Solution to Gay Marriage issue

[GBuck]

No need to argue the point as you continue to support it with your posts, including this one. Human civilization didn't all come from the middle ages.

Nevermind.

 

[CathyInBlue]

With so many technical terms for this institution: marriage, wedlock, matrimony, why can't they be shared? Why must one team get all of the terms and the other team get none?

 

[Yup!]

I said, I DO AGREE.


Seriously, what further questions could you possibly have that haven't been asked and answered?

What's stoping me from "selling marriage" with a strong prenup, so that others can piggyback on my health insurances?

Do we then define marriage as have to be living under the same roof?

I understand you side to say, this is precisely why the govt should step out of that role, so what's your pull out plan look like?

 

[GBuck]

What's stoping me from "selling marriage" with a strong prenup, so that others can piggyback on my health insurances?
The same thing that is stopping you now, NOTHING. Happens all the time in the military.
Do we then define marriage as have to be living under the same roof?
Good question, I don't have an answer.
I understand you side to say, this is precisely why the govt should step out of that role, so what's your pull out plan look like?
Haha... That's a whole other thread topic. I'm "trying" to operate under the knowledge that this isn't going to happen.

^

 

[Yup!]

No currently, I can only marry and share health insurance with 1 person. Since we've redefined it as multiple people, I'd like to offer it as an alternative to obamacare.

 

[GBuck]

No currently, I can only marry and share health insurance with 1 person. Since we've redefined it as multiple people, I'd like to offer it as an alternative to obamacare.

This is actually a really interesting idea... lol

 

[wagyu52]

"Seems a little contradictory to me..." Let me put this in terms you can understand, The Declaration of Independence is a document that declares the separation of the 13 colonies from the British Crown. That is it, it is not a document establishing a government or a separation of powers, it is not the supreme law of the United States of America. That is the Constitution.

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." This is the purpose for the Declaration of Independence.

Do I really need to post more proof
You substantiated every thing in the article. The overwhelming reason for marriage in the that time period was to procreate, it was for pure survival. Homosexual marriage would have been viewed as frivolous, if not flat out suicide.


"The writings of one guy who obviously didn't like the idea of being tied down to just one woman (surprise surprise he is an "artist"). He also seems to be trying to justify having affairs "Love was saved for affairs outside of the marriage contract." Oh come on... Do you really have to stoop to trolling in an attempt to discredit the author. Thats just sad if you can't support your option in any other way.

 

[GBuck]

"Seems a little contradictory to me..." Let me put this in terms you can understand, The Declaration of Independence is a document that declares the separation of the 13 colonies from the British Crown. That is it, it is not a document establishing a government or a separation of powers, it is not the supreme law of the United States of America. That is the Constitution.

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." This is the purpose for the Declaration of Independence.

Do I really need to post more proof
You substantiated every thing in the article. The overwhelming reason for marriage in the that time period was to procreate, it was for pure survival. Homosexual marriage would have been viewed as frivolous, if not flat out suicide.


"The writings of one guy who obviously didn't like the idea of being tied down to just one woman (surprise surprise he is an "artist"). He also seems to be trying to justify having affairs "Love was saved for affairs outside of the marriage contract." Oh come on... Do you really have to stoop to trolling in an attempt to discredit the author. Thats just sad if you can't support your option in any other way.

Ummm... What? Who are you talking to?...And about what?

 

[thebishopp]

"Seems a little contradictory to me..." Let me put this in terms you can understand, The Declaration of Independence is a document that declares the separation of the 13 colonies from the British Crown. That is it, it is not a document establishing a government or a separation of powers, it is not the supreme law of the United States of America. That is the Constitution.

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." This is the purpose for the Declaration of Independence.

Do I really need to post more proof

In one of your earlier posts you stated that because the Constitution did not specify certain rights as protected (I am paraphrasing) that there were not Constitutional protections for them.

It seems you have forgotten about the 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Declaration of Independence, one of the 4 primary purposes of such (as I understand it) was to state the principles on which this country was to be based, says specifically that our belief that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are among our "unalienable" rights. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

It should be pointed out that the Declaration came before the Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to restrict our government and to support the ideals set forth in our Declaration.

Jefferson said it himself. "In order to place before mankind the common sense of the matter in terms so plain and simple as to command their assent."

"The purpose of government is to maintain a society which secures to every member the inherent and inalienable rights of man, and promotes the safety and happiness of its people. Protecting these rights from violation, therefore, is its primary obligation."

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

You substantiated every thing in the article. The overwhelming reason for marriage in the that time period was to procreate, it was for pure survival. Homosexual marriage would have been viewed as frivolous, if not flat out suicide.


"The writings of one guy who obviously didn't like the idea of being tied down to just one woman (surprise surprise he is an "artist"). He also seems to be trying to justify having affairs "Love was saved for affairs outside of the marriage contract." Oh come on... Do you really have to stoop to trolling in an attempt to discredit the author. Thats just sad if you can't support your option in any other way.

Trolling? Please. One guy who writes two books. One on his opinions of marriage and the other on wind instruments.

The guy was a musician. All he did was music then all of a sudden he writes a book about marriage, which just happens to try and justify infidelity, by attempting to make the case that Marriage is only for Political or Financial contracts? That "matters of love" must be sought "outside" the Marriage? Come one, you'd have to be blind to see that the guy clearly has some kind of issue with the institution (of marriage).

I am surprised that you actually tried to use this guy as the basis for your entire argument on the purpose of marriage.

Look I am all for concubines dude. Notice I don't hide that opinion in some line of BS about how Marriage is only for commercial or political benefits to try and justify it?

 

[hornadylnl]

Because the heterosexuals are so responsible, they need to control the homosexuals' actions. From today's Dear Abby:


DEAR ABBY: I'm 21, almost 22, and I have just found out that it isn't the flu. I'm pregnant. The problem is, I don't know who the father is. I have an "idea" of who he might be -- but it could be three other guys. I'm not in a relationship with any of them. No. 1 and No. 2, I wouldn't want my child exposed to because of some of the things they do.
I have heard that if a mother is on state support and the parents aren't together, the father will have to pay child support. Is that true? I don't know what to do. -- LOST AND CONFUSED IN MISSOURI

 

[Lex Concord]

I married my wife because I love her. We were already living together, but she couldn't get my health insurance until we were married. So part of the reason to marry, was to get her on my health insurance, and file a joint return.

That's not even necessary everywhere these days...my last employer offered same-sex domestic partner benefits...I think for the "unmarried", it started as same-sex only...they eventually realized the risk of litigation (or tasted its sting) and simply started offering domestic partner benefits (regardless of sex, though you still only get one).

 

[Lex Concord]

I don't care about the definition. You can call it whatever you want.

We aren't going to eliminate the marriage tax benefit, and spousal rights when it comes to insurance and other legal issues any time soon. So it's probably best to simply call it marriage for any consenting adults, to get married, regardless of the number of them, their gender, or their current relationship?

And expend all that energy fighting for the wrong thing?

 

[Johnny C]

The better solution is people mind their own business and stop forcing their beliefs on others.

This sounds good and all, but democracy is all about forcing your beliefs on others. The majority decides what the minority will do, and the minority always complains until they are the majority and then the new minority complains.

I know, I know, we are a Republic, but most folks dont know that.

 

[hacksawfg]

 

[daedrian]

From my understanding, the national government doesn't have anything to do with marriage other than the taxes
(please correct me if I am mistaken, I don't like being ignorant). It's the state that grants the license, recognizes the marriage, and sets the laws for it. Hence why we have several states that now grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and several states that refuse to recognize their marriage. My aunts have this problem. Married in New Hampshire, live in Kentucky. Their marriage is not recognized where they live.

The only thing the national government could do about same-sex marriage (not "gay" marriage) is that the supreme court can decide if it is constitutional or not, if they ever decide to hear any of the multitude of cases that have been sent to them about it. In the mean time you should be talking to your state government. I support gay marriage, as is my right. I also support the rights others to oppose it. "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire

And as for democracy being about the majority forcing it's beliefs on the minority. That is not what democracy is about, it's just what it has become. Democracy, and ideally any form of government, exists to protect the minority from the majority. This seems to contradict the whole majority rules thing, I know. I'm not a liberal by any means, but the government is there, in it's truest form, to protect the little guy. That just doesn't seem to work out most of the time.

 

[Lex Concord]

And as for democracy being about the majority forcing it's beliefs on the minority. That is not what democracy is about, it's just what it has become. Democracy, and ideally any form of government, exists to protect the minority from the majority. This seems to contradict the whole majority rules thing, I know. I'm not a liberal by any means, but the government is there, in it's truest form, to protect the little guy. That just doesn't seem to work out most of the time.

You're absolutely incorrect. The nature of democracy is to implement the will of the majority. 50% + 1 wins the day.

A republic is merely democracy by proxy; somewhat safer, but dangerous to liberty nevertheless. I would correct those who think a republic is the best form of government possible that it is the best form of government yet instituted on a large scale. We can, and should, aim higher.

While ideally, governments would be instituted with the purpose and in the form suited to protect liberty, most forms of government (as practiced in most of the world since the beginning of time) could not do so regardless of intent.

Government, in its purest form, isn't there to protect or screw the little guy. It generally does both, tangentially, on the way to protecting its interests, which are often set by the connected and corrupt few megalomaniacs ambitious and cunning enough to reach the upper echelons of the machine. Also, those interests are largely influenced by what it will take to get (re)elected in the next cycle...this is variable.

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

The only "big deal" that I personally see with it would be if churches are forced to go against their beliefs and have to marry gay couples if they choose not to.

The "church" get blamed for being anti gay marriage, but it is the State and Federal Governments that are holding onto the control.

I am fine with that, Churchs should not be forced to marry gays if it against their beliefs. No issue with me on that one bit.

Either find an open minded church or head to the court house.

I am all for everyones rights, I support the rights for gays to marry but I also support the right for religious organizations to not want to do the ceremony.

Because politicians and pundits have suggested that churches that don't comply should get their tax exempt status revoked?

For the record, I didn't say it would happen, I said that is the only problem I personally would have with it..

Churchs should not be tax exempt anyway, jmo of course. They should be treated like any other business, why do they get the pass on putting in their fair share? If they have income above and beyond salaries, expenses, and whatever goes to charity they should be taxed on it.

Then again I am also in favor of getting rid of pretty much every tax exemption or deduction. All I ask is we spend within our means and keep taxes as low as possible and still be able to pay our nut. Never will happen, but whatever.

 

[GBuck]

Churchs should not be tax exempt anyway, jmo of course. They should be treated like any other business, why do they get the pass on putting in their fair share? If they have income above and beyond salaries, expenses, and whatever goes to charity they should be taxed on it.

Then again I am also in favor of getting rid of pretty much every tax exemption or deduction. All I ask is we spend within our means and keep taxes as low as possible and still be able to pay our nut. Never will happen, but whatever.

Says I need to spread the love around first, but anyways.

 

[Newg]

I find it frightening that some are convinced that the entirety of the opposition comes from having one's rear superglued to a pew. The underlying principles involved are potentially far more dangerous. I also find it suspect that the radical homos aren't at all willing to settle for equal treatment before teh law but insist on redefining the word 'marriage'. It would seem to be their quest for forcing acceptance rather that mere tolerance of their choices, much in the same way they expect public schools to be mouthpieces for their cause. Also, their leaders would not be able to get traction without some unattainable goal to be offended with, much like the Jacksons and Sharptons would be out of a job if people started getting along. That said, if part of language is negotiable, then all of it is, and that offers the perfect vehicle for eliminating our rights not be repealing, infringing, or amending the Constitution, but simply be redefining them to the point that they are of no practical value. I really don't care if two men want to both bugger each other and pool their worldly resources and responsibilities. I do care that they are insisting on opening the door on a pandora's box of completely unlimited government through eliminating the absolute value of language.

Bold emphasis added by me.

"Want to bugger each other"? "Radical homos"?! What the cuss is that? I think this post has made it abundantly clear that the redefinition of the word marriage isn't really what your issue is.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Bold emphasis added by me.

"Want to bugger each other"? "Radical homos"?! What the cuss is that? I think this post has made it abundantly clear that the redefinition of the word marriage isn't really what your issue is.

Please don't presume to tell me what I think. I will be perfectly clear. I find homosexuals to be some of the most twisted and disgusting persons on the face of the planet. I disagree absolutely with that which they practice. However, if you have half a working clue about the concept of liberty within the limits of the Constitution you will understand that it ultimately defaults to the right to be wrong in the opinion of any given observer so long as others are not harmed in the process. Now, unless you have any other clairvoyant revelations about the contents of my mind, you can consider the implications of liberty and the implications of unintended consequences of the attitude of demanding immediate gratification consequences be damned.