At least I know everyone will check out my thread now. My questions are about the role of sex and governmnet. 1. Why is government in the business of marriage? 2. Why do monogomous people have rights that polygamists don't have? 3. Why can't two people who live together and are the best of friends, but don't have sex, not be able to have the same rights of those that do? I find this question to be of the utmost importance since the president made it of the utmost importance in his inauguration speech. He elevated gay sex in particular as needing to have equal rights. But I thought equal rights should apply to everyone. What am I missing? Instead of this. View attachment 17452 Shouldn't we have a President that is through with dividing the nation and treating us all as equals, even if that means we are not gay or part of a union etc? Or should we expect the status quo, which is divide and conquer?
After reading your post, it just occurred to me that perhaps the motivation originally behind giving certain rights to a man and a woman in a union called 'marriage' was to support and encourage the unit called 'family', where GENERALLY, children are born and raised and this is the means by which the human species continues. One could make the argument that a husband and wife who DON'T have children should not be extended these same rights, but the thinker can probably see the difficulty involved with that, without me having to explain it to them. (And if they're not thinkers, they wouldn't benefit from my explanation anyway, don't you think? ) - - - Updated - - -
This is why I consider the "gay marriage" argument extremely disingenuous.....if gays were truly about equality and equal treatment under the law, they would align themselves against the preferential treatment state recognized "groups" represent over the individual..... and I would lend support to such a movement in a heartbeat.
There is no shortage of people who are willing to marry and have kids with or without government subsidization. Maybe the government had some role in the past for endorsing marriage, but that role is really obsolete now. The best thing we can do is remove government from marriage.
The government don't care, or shouldn't care about it because of sex, but rather because of demographic reasons. We need people to have children, gays don't have children hence we only give this money to straight couples. Also, children raised in a stable marriage fare much better than if they were raised by a single mother, hence why the governemtn should encourage couples to stay togehter.
Being proud of a deception says a great deal about one's character. No, they're way more specific than that. In fact, I would say they aren't actually about sex at all. But we'll get to that. The better questions is, does government have a legitimate role in regulating human relationships, and if so, to what extent?Answering the question of "why government is in the business of marriage" won't necessarily tell you whether its involvement has any validity. They don't. Government doesn't require that a married couple be monogamous. The terms of the marriage contract are up to the parties joining to form such a union. Whether or not government has any obligation at all to recognize marriages is a debatable question. Whether it has a further obligation to recognize every possible configuration a marital union could take is a more specific question. I'm not persuaded that it has any such obligation. I am persuaded that if government is going to deny recognition, whatever law is created had better have at least a rational basis. If we consider marriage a fundamental right (also open to debate), then I would say that government needs more than just a rational basis. In that case the law should be substantially related to forwarding a compelling interest of government through the least restrictive means available. Nothing stopping them, unless they're of the same sex. I agree that barrier should not exist. I'm going to need you to quote the portion of his speech where he is alleged to have said this. Marriage is not sexual behavior, and sexual behavior is not marriage. Likewise, 'gayness' is not sexual behavior. The equal protection of the laws should apply to everyone, but that does not mean the law must make everyone equally qualified to benefit. It must, however, refrain from creating classes of people for a suspect, namely that of unduly discriminating against them or as an expression of disapproval. Apparently a great deal, Where would you like me to start? If removing the barriers to equality = creating division then up is down, left is right, and black is white with purple & pink polka dots. In other words, it's going to be impossible for us to have a meaningful discussion if you're going to start off with double speak.
But can you show that to be the sole purpose of the law as it stands today? I don't believe that you can - not when marriage has been linked to in the law over 1400 times at the federal level alone. Nonetheless, if you want to have an honest debate of the issue, then please do expand on this.
The abolition of the institution of marriage is a major goal of the Communist party. Please keep that in mind while you are advocating the abolition of marriage.
Why not just abolish the government's connection to marriage? A church doesn't need the government to perform a marriage ceremony.
In other words, you apparently think that gay people have some magical obligation to the pursuit of something beyond their own interests where marriage is concerned, and that they must support absolute equality, even if they share with their opponents legitimate concerns about government sanctioning other forms of marriage that could be harmful to society. I think that's unreasonable. This isn't about preferential treatment for groups. It's about individuals challenging a law that is meant to disadvantage them based on their membership in some group. Surely if we shouldn't give preferential treatment to some group, we likewise shouldn't use the law to give preferential disadvantage to some group without just cause.
sure they are. But they, like homosexuals, shouldn't be given any money for being married because they can't have children. It's to encourage birth only in my view. That it supports a traditional familiy constellation is just a plus.
Expelling the state from the institution does not equal abolition.... unless one believes humans have no free will, and will not act on their own without being offered some carrot from the government.
Because religion was (and often still is) involved in the development of modern governmental systems. It also continues because it is seen as a significant factor in the structure and good-working of society, which is what government is (theoretically) about. History and more religion. Rightly or wrongly, there seems to be a prevailing opinion that monogamy is better for society. They can. Sex in marriage isn't mandatory (in fact some people might argue the exact opposite ). I've not heard the speech but I'll go out on a limb as suggest he did no such thing. He probably suggested people who are homosexual (e.g. have sexual or emotional attractions to individuals of the same sex) should have the same rights as people who are heterosexual. I very much doubt the speech made any reference to sexual acts at all. The recognition that sexuality (hetro, homo or whatever) describes what you are, not what you do.
Actually, they do - through some of the same means used by straight couples that have difficulty conceiving. Nope. If the production of children is the basis of marriage, then what you have is still only an argument for the exclusion of married couples who don't cause children to be produced. If you want to further restrict the means by which they cause chidlren to be produced for the purpose of excluding same-sex couples, then you're going to end up harming opposite-sex couples as well. Point being, it's easy to see here that the thrust isn't really procreation, but trying to find a way to exclude same-sex couples.
Maybe it shouldn't be but what do you do about property taxes, immigration rights, hospital visitation to two people who aren't kin through blood without some form of formal "legal" contract? It's really more a question of how the government would treat potentially limitless "string" marriages in the same way as a couple with respect to contract law. Are groups similarly situated to couples in this regard? If I marry into a group which has four wives and six husbands do I automatically become father to all their offspring? Do I, potentially, owe alimony to each if they decide to divorce the group? You need to author an entirely different contract structure if you want this to work. I'm sure they can. I'm sure in the past lesbians married gay men to do exactly that. What I just said. Also, bear in mind, there are gay couples (just as there are straight couples) who, for whatever reason cannot have sex, but still love and want to marry.
Historically, it is true that religion has played a significant role in shaping policies in many societies, but overall, Western civilization and social progress are based on increasing the separation of church and state. Removing government from marriage is the next logical step in that pursuit. - - - Updated - - - Civil unions could actually cover the same role as marriage without bringing religion into the equation. Granted, we would need something in place to cover polygamous unions.
I agree as long as civil unions are the governmental default for everyone and weddings are the purview of individual religions or philosophical organizations as they see fit. I've started threads to discuss this set-aside from SSM but they never get past a page or two. People don't seem interested in a genuine discussion concerning a suitable contract for polygamous groups. It seems, some just want to use polygamy as a tool to bash gays when there really is no logistical similarity. Isn't marriage, alone, a sufficient springboard for a discussion of polygamy? Why does it have to be "gay" marriage?
No argument here. I support both gay marriage and polygamous marriage. At the same time, however, I support getting government out of marriage. Basically, as long as government is connected to marriage, we need to accommodate gay people and polygamists.
As long as people realise the flow chart is a "Y" and not a line. That's where the confusion starts with respect to the legal aspects.
To be taken seriously, If I'm truly offended by the state's systemic application of unequal, preferential treatment on a "group"...be it a group of two or ten million....that does not include myself, intellectual honesty and consistency of principles demands I not assume a "can't beat 'em, join 'em" attitude.
" Why is government in the business of marriage?" Taxcutter says: Because marriage is a contract legally enforceable by government. It's the "legally enforceable contract" angle that gets government attention.
I don't know that the phraseology makes any sense, but I also don't know why anybody has a problem with state governments issuing marriage certificates and providing a minimal legal framework. Rights properly pertain to individuals, not their sins. Why should they?
artificial insemination? oh, forgot about that one. But there's ought to be some kind of negative thing with not having both a mother and a father. But I put my trust to the studies. If they don't have children they shouldn't get money for it imho, i don't care if they're straight.
