Danzo Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Possibly nothing. They just shouldn't recognize either. If marriage is about religion then government should turn its back on it. You can still get married wherever you want just don't expect the government to be a part of it. This is the BEST solution.I would postulate that very little about marriage is about religion in the eyes of the law.Family law, of which marriage laws are a large part deals with mostly non religious things.
Danzo Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Also, the government doesn't control uteruses or consensual sex.Tell that to the guy who owes $150,000 back child support.
Kemara Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) ...Lol, that is hilarious, thanks for that! The homosexual propagandists are very good at using various "silence" tools, very good and very funny. Edited March 30, 2013 by Kemara
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 That's worthless because conservative religious opinion shouldn't be allowed to dictate families. Problem solved.No, it is worthwhile. It is in the interest of society to promote those things that are conducive to the creating and raising of new law abiding citizens and a family structure of a mother and a father together to raise the Children appears to produce the best outcome for those children.In the interest of promoting (economically and socially) the #1 Best Way to achieve that reasonable objective, other systems would be less promoted and supported.This has nothing to do with hating gays or stopping them from getting "married". But society should positively recognize and encourage those things that build it up and make it inherently stronger across generations -- not stronger in some abstract way -- but stronger in the concrete way of larger, better trained, stable, population and workforce. This comes from the structure of a Mother and a Father together. 1
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Also, the government doesn't control uteruses or consensual sex.That is right. People do. Which is why it is appropriate for Society to use rewards to favor behavior it wants -- such as the creation and raising of children in a positive environment with a mother and a father.
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 I would postulate that very little about marriage is about religion in the eyes of the law.Family law, of which marriage laws are a large part deals with mostly non religious things.If marriage has nothing to do with religion in the eyes of the law then conservatives should have no problem with marriage equality. Also, religions don't own "marriage" anymore than the gays own rainbows. Marriage is a human right and not a special or reserved right.
Daniel2 Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 I meant which state court system?Again... I'm not sure if this is a trick question... It was struck down California's state court system, as described in the links I provided in my edited post.
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 If marriage has nothing to do with religion in the eyes of the law then conservatives should have no problem with marriage equality. Also, religions don't own "marriage" anymore than the gays own rainbows. Marriage is a human right and not a special or reserved right.Why would you think that? There are conservatives who want marriage to have to do with religion and for the law to recognize that.Its actually a pretty huge component.
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Tell that to the guy who owes $150,000 back child support.Did the government force him to have sex? If they guy is a dead beat then that's his problem. The woman can either do what's right and get a job or take the low road and marry a guy so he can take care of her and the baby. Then again...this is starting to sound like socialism. Medicare, AHCCS, and welfare...what a joke!
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Why would you think that? There are conservatives who want marriage to have to do with religion and for the law to recognize that.Its actually a pretty huge component.So they want their cake and to be able to eat it too? Sounds like privilege and entitlement propaganda to me.
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 So they want their cake and to be able to eat it too? Sounds like privilege and entitlement propaganda to me.Whatever it sounds like to you.. is your perception of things. I would say that you would also like to have your cake and eat it too. Otherwise, what's the point in having it?
Danzo Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Again... I'm not sure if this is a trick question... It was struck down California's state court system, as described in the links I provided in my edited post.The courts refer to the Federal Court SystemI could be wrong but I remember that the state supreme court upheld proposition 8
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 No, it is worthwhile. It is in the interest of society to promote those things that are conducive to the creating and raising of new law abiding citizens and a family structure of a mother and a father together to raise the Children appears to produce the best outcome for those children.In the interest of promoting (economically and socially) the #1 Best Way to achieve that reasonable objective, other systems would be less promoted and supported.This has nothing to do with hating gays or stopping them from getting "married". But society should positively recognize and encourage those things that build it up and make it inherently stronger across generations -- not stronger in some abstract way -- but stronger in the concrete way of larger, better trained, stable, population and workforce. This comes from the structure of a Mother and a Father together. Complete anti-marriage equality propaganda.I didn't say anything about hating gays. I'm saying that heterosexuals shouldn't get any special labels.
Danzo Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Did the government force him to have sex? If they guy is a dead beat then that's his problem. The woman can either do what's right and get a job or take the low road and marry a guy so he can take care of her and the baby. Then again...this is starting to sound like socialism. Medicare, AHCCS, and welfare...what a joke!My point was, that the goverment is often very involved in the results of what comes out of the uterus and the result of consensual sexHence there is a purpose for marriage laws. What form those laws take, I think is up to the people of the several states.
Stone holm Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Why? what is the damage caused by the recognition of marriage?This has been considered one way of extracting the government from the religious contention over the issue. The government would, or could, define such rights as it wished for couples both heterosexual and homosexuals under domestic partnership or civil union laws, and churches, covens, synagogues, or whatever would be free to recognize and solemnize such marriages as they believed in but such covenants would have no legal significance and would only be enforceable by excommunication, disfellowshipment, or shunning and the like. That would also have eliminated the expressed concern of various churches that the government would at some future date start trying to dictate what practices had to be observed by Churches with regards to marriages because religious ministers would no longer be solemnizing statuses which affected civil rights and privileges. There was a time before both sides became so politically active that something like that could have been worked out and I would have supported it. But now I think it is probably too late, as it is likely that SSM is going to eventually be recognized either by court action or by legislative action in most states. The right wing lost this particular culture war and in some of the states which hastily adopted State Constitutional bans the rising generation finds those bans repugnant. It has been argued that no organization has done more to promote the public acceptance in the U.S. than the Mormon Church because of our political opposition to it and the arguments we made in opposition to it. I know that was the reaction of the citizenry of Vermont.
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 That is right. People do. Which is why it is appropriate for Society to use rewards to favor behavior it wants -- such as the creation and raising of children in a positive environment with a mother and a father.Now that is a joke! You want to govern families according to a conservative religious system? I knew republicans were in favor of big government but come on!
Danzo Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 So in other words, the state should create a something that is like marriage but not exactly marriage?
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Complete anti-marriage equality propaganda.Nonsense. I agreed with you to completely avoid recognition of marriage. This is about Family Units.I didn't say anything about hating gays. I'm saying that heterosexuals shouldn't get any special labels.This does not describe either the man or the woman or the children in terms of their sexual preferences. Its just about families. They might all be gay. You would not know.
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Whatever it sounds like to you.. is your perception of things. I would say that you would also like to have your cake and eat it too. Otherwise, what's the point in having it?As I said, the government should burn marriage licenses and not recognize any union ceremony. It's that simple.
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Now that is a joke! You want to govern families according to a conservative religious system? I knew republicans were in favor of big government but come on!I don't know about Republicans -- I am not one. But I am in favor of government using laws to promote some behaviors and to discourage other behaviors. It is, after all, what laws are about.
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 As I said, the government should burn marriage licenses and not recognize any union ceremony. It's that simple.And I said fine.. but we need to have Preferred Family Units recognized.
CASteinman Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 So in other words, the state should create a something that is like marriage but not exactly marriage?Are you talking about Preferred Family Units? No, it has nothing to do with marriage.
Danzo Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 IF it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. . .
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Nonsense. I agreed with you to completely avoid recognition of marriage. This is about Family Units.This does not describe either the man or the woman or the children in terms of their sexual preferences. Its just about families. They might all be gay. You would not know.So, in your fantasy world would you take a child away from his biological father who is actually gay or bisexual because there wasn't a "mother" invoked in the child's life on a regular basis? I hope not because that would be pretty dumb.
Damien the Leper Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 And I said fine.. but we need to have Preferred Family Units recognized.As long as the units are not determined by religious ethics or morality, right? We don't want churches infecting the government with their silly bureaucracy. And as long as its not about gender but about love and commitment. Again, another problem solved.
Recommended Posts