (article 1, section 8) myself and have decided (for myself) that the government has a legitimate responsibility to define marriage as it sees fit to suit the "general welfare" aspects of the nation,.... specifically as it pertains to naturalization. But I submit that the "general welfare" aspects extend beyond the needs for clarity as it applies to naturalization.

Marriage is one of the keystones of our society and government.

Chuz Life said:

I don't make that assumption at all.

Your allegation is false.

I read the Constitution (article 1, section 8) myself and have decided (for myself) that the government has a legitimate responsibility to define marriage as it sees fit to suit the "general welfare" aspects of the nation,.... specifically as it pertains to naturalization. But I submit that the "general welfare" aspects extend beyond the needs for clarity as it applies to naturalization.

Marriage is one of the keystones of our society and government.

Click to expand...

Yet the government has not officially put out why marriage is a keystone to our society. And it does not treat marriage that way. It treats marriage pretty much like it is just something that it should regulate and restrict due to traditional views of marriage. This wouldn't be a bad thing necessarily, except that we have been changing those traditional views of marriage, mainly with legal battles and more socially accepted views on divorce and who should marry, for about 60 years or so now. The best thing the government could do would be to put out some agreed upon reasons for its endorsement of marriage, and actually ensure that a) those reasons meet Constitutional muster for fair and equal treatment and b) the states and federal government be required to ensure marriage rules are consistent in their treatment of couples with regards to those reasons.

roguenuke said:

Yet the government has not officially put out why marriage is a keystone to our society. And it does not treat marriage that way. It treats marriage pretty much like it is just something that it should regulate and restrict due to traditional views of marriage. This wouldn't be a bad thing necessarily, except that we have been changing those traditional views of marriage, mainly with legal battles and more socially accepted views on divorce and who should marry, for about 60 years or so now. The best thing the government could do would be to put out some agreed upon reasons for its endorsement of marriage, and actually ensure that a) those reasons meet Constitutional muster for fair and equal treatment and b) the states and federal government be required to ensure marriage rules are consistent in their treatment of couples with regards to those reasons.

Click to expand...

I believe that you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

In my view, the government has already done as you think it should with the "defense of marriage act" and the existing immigration and naturalization laws. And with the articles of the uniform code of military justice as well.

The fact that 'marriage' is traditionally between 'one man and one woman' is neither a tradition that happened over night or without government involvment.

Chuz Life said:

I believe that you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

In my view, the government has already done as you think it should with the "defense of marriage act" and the existing immigration and naturalization laws. And with the articles of the uniform code of military justice as well.

The fact that 'marriage' is traditionally between 'one man and one woman' is neither a tradition that happened over night or without government involvment.

Click to expand...

DOMA does not give reasons why marriage is defined as "one man and one woman", it simply says that it is and then states the government's views on what is affected with it. If DOMA were put under true Constitutional scrutiny, it wouldn't pass. There is no reasoning behind the defining of marriage in such a way. The argument is why the government defines marriage this way, not that it does.

roguenuke said:

DOMA does not give reasons why marriage is defined as "one man and one woman", it simply says that it is and then states the government's views on what is affected with it. If DOMA were put under true Constitutional scrutiny, it wouldn't pass. There is no reasoning behind the defining of marriage in such a way. The argument is why the government defines marriage this way, not that it does.

Click to expand...

I don't see how there can be any confusion.

1: The Constitution gives congress the authority to define marriage as it sees fit (article 1, section 8 - specifically towards naturalization).

2: Article 1, section 8 requires congress to write laws, policy etc. as it sees fit to meet the "general welfare" needs of the nation.

3: The Congress so enacts "the defense of marriage act" and you are confused as to WHY?

I believe the answer is obvious; that the "one man one woman" model best fills the bill for the "general welfare" requirments set forth by the Constitution.

Where's the confusion?

Chuz Life said:

I don't see how there can be any confusion.

1: The Constitution gives congress the authority to define marriage as it sees fit (article 1, section 8 - specifically towards naturalization).

2: Article 1, section 8 requires congress to write laws, policy etc. as it sees fit to meet the "general welfare" needs of the nation.

3: The Congress so enacts "the defense of marriage act" and you are confused as to WHY?

I believe the answer is obvious; that the "one man one woman" model best fills the bill for the "general welfare" requirments set forth by the Constitution.

Where's the confusion?

Click to expand...

Just assuming that it meets some "general welfare" requirement does not mean that it does. We should hold the government accountable for telling us why things are put into place. And it has been proven that same sex marriage contributes to the "general welfare" of our country, and there is no proof that it harms the "general welfare" of the country or its citizens, nor the institution of marriage itself. As a government endorsed institution it is necessary that it should meet fair and equal treatment requirements of the Constitution, and that if there is a reason to make restrictions, that those restrictions are for some purpose and with good reason, not just "its traditionally been this way". Age restrictions and limiting the number of people who can enter into a marriage contract have good reasons, although it would be good for those reasons to be actually stated. Limiting marriage by race or because of the gender of the partners have no good reasons behind them, or at the very least none that have been proven.

If we allow the government to make such restrictions on the marriage institution, then what prevents them to limiting marriage to other criteria, without explanations? Should we all just assume that it is for the "general welfare" that we are being limited on who we can marry?

roguenuke said:

Just assuming that it meets some "general welfare" requirement does not mean that it does. We should hold the government accountable for telling us why things are put into place. And it has been proven that same sex marriage contributes to the "general welfare" of our country, and there is no proof that it harms the "general welfare" of the country or its citizens, nor the institution of marriage itself. As a government endorsed institution it is necessary that it should meet fair and equal treatment requirements of the Constitution, and that if there is a reason to make restrictions, that those restrictions are for some purpose and with good reason, not just "its traditionally been this way". Age restrictions and limiting the number of people who can enter into a marriage contract have good reasons, although it would be good for those reasons to be actually stated. Limiting marriage by race or because of the gender of the partners have no good reasons behind them, or at the very least none that have been proven.

If we allow the government to make such restrictions on the marriage institution, then what prevents them to limiting marriage to other criteria, without explanations? Should we all just assume that it is for the "general welfare" that we are being limited on who we can marry?

Click to expand...

The defense of marriage act has been challenged and DOMA was upheld on a Constitutionality basis.

I believe further challenges will be upheld as well (again due to Article 1, section 8 specifically)

You are well within your rights to disagree,... however, I think you should know that the government is not charged by the Constitution to validate every conceivable variation that supports the "general welfare."

But you have to agree (don't you?) that the government has the right to draw the line "somewhere."

I believe in a minimalistic, more efficient government.

One man one woman is the most basic definition of marriage that automatically provides for any children created,... a male and female role model, has the inherent means to create those children and the design to ensure future generations as well.

"In general"

Chuz Life said:

The defense of marriage act has been challenged and DOMA was upheld on a Constitutionality basis.

I believe further challenges will be upheld as well (agains due to Article 1, section 8 specifically)

You are well within your rights to disagree,... however, I think you should know that the government is not charged by the Constitution to validate every conceivable variation that supports the "general welfare."

But you have to agree (don't you?) that the government has the right to draw the line "somewhere."

I believe in a minimalistic, more efficient government.

One man one woman is the most basic definition of marriage that automatically provides for any children created,... a male and female role model, has the inherent means to create those children and the design to ensure future generations as well.

"In general"

Click to expand...

I have already provided proof that the government is not in marriage for the benefit of children produced from that marriage. The fact that six states have laws that prevent certain heterosexual couples from being able to have children in order to get married proves that. And DOMA does not mention children at all. So it is logical to assume that if the federal government was trying to limit marriage to couples who might be able to conceive children, without getting into the private medical records of couples, then it would have mentioned that and also included those state laws in that reasoning.

Also, when has DOMA been put up to Constitutional review? I know there is a case currently waiting to be heard by the SCOTUS that challenges DOMA, Gil v. Office of Personnel Management. I'm pretty sure there hasn't been an actual challenge to DOMA before now.

Really, what is the harm of treating gay and heterosexual couples equally under the law?

roguenuke said:

IAlso, when has DOMA been put up to Constitutional review? I know there is a case currently waiting to be heard by the SCOTUS that challenges DOMA, Gil v. Office of Personnel Management. I'm pretty sure there hasn't been an actual challenge to DOMA before now.

Click to expand...

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, "

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...

Smelt v. the United States of America did not make it to the SCOTUS, which has the say on what is Constitutional. The Justice Department does not have the say on what is Constitutional. Gil v. Office of Personnel Management will give us a decision on the Constitutionality of DOMA. However, even the Supreme Court has reversed its decisions before, so even if the current court decides it is Constitutional (although, I guarantee it won't be unanimous either way), a court even a few years from now, may decide it is unConstitutional, if it hasn't already been repealed or replaced by our Congress and/or President.

roguenuke said:

Smelt v. the United States of America did not make it to the SCOTUS, which has the say on what is Constitutional. The Justice Department does not have the say on what is Constitutional. Gil v. Office of Personnel Management will give us a decision on the Constitutionality of DOMA. However, even the Supreme Court has reversed its decisions before, so even if the current court decides it is Constitutional (although, I guarantee it won't be unanimous either way), a court even a few years from now, may decide it is unConstitutional, if it hasn't already been repealed or replaced by our Congress and/or President.

Click to expand...

Same as it is with regards to any other issue (i.e. Roe v. Wade.)

I don't have a problem with people challenging the Constitutionality of any law.

In fact, I agree that they should do so if they are so compelled.

In the case of marriage, however (sans article 1, section 8) I believe you (those who demand same sex marriage) will have to convince the courts that our naturalization laws and the DOMA are not Constitutional.

I feel that are lawmakers have the Constitutional right (authority) to draw the line where they have.

You don't.

What else is there for me to say about it?

Chuz Life said:

Same as it is with regards to any other issue (i.e. Roe v. Wade.)

I don't have a problem with people challenging the Constitutionality of any law.

In fact, I agree that they should do so if they are so compelled.

In the case of marriage, however (sans article 1, section 8) I believe you (those who demand same sex marriage) will have to convince the courts that our naturalization laws and the DOMA are not Constitutional.

I feel that are lawmakers have the Constitutional right (authority) to draw the line where they have.

You don't.

What else is there for me to say about it?

Click to expand...

I am simply looking for your reasoning behind why they choose to draw the line there, eventhough there is nothing besides the gender of both people involved in the couple that separates them from all those other couples that they do endorse. You don't seem to accept that if we allow the government to draw an arbitrary line, with no basis for that line besides gender, then they can move that line to restrict couples even further, without explainations for why.

Just stating that it is for the "general welfare" is not an expanation of why that line is for the "general welfare". I could say that restricting heterosexual marriage to only those couples who plan to have children is for the "general welfare", and I could even effectively argue this point. It would even be acceptable to me. But the rules of marriage contradict that that is why the government is restricting marriage to only heterosexual couples, with no regard to whether they can or plan to have children.