Redefining marriage

[Silver301]

How about the better question of why government defines marriage in the first place?

Easy solution...get rid of tax laws that favor marriage. Get rid of any government definition of marriage...everyone, single, married to one person, or married to 5 people and a goat, pays exactly the same percentage in taxes based on what they make (or spend if we adopt the Fair tax) as an individual. If universal health care were adopted, we could abandon the current healthcare system and disregard all spousal conditions.

Now government has no role. Isn't that what the gay-bashing conservatives want (when they aren't using government legislation to bash gays or promote evangelical values)?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Silver301

How about the better question of why government defines marriage in the first place?

Have you ever researched an answer to this question?

Marriage has been perceived as a stabilizing influence on society. It provides a foundation of the values perceived as helping a society advance in a positive manner.

Thus, the people, via their elected representation, decided it was worthwhile to encourage marriage. The way government encourages something is via the tax laws. Like saying Goodwill is different in it's effect on society from K-Mart, and thus Goodwill gets huge tax advantages to provide essentially the same service K-Mart does.

Easy solution...get rid of tax laws that favor marriage. Get rid of any government definition of marriage...everyone, single, married to one person, or married to 5 people and a goat, pays exactly the same percentage in taxes based on what they make (or spend if we adopt the Fair tax) as an individual. If universal health care were adopted, we could abandon the current healthcare system and disregard all spousal conditions.

Now government has no role.

So, that would take care of the tax issue. But, it leaves out a few others. How about inheritance? Medical decisions? Alimony - or are you suggesting the alimony (or maintenance) laws are also wrong, along with visiting your loved one in a hospital, etc., etc.?

Isn't that what the gay-bashing conservatives want (when they aren't using government legislation to bash gays or promote evangelical values)?

I don't personally know any gay-bashing conservatives, unless you believe that civil union over "marriage" is gay bashing and conservative. If so, you've just called our current president and vice president gay-bashing conservatives, which is just about stupid.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

Have you ever researched an answer to this question?

Marriage has been perceived as a stabilizing influence on society. It provides a foundation of the values perceived as helping a society advance in a positive manner.

If marriage has a stablizing effect, more marriages would mean more stability.

Originally Posted by This_person

Thus, the people, via their elected representation, decided it was worthwhile to encourage marriage. The way government encourages something is via the tax laws. Like saying Goodwill is different in it's effect on society from K-Mart, and thus Goodwill gets huge tax advantages to provide essentially the same service K-Mart does.

And some people, via their representation, have decided it is worthwhile to allow Gay Marriage.

Originally Posted by This_person

So, that would take care of the tax issue. But, it leaves out a few others. How about inheritance? Medical decisions? Alimony - or are you suggesting the alimony (or maintenance) laws are also wrong, along with visiting your loved one in a hospital, etc., etc.?

No i dont see where he said any such thing.

According to you, there is no reason for the Government to recognize marriages in order to protect the above. If a couple, wanted the above, all they have to do is draft up legal documents to cover it. Right?

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

If marriage has a stablizing effect, more marriages would mean more stability.

Marriages maybe. Civil unions? It's yet to be seen

And some people, via their representation, have decided it is worthwhile to allow Gay Marriage.

We call them "the minority"

No i dont see where he said any such thing.

According to you, there is no reason for the Government to recognize marriages in order to protect the above. If a couple, wanted the above, all they have to do is draft up legal documents to cover it. Right?

Not required, true. Still nice, if appropriate.

If you notice, the link you provided was where I was answering whether anyone's rights had been violated. Certainly, they weren't.

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

Marriages maybe. Civil unions? It's yet to be seen

No, the ability to see has already occured. Marriages between the same sexes has occured elsewhere.

What has yet to be seen, is the explanation of how allowing Mark and Mark marries causes a detrimental effect to the marriage of Joe and Jane.

Originally Posted by This_person

We call them "the minority"

And in our system of Government, that the Founding Fathers setup, the Minority has as much power as the Majority.

Originally Posted by This_person

Not required, true. Still nice, if appropriate.

If you notice, the link you provided was where I was answering whether anyone's rights had been violated. Certainly, they weren't.

And if you notice, using the link, you should be perfectly fine with removing the Government sanctions on marriage. Especially since all of the benefits and *rights you and Jane enjoy, can be acquired by obtainign the legal services of a Lawyer.

*Rights as defined and specified in the Defense of Marriage Act.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

No, the ability to see has already occured. Marriages between the same sexes has occured elsewhere.

What has yet to be seen, is the explanation of how allowing Mark and Mark marries causes a detrimental effect to the marriage of Joe and Jane.

I agree those marriages have been allowed elsewhere.

And, the objective study of how that effected those societies has yet to be performed. Thus, it is yet to be seen.

And in our system of Government, that the Founding Fathers setup, the Minority has as much power as the Majority.

Well, except for that pesky voting thing.

In the states that agree, they should redefine marriage if they see fit. In the states that don't agree, they should maintain the centuries old definition. When the first is a problem for the second, the federal government should get involved and solve the problem.

And if you notice, using the link, you should be perfectly fine with removing the Government sanctions on marriage. Especially since all of the benefits and *rights you and Jane enjoy, can be acquired by obtainign the legal services of a Lawyer.

*Rights as defined and specified in the Defense of Marriage Act.

What exactly are "the government sanctions on marriage"?

If you mean:

• Old enough
• Not too closely related already
• Willing
• Not already married to someone else
• Of opposite gender
• Only two in the union

I would say that list of sanctions on who can join is already just fine. I suppose that if you got rid of one, you'd have to be for getting rid of any, right? What argument could be used to get rid of the number involved that could not be used for the genders involved, for example?

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

I agree those marriages have been allowed elsewhere.

And, the objective study of how that effected those societies has yet to be performed. Thus, it is yet to be seen.

Welcome to the liberal mindset. We do not persecute nor should we legislate based on supposition and what if. This is the justification used for Gun bans, and the reason it has been overturned.

Liberals and those of your ilk, are only different in what they want to legislate, the reasons for doing it are the same.

Originally Posted by This_person

Well, except for that pesky voting thing.

You really owe the Founding Fathers an understanding of our Governmental system. The reason we have 3, equal, levels is to prevent corruption (per definition) and wrongdoing done by any of the other levels

Originally Posted by This_person

In the states that agree, they should redefine marriage if they see fit. In the states that don't agree, they should maintain the centuries old definition. When the first is a problem for the second, the federal government should get involved and solve the problem.

Not a problem except the Federal DOMA would have to be repealed

Originally Posted by This_person

What exactly are "the government sanctions on marriage"?

If you mean:

• Old enough
• Not too closely related already
• Willing
• Not already married to someone else
• Of opposite gender
• Only two in the union

I would say that list of sanctions on who can join is already just fine. I suppose that if you got rid of one, you'd have to be for getting rid of any, right? What argument could be used to get rid of the number involved that could not be used for the genders involved, for example?

We are so happy that you agree with the current list of sanctions. Others disagree with you, and feel that just as marriage has had to be redefined in the past to allow mixed marriages (took a redefinition), recognize a womans rights (took a redefinition) and allow contraception (took a redefintion), it is time for another redefinition to state 2 Consenting Adults.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Welcome to the liberal mindset. We do not persecute nor should we legislate based on supposition and what if. This is the justification used for Gun bans, and the reason it has been overturned.

Liberals and those of your ilk, are only different in what they want to legislate, the reasons for doing it are the same.

What is the comparison of the second amendment to state law on marriage?

You really owe the Founding Fathers an understanding of our Governmental system. The reason we have 3, equal, levels is to prevent corruption (per definition) and wrongdoing done by any of the other levels

No, I give full faith and credit to that

Not a problem except the Federal DOMA would have to be repealed

And should be, IMHO. It's bad law

We are so happy that you agree with the current list of sanctions. Others disagree with you, and feel that just as marriage has had to be redefined in the past to allow mixed marriages (took a redefinition), recognize a womans rights (took a redefinition) and allow contraception (took a redefintion), it is time for another redefinition to state 2 Consenting Adults.

When you restrict marriage based on race, that's discriminatory - and wrong. It was good, justifiable, and constitutionally correct to change that discriminatory law.

What state law in the last 233 years was changed, in what way, to "recognize a woman's rights" or "allow contraception" with regards to the definition of what a marriage was?

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by This_person

What is the comparison of the second amendment to state law on marriage?

It was a comparision on how you and liberals are only different in what you want to legislate, your justifications are the same.

Originally Posted by This_person

No, I give full faith and credit to that

So you either misunderstand a Republic, and the checks and ballances of having a Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of Government.

Or you do realize our governmental system, and the branches of government, and purposely misrepresent what it is.

Originally Posted by This_person

And should be, IMHO. It's bad lawWhen you restrict marriage based on race, that's discriminatory - and wrong. It was good, justifiable, and constitutionally correct to change that discriminatory law.

That pesky constitution. What Constitutional reason is there to prevent Gay marriages? You want the Government involved in peoples personal lives, per our Government, there has to be a constitutional reason.

Originally Posted by This_person

What state law in the last 233 years was changed, in what way, to "recognize a woman's rights" or "allow contraception" with regards to the definition of what a marriage was?

You might want to look up chattel, and the State (both Federal and state) definition of marriage and a womans role. The "allow contraception" redefinition was done by the Catholic church in the 30's and codified with the Papal Commission in the 60's

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

It was a comparision on how you and liberals are only different in what you want to legislate, your justifications are the same.

So, there's an amendment to the Constitution that prohibits the government from defining marriage? Which one is that?

So you either misunderstand a Republic, and the checks and ballances of having a Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of Government.

Or you do realize our governmental system, and the branches of government, and purposely misrepresent what it is.

Nope, not any of those things

That pesky constitution. What Constitutional reason is there to prevent Gay marriages? You want the Government involved in peoples personal lives, per our Government, there has to be a constitutional reason.

Read the tenth amendment

You might want to look up chattel, and the State (both Federal and state) definition of marriage and a womans role. The "allow contraception" redefinition was done by the Catholic church in the 30's and codified with the Papal Commission in the 60's

So, what was the definition, per state law of who was allowed to marry, where "chattel" is concerned. That's US states, once we were a nation.

What does the Catholic Church have to do with US law insofar as definition of marriage goes?