It is currently Tue Mar 19, 2024 4:51 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours





Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Same-Sex marriage
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:59 pm 
Sergeant
Sergeant
 Profile

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 9:16 pm
Posts: 126
This is becoming another one of the same old arguments that go nowhere because people are stuck in the "there are only 2 choices" mentality.

Im telling you, if government were to just step away from the marriage arena completely so many problems would be solved.

Quote:
Two things here.
1 For some reason, despite working against a monarchy and the concept of nobility, the founding documents did not remove the governments function in marriage and family structure/names.
2. Clearly in our day and age, since we no longer have any notions that governments govern towards a purpose, marriage is one of those things that the government should expunge from itself.


1. Yes it did. It did so in a way that did not specifically mention that it couldn't take part in it. Instead, the Constitution only lists what the Federal government CAN take part in. It makes for a much shorter document :D

The Enumerated Powers of Congress, Article 1, Section 8.
Quote:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.


Also, in the same article, Section 9.
Quote:
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.


In other words, nobility is strictly removed from the equation.

I have only seen one reason why government should even pay attention to marriage. Thanks mrducky.
Quote:
marriage also allows for 2 incomes to join together as a net income and marriage is probably one of the reasons why couples can take out mortgages and banks can ensure that their combined income is more stable then a "fling"


So here is what I suggest now: Just like with regular Census data, Social Security tracking, etc. government should take note of combined incomes to allow the private sector a trustworthy source to use as a reference for this. Banks would be a great example of the private sector in this case because of financial dealings. Once again, thanks mrducky.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Same-Sex marriage
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:16 pm 
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:25 am
Posts: 231
The Bill of rights were explicitly written to tell government what it can't do.

They didn't include in that some phrase such as "congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of marriages or families."

Furthermore, they didn't take away the right of the states to do so either.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Same-Sex marriage
PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:24 pm 
Private
Private
 Profile

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:58 am
Posts: 0
Gender: male
Dag, in a homosexual relationship, if one partner is hospitalized, the other is not allowed as a visitor. Also, they cannot file as married on there taxes, or joint income when they buy a home. I'd be pretty unhappy if that were me.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Same-Sex marriage
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:05 am 
Sergeant
Sergeant
 Profile

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 9:16 pm
Posts: 126
Daganev wrote:
The Bill of rights were explicitly written to tell government what it can't do.

They didn't include in that some phrase such as "congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of marriages or families."

Furthermore, they didn't take away the right of the states to do so either.


Actually, the Bill of Rights were written specifically to say what rights the people have. In fact, nearly all of the Constitution (including most amendments) are about what rights certain parties have. Its all about how you think of these things, and the founding fathers thought of it as what rights to allow certain parties, not what rights to take away.

I see that as part of the glorious beauty of that document, but hey, thats just me, and a growing subsection of the US population (dont believe me? Take a look at Ron Paul and his following.)

As for the state's rights, you are correct, but then again... what do the states currently do in regards to marriage? State taxes? And better yet, should they even be in the business of marriage? That is up to them. See, the Constitution was born in order to limit the federal government... big government was seen as a horrible thing to the founding fathers, and for very good reason, which I hope I dont have to explain... That is why the states each have much more power individually (not collectively, however) than the federal government does, at least by what the Constitution states, in practice it is very different.

Anyways though, now we are getting into the argument of what the Constitution is about, and that is an argument that no one will win because of two different ways of interpretting the document.

So lets get back to how it relates to marriage :D

The federal government has no Constitutional authority to make a law concerning marriage. In fact, the longest stretch you could make is that congress may regulate or define marriage, and that would be supported by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 ("The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;") But then you bring up the argument, is it truly supporting the general welfare of the United States? And when considering only that (not even if it is right or wrong, that decision is to be made each person,) most people would say no.

And now I turn to a quote by Thomas Jefferson
Quote:
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.


Every American really should just read through Thomas Jefferson's quotes and really take the time to understand what is being said. The way the founding fathers believed government should be is absolutely breathtaking, not because it is radical or even amazing, but because it just makes sense. It is an extremely powerful way of thinking about government, and I am amazed that people have forgotten this way of thinking, even after 200 years it should be remembered.

And here I am, back onto the tangent of the whole forefathers thing :P So I think I will just stop here and let you read someone else's post haha
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho ... erson.html


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Same-Sex marriage
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:48 am 
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 1:02 pm
Posts: 313
Location: Look behind............ BOO!
Gender: male
Blinkin Politics - Reckon Barrack Obama should become Gay to SHOW that he's with the movement.

Honestly what do politicians know what being gay feels like? - I'm not gay btw.

Look heres the LAW:

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives,[2] and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

At the time of passage, it was expected that Hawaii (and possibly other states) would soon legalize same-sex marriage, whether by legislation or judicial interpretation of either the state or federal constitution. Opponents of such recognition feared (and many proponents hoped) that the other states would then be required to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

Three states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa) currently allow same-sex marriage (with Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire having passed not-yet-implemented legislation to join that list), five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, twenty-eight states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted statutory DOMAs.

_________________
- RAT - BUL5 - NAUF - KOG- IOS - SAH - XrG - ByE4 - NeOn - REVB
-------------
Image


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Same-Sex marriage
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:53 am 
Captain
Captain
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Posts: 781
Gender: male
Daganev wrote:
mrducky wrote:
marriage was once defined as the holy matrimony between a man and women, but marriage is becoming less regarded as a religious concept and with gay marriage, soon gender plays no role at all. im hoping that it doesnt play a role now.

marriage helps prevent polygamy and create more stable families.
im pretty sure that having a happy, (preferably) middle class stable family is the best pillar for growing a society based on industry and consumerism

marriage also allows for 2 incomes to join together as a net income and marriage is probably one of the reasons why couples can take out mortgages and banks can ensure that their combined income is more stable then a "fling".

marriage is important to society, since government has a part in running society then they would obviously stick their noses into the issue of marriage.


Why would you say that two people being married is more stable than polygamy?

it depends wholly on the education of the females, with swinging rates of females in the workplace perhaps the need for the "breadwinner" is irrelevant. but marriage provides a stable network for a family. i dont want to be chauvinistic but it has been for the past several thousand years up until recently that males were the breadwinners and females the carers.

The experiment has never been done to know if that is true or not.

good point, but often it is shown polygamy devalues the female. family, which society is built on, requires 100% of the populus, if all females were devalued then that is obviously a negative as they can no longer contribute to society.

If two incomes are good, wouldn't 10 be better? Wouldn't it make even more sense for people with similar financial goals to create corporations/families and pool their wealth together? (like say, people all living in the same apartment building for 30 years.)

go meet my family in china roughly 30 years ago. 3 branches of families living in a house. 8 to the room. 2 to the "kitchen". 5 to the living room. why would a successful woman want to join in on the polygamy? look at all areas that polygamy has been implemented how many women were successful in those societies? if only 1 male is providing it wont be good.

Plotter wrote:
Marriage is a religious issue, not teh government's issue, o ya, the governments always nosy,especilly now that the USSA has been formed!

i wouldnt consider it a religious issue, how many atheists get married? it has changed.

_________________
Image

-~~Retired Spammer~~-

~Agnostic atheist pastafarian~

Discussion+debates and World Events.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Same-Sex marriage
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:59 am 
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 1:02 pm
Posts: 313
Location: Look behind............ BOO!
Gender: male
mrducky wrote:
Daganev wrote:
mrducky wrote:
marriage was once defined as the holy matrimony between a man and women, but marriage is becoming less regarded as a religious concept and with gay marriage, soon gender plays no role at all. im hoping that it doesnt play a role now.

marriage helps prevent polygamy and create more stable families.
im pretty sure that having a happy, (preferably) middle class stable family is the best pillar for growing a society based on industry and consumerism

marriage also allows for 2 incomes to join together as a net income and marriage is probably one of the reasons why couples can take out mortgages and banks can ensure that their combined income is more stable then a "fling".

marriage is important to society, since government has a part in running society then they would obviously stick their noses into the issue of marriage.


Why would you say that two people being married is more stable than polygamy?

it depends wholly on the education of the females, with swinging rates of females in the workplace perhaps the need for the "breadwinner" is irrelevant. but marriage provides a stable network for a family. i dont want to be chauvinistic but it has been for the past several thousand years up until recently that males were the breadwinners and females the carers.

The experiment has never been done to know if that is true or not.

good point, but often it is shown polygamy devalues the female. family, which society is built on, requires 100% of the populus, if all females were devalued then that is obviously a negative as they can no longer contribute to society.

If two incomes are good, wouldn't 10 be better? Wouldn't it make even more sense for people with similar financial goals to create corporations/families and pool their wealth together? (like say, people all living in the same apartment building for 30 years.)

go meet my family in china roughly 30 years ago. 3 branches of families living in a house. 8 to the room. 2 to the "kitchen". 5 to the living room. why would a successful woman want to join in on the polygamy? look at all areas that polygamy has been implemented how many women were successful in those societies? if only 1 male is providing it wont be good.

Plotter wrote:
Marriage is a religious issue, not teh government's issue, o ya, the governments always nosy,especilly now that the USSA has been formed!

i wouldnt consider it a religious issue, how many atheists get married? it has changed.



I completely agree with everything you saw but only 3 satates actually allow it.

_________________
- RAT - BUL5 - NAUF - KOG- IOS - SAH - XrG - ByE4 - NeOn - REVB
-------------
Image


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Same-Sex marriage
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:42 am 
Captain
Captain
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm
Posts: 781
Gender: male
there is still significant opposition to homosexual marriage.

there are always the religious groups and the conservatives which is why i was surprised at apollo's stance
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
:3

_________________
Image

-~~Retired Spammer~~-

~Agnostic atheist pastafarian~

Discussion+debates and World Events.


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Same-Sex marriage
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:49 am 
Captain
Captain
 Profile

Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:51 am
Posts: 661
Gender: male
Solution: Governments need to stop legislating morality, especially marriage.

My solution is as follows:
-Civil Partnerships for all cases where "marriage" would be used (Definition: Two or more consenting adults of any gender).
-"Marriage" is left exclusively to religion. So, you have a civil partnership seperate to the religous ceremony.

"Marriage" is a religous issue.

_________________
The Lemon-Coloured* forum Demi-God!

The Battle Dawn Staff:
Working with you, to make and maintain
the very best browser based game!

*Lemon-Flavoured, according to Andrew...


Top
 

 Post subject: Re: Same-Sex marriage
PostPosted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:21 am 
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 Profile

Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:25 am
Posts: 231
Quote:
Solution: Governments need to stop legislating morality, especially marriage.

My solution is as follows:
-Civil Partnerships for all cases where "marriage" would be used (Definition: Two or more consenting adults of any gender).


While I agree with this, you have a problem. The leaders of the "marriage equality" movement explicitly reject this idea.

re Hospital rights: Legally, what you wrote is not true. If it is true anywhere, then those places need to re-write the hospital laws. It has nothing to do with same sex marriage. For example, if a man lives with a girl and they are not married, but they have been living together for 20 years, they should also be given hospital visitation rights. If two college roommates live together and one gets sick, the roommate should be allowed to comfort the sick roommate. related, lovers, or not. Anyone who is "like family" should be allowed in the hospital. This is a red-herring issue.


Top
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Copyright Tacticsoft Ltd. 2008   
Updated By phpBBservice.nl