Marriage as a FREEDOM under the Constitution: Can it be practiced equally without relying on govt?

[Syriusly]

Then I'm sure you can answer the following question: What arguments for gay marriage do not apply to close relatives being married?

Odd isn't it- that all of your arguments against gay marriage support close relatives being able to marry?

Do you have any arguments against close relatives marrying- think its a peachy keen idea?

Do you have any arguments against close relatives marrying- think its a peachy keen idea? I believe this is code for you're afraid to answer a direct question, because you realize I'm right, and you just don't like the comparison.

I believe this is just code for you not being able to figure out any reason why close relatives shouldn't marry.

Is it because you think it is 'icky'?

 

[Syriusly]

If sodomites think "marriage can be practiced equally without relying on govt" the solution is easy. Simply put your hand over your partner's favorite body part and pronounce yourselves married. What seems to be the problem?

Well all Americans can marry legally and equally now- despite the efforts of the bigots.

 

[TheDude]

Then I'm sure you can answer the following question: What arguments for gay marriage do not apply to close relatives being married?

Odd isn't it- that all of your arguments against gay marriage support close relatives being able to marry?

Do you have any arguments against close relatives marrying- think its a peachy keen idea?

Odd isn't it- that all of your arguments against gay marriage support close relatives being able to marry? This make-believe? I'm super dumb dude, but I'm positive you can provide one example for "your arguments against gay marriage support close relatives being able to marry.

Yes you are super dumb dude.

3. The PRIMARY intent for marriage is reproduction, the stability of families and thus country. It's not society's fault homosexuality is contrary.

A brother and a sister can reproduce just fine- with no more chance of birth defects than non-related couples who happen to carry the same genes that cause birth defects.

I just realized I've been communicating with a genius. Until now I didn't realize any statement concerning reproduction is mutually dependent on incest.

 

[Syriusly]

Then I'm sure you can answer the following question: What arguments for gay marriage do not apply to close relatives being married?

Odd isn't it- that all of your arguments against gay marriage support close relatives being able to marry?

Do you have any arguments against close relatives marrying- think its a peachy keen idea?

Odd isn't it- that all of your arguments against gay marriage support close relatives being able to marry? This make-believe? I'm super dumb dude, but I'm positive you can provide one example for "your arguments against gay marriage support close relatives being able to marry.

Yes you are super dumb dude.

3. The PRIMARY intent for marriage is reproduction, the stability of families and thus country. It's not society's fault homosexuality is contrary.

A brother and a sister can reproduce just fine- with no more chance of birth defects than non-related couples who happen to carry the same genes that cause birth defects.

I just realized I've been communicating with a genius. Until now I didn't realize any statement concerning reproduction is mutually dependent on incest.

Well I don't claim to be a genius, though apparently compared to you, I am.

You claimed that the primary intent for marriage is reproduction.

A brother and sister otherwise the same as a none related couple can reproduce just as well.

So according to your claim- that reproduction is the primary purpose of marriage- you should be thrilled to allow a brother and sister to marry.

 

[yiostheoy]

A Question for Conservative Christians and GLBT Rights Advocates: Why Not Civil Unions? - Roger E. Olson

I don't get why people can't see that opposing beliefs on "whether marriage is a right"
deserve equal treatment under law. Why adopt one viewpoint at the exclusion of the other?

Isn't there a way to accommodate BOTH those who believe in "marriage as an equal right"
and those who believe marriage is part of free exercise of beliefs that govt does not need to be regulating!

Why not separate the civil contracts from the "beliefs and social relationships that people associate with marriage."

I am finding more and more people who have come to the conclusion
it's simpler to separate these policies, so everyone can practice freely as they believe,
and not depend on govt to endorse their beliefs one way or the other!

Marriage is not mentioned in the US Constitution.

But equal protection under the law is in the 14th Amendment.

If you give tax benefits to marriages then you need to allow them to same sex couples too, in order to be equal.

Same is true of OASDI benefits for dependents and spouses.

Marriage is a Catholic institution as we know it today, copied by the Protestants, but once the Fed's and the States started subsidizing it that opened Pandora's Box.

 

[TheDude]

A Question for Conservative Christians and GLBT Rights Advocates: Why Not Civil Unions? - Roger E. Olson

I don't get why people can't see that opposing beliefs on "whether marriage is a right"
deserve equal treatment under law. Why adopt one viewpoint at the exclusion of the other?

Isn't there a way to accommodate BOTH those who believe in "marriage as an equal right"
and those who believe marriage is part of free exercise of beliefs that govt does not need to be regulating!

Why not separate the civil contracts from the "beliefs and social relationships that people associate with marriage."

I am finding more and more people who have come to the conclusion
it's simpler to separate these policies, so everyone can practice freely as they believe,
and not depend on govt to endorse their beliefs one way or the other!

Marriage is not mentioned in the US Constitution.

But equal protection under the law is in the 14th Amendment.

If you give tax benefits to marriages then you need to allow them to same sex couples too, in order to be equal.

Same is true of OASDI benefits for dependents and spouses.

Marriage is a Catholic institution as we know it today, copied by the Protestants, but once the Fed's and the States started subsidizing it that opened Pandora's Box.

Thus the same can be said for marriage between close relatives.

 

[Crixus]

A Question for Conservative Christians and GLBT Rights Advocates: Why Not Civil Unions? - Roger E. Olson

I don't get why people can't see that opposing beliefs on "whether marriage is a right"
deserve equal treatment under law. Why adopt one viewpoint at the exclusion of the other?

Isn't there a way to accommodate BOTH those who believe in "marriage as an equal right"
and those who believe marriage is part of free exercise of beliefs that govt does not need to be regulating!

Why not separate the civil contracts from the "beliefs and social relationships that people associate with marriage."

I am finding more and more people who have come to the conclusion
it's simpler to separate these policies, so everyone can practice freely as they believe,
and not depend on govt to endorse their beliefs one way or the other!

Nonissue. We got bigger fish to fry. This is settled already.

 

[Crixus]

A Question for Conservative Christians and GLBT Rights Advocates: Why Not Civil Unions? - Roger E. Olson

I don't get why people can't see that opposing beliefs on "whether marriage is a right"
deserve equal treatment under law. Why adopt one viewpoint at the exclusion of the other?

Isn't there a way to accommodate BOTH those who believe in "marriage as an equal right"
and those who believe marriage is part of free exercise of beliefs that govt does not need to be regulating!

Why not separate the civil contracts from the "beliefs and social relationships that people associate with marriage."

I am finding more and more people who have come to the conclusion
it's simpler to separate these policies, so everyone can practice freely as they believe,
and not depend on govt to endorse their beliefs one way or the other!

Marriage is not mentioned in the US Constitution.

But equal protection under the law is in the 14th Amendment.

If you give tax benefits to marriages then you need to allow them to same sex couples too, in order to be equal.

Same is true of OASDI benefits for dependents and spouses.

Marriage is a Catholic institution as we know it today, copied by the Protestants, but once the Fed's and the States started subsidizing it that opened Pandora's Box.

Marriage was around about 2000 plus, minus years before Christ and Catholics.

 

[Syriusly]

A Question for Conservative Christians and GLBT Rights Advocates: Why Not Civil Unions? - Roger E. Olson

I don't get why people can't see that opposing beliefs on "whether marriage is a right"
deserve equal treatment under law. Why adopt one viewpoint at the exclusion of the other?

Isn't there a way to accommodate BOTH those who believe in "marriage as an equal right"
and those who believe marriage is part of free exercise of beliefs that govt does not need to be regulating!

Why not separate the civil contracts from the "beliefs and social relationships that people associate with marriage."

I am finding more and more people who have come to the conclusion
it's simpler to separate these policies, so everyone can practice freely as they believe,
and not depend on govt to endorse their beliefs one way or the other!

Marriage is not mentioned in the US Constitution.

But equal protection under the law is in the 14th Amendment.

If you give tax benefits to marriages then you need to allow them to same sex couples too, in order to be equal.

Same is true of OASDI benefits for dependents and spouses.

Marriage is a Catholic institution as we know it today, copied by the Protestants, but once the Fed's and the States started subsidizing it that opened Pandora's Box.

Thus the same can be said for marriage between close relatives.

So are you for marriage between siblings- or against it?

If you are against it- why are you against it?

 

[TheDude]

At this rate I'm not against it. The government has spoken in favor of gay marriage. They'd have to favor marriage between close relatives as well, because the exact arguments apply. It's a logical outcome. Really, I believe some states already allow it. You don't hear about it because incest is taboo, even though species, including humans, lean to incest more than homosexuality.

 

[emilynghiem]

A Question for Conservative Christians and GLBT Rights Advocates: Why Not Civil Unions? - Roger E. Olson

I don't get why people can't see that opposing beliefs on "whether marriage is a right"
deserve equal treatment under law. Why adopt one viewpoint at the exclusion of the other?

Isn't there a way to accommodate BOTH those who believe in "marriage as an equal right"
and those who believe marriage is part of free exercise of beliefs that govt does not need to be regulating!

Why not separate the civil contracts from the "beliefs and social relationships that people associate with marriage."

I am finding more and more people who have come to the conclusion
it's simpler to separate these policies, so everyone can practice freely as they believe,
and not depend on govt to endorse their beliefs one way or the other!

Marriage is not mentioned in the US Constitution.

But equal protection under the law is in the 14th Amendment.

If you give tax benefits to marriages then you need to allow them to same sex couples too, in order to be equal.

Same is true of OASDI benefits for dependents and spouses.

Marriage is a Catholic institution as we know it today, copied by the Protestants, but once the Fed's and the States started subsidizing it that opened Pandora's Box.

Yes yiostheoy
Sof if people of a State agree to those benefits for any partnership if it's called civil unions, contracts, marriage etc then great. But if not, then why not agree to separate policies for benefits, health care, prison costs etc where people can fund these under terms they agree to, whether it's prochoice vs prolife or for or against capital punishment or life imprisonment, and give taxpayers a choice instead of trying to mandate "one plan fits all."

Either agree to terms of social benefits or divide them and give people free choice what to pay for according to their beliefs. And quit abusing govt to impose one way to fund or manage these unless people actually agree to a uniform plan

 

[emilynghiem]

At this rate I'm not against it. The government has spoken in favor of gay marriage. They'd have to favor marriage between close relatives as well, because the exact arguments apply. It's a logical outcome. Really, I believe some states already allow it. You don't hear about it because incest is taboo, even though species, including humans, lean to incest more than homosexuality.

Dear TheDude what's wrong with having a domestic partnership between people of the same family. Who said sex or romantic relationship had to be involved. That's one advantage to keeping it streamlined to just civil unions. It means any two people can form a partnership contract and there is no legislating personal relationships. It's purely business, legal and financial. The other stuff are personal, social and spiritual relations the government should not be micromanaging anyway!

 

[emilynghiem]

They just want the same right as everyone else. The government got involved with marriage. Therefore, I think the equality cause is justified.
They shouldn't have gotten involved with it, but they did. Big surprise, I know...
Anything else is really irrelevant IMO

Dear TNHarley I just talked with more friends on the idea of treating spiritual healing prayer with the same equal inclusion and tolerance that LGBT advocates are insisting for those beliefs. Since both are faith based, and should remain people's free choice, why not agree to tolerate and include practice and expression of spiritual healing prayer. This can also be proven by science to work naturally, but by the nature of the process, it works by free choice. So there is no fear of imposition because spiritual healing doesn't work that way.

Instead of people protesting the inclusion of faith based LGBT beliefs expressions and practices in secular laws, govt and policy, why not ask for research development and sharing of spiritual healing as a choice in public policy and institutions?

So it's at least fair.
These things should not be banned from public institutions just because not all people believe in them. If we are going to change the standards of tolerance to include LGBT beliefs in public laws, even though these aren't proven and remain faith based and a free choice to believe or practice, why not allow the open expression and practice of spiritual healing?

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage as a FREEDOM under the Constitution: Can it be practiced equally without relying on govt?

The main beneficiaries of marriage, children, must have the freedom to have their contractual rights honored. Marriage was a contract created for children. Adults were an afterthought. Marriage was created to supply fatherless or motherless children with the missing gender. So "gay marriage" is not marriage at all, contractually speaking.

And since no contract who's terms benefit children mainly, can change those terms to harm children, "gay marriage" is not legal. There is no "freedom" to create contracts that benefit children and then to change those terms to harm children without their having a say. Even if they agreed, the contract would still be void upon its face since even when children agree to harmful terms, they still cannot legally exist. Read the Infancy Doctrine when you get a minute.

And, divorce still preserves the part of the marriage contract that guarantees children contact with both father and mother.. A "gay marriage" contract guarantees that children never have contact for life with either a mother or father.

 

[TheDude]

At this rate I'm not against it. The government has spoken in favor of gay marriage. They'd have to favor marriage between close relatives as well, because the exact arguments apply. It's a logical outcome. Really, I believe some states already allow it. You don't hear about it because incest is taboo, even though species, including humans, lean to incest more than homosexuality.

Dear TheDude what's wrong with having a domestic partnership between people of the same family. Who said sex or romantic relationship had to be involved. That's one advantage to keeping it streamlined to just civil unions. It means any two people can form a partnership contract and there is no legislating personal relationships. It's purely business, legal and financial. The other stuff are personal, social and spiritual relations the government should not be micromanaging anyway!

At this point in time I couldn't tell you. We've rearranged the definition, so I see no reason to stop. Personally, we just as well have any arrangement of domestic partnership, including polygamy.

At some point in history we'll see the same with adults and not, perhaps with parental consent. It's occurred through history on every continent. Heck, look at Jerry Lee Lewis and Elvis.

 

[emilynghiem]

Personally I believe gay civil unions were in order. These would offer NEARLY the same rights as marriage. The LGBT agenda is to disburse confusion from the individual to the public. This is the result of boredom, a pampered public, and liberal cause-seeking, because they simply ran out of ideas. At the end of the day, homosexuality IS NOT equal to heterosexuality. Don't take your argument up with me, take it up with the universe, because the universe says I'm correct.

RE: The universe doesn't say anything- and if you really believe it is talking to you- well then you have other problems.

Dear Syriusly
???
It depends what you call "talking" -- when Einstein received insights about universal laws to share with others,
I consider that part of the process of the "universe" or universal knowledge or wisdom conveyed to and through people.

Prayer has been described as "talking" with God/the Universe
while Meditation is "letting" God/the Universe answer.

When answers or insights come to us,
that is the equivalent idea.

And yes, I have friends for whom this process happens in very symbolic ways spiritually,
where one actually saw a light they understood to be God or Jesus appearing to them.
I know one guy who had a vision of the "hand of God" visually entering into the room,
and tossing him around as a warning he'd gone too far. Others hear voices or see dreams, as if they are real memories or visions.

If that's how "God" or universal knowledge "talks or speaks" to someone,
it's not up to me to judge. What matters is what they make of the message
and how they use that to improve their relations with others and direction in life.

I've heard so many different stories from different people,
if I were to judge them all as "not normal" they'd very few people left to call normal.

 

[emilynghiem]

3. The PRIMARY intent for marriage is reproduction, the stability of families and thus country. It's not society's fault homosexuality is contrary..

Since marriage law requires no reproduction- and indeed state's happily extend marriage to my 80 year old uncle who married his blushing 75 year old bride- clearly marriage is not primarily about reproduction.

Regarding stability of the family- marriage does encourage stability- why do you not want gay couples and their family to be stable?

I get it Romeo, marriage is about love.

Where did I mention love?

Here is a quote I like from the Supreme Court


Here is a quote that I like from the Supreme Court


"Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."


I like that- a 'bilateral loyalty'- hopefully enduring and intimate.

^ I don't mind the content Syriusly
but it is not the role of Govt to act as ministerial counsel and intervene in this level of social relationships.^

This is like supporting Christianity 100% but understanding it must remain a free choice
and does not belong in the hands of govt.

 

[emilynghiem]

Look around. Anyone can live together in the most tolerant Country in the world but there is no way around government being involved in marriages. You need a license and you usually need (except in rare conditions) an agent of the government to perform the ceremony. If we have government involved in marriage it's incumbent on government to set the rules and so far in the history of the great Republic, the majority of the people elect the government agencies that make the rules. Since the supreme court authorized sodomite marriages it's a moot point anyway but the 1st Amendment freedom of religion came way before the sodomite marriage decision.

Dear whitehall technically we can separate the civil contracts, custody estate agreements etc.
from the social terms conditions and expectation on relationships.
That's where the conflict is, where people don't agree on the terms of marriage.
So separate these. And maybe people will quit fighting when they don't have to have all people agree with them on all points.
Instead of trying to change those points, just accept the differences as they are.
then make public laws only on the points of agreement and keep the rest private.

 

[emilynghiem]

The entire gay marriage debate occurred because conservatives chose, from the beginning, to fight even the legal rights and protections afforded civil unions. Gay people did not deserve the right to inherit, adopt children they have raised, visit their dying partners in the hospital, be included in insurance plans or anything that included having compassion for homosexuals in committed relationships. You seem to be a decent person but so many on the "christian" side of the debate were not decent and were not interested in anything that even looked like compromise. They brought hatred and narrow morality to a legal argument and actually seemed surprised they lost.

Well occupied given the choice of either marriage for all or civil unions for all,
which do you think is going to settle these issues?

We have marriage for all.

It is settled.

Set up your own system and let others set up theirs. By my system it was already a right under religious freedom so no court ruling was needed, that freedom already exists and has always existed. Syriusly

My own system is set up- my wife and I have been legally married for over 20 years. The only change is that in the last 50 years, courts have overruled states who have tried to restrict the rights of mixed race couples and gay couples from marrying. Doesn't affect my marriage at all.

By contrast- you want to end my legal marriage so a few Christians feel better.

A. No, I'm not trying to end your legal marriage.
1. You still have your marriage that is between partners and everyone else to still recognize.
but you'd have a CHOICE which system you want it under.
2. What changes is for those who DON'T want govt to mess with marriages,
the govt only manages the civil contract part.
The legal and financial agreements are separated from whatever SOCIAL relationship
the partners have that is not the govt's business.
3. And I guess for people who WANT govt to manage their whole relationship and benefits for them, we'd have to set up a system to allow that, without interfering with those who just
want govt to handle the civil unions and secular contracts, not intervene in anything else.

B. It's not just "making Christians feel better" it's about respecting beliefs of others
equally as the beliefs you and others claim you are defending. that's fine but it
has to be in perspective with beliefs of others, also, and the full context around it.

You act like it's just their feelings being hurt?
I see this as huge fundamental differences in beliefs about govt,
not just about feelings but a clash between two equal set of beliefs.

You are changing whole belief systems. The part that is "Christians" fault is integrating
marriage into state to begin with. Had it remained independent as a private church function only,
where the state only deal with civil contracts, there'd be no issue. But because marriage
already crossed the line with church and state, that's why changing it means changing other
things in context with it. Such as social benefits, and how THOSE have ALSO been argued
as extra constitutional; so now that is finally coming out as govt micromanaging social programs.

So if LGBT advocates challenges and changes the conditions, and it causes these unintended consequences,
that's a mutual responsibility for all the changes it causes!

You can't blame that on just one side. It's the fact that both sides don't have the same
way of doing things, that the WHOLE arrangement may have to change.

This isn't happening in a vacuum, of course it affects other people!

This is EXACTLY why people have been warning NOT to mix
social legislation and programming with govt.

It's fine when you agree with the rules,
but if you don't and govt makes them mandatory for everyone to follow,
then people are going to complain.

Better not to go there in the first place.

I think with the big rejection of liberal politics and policies going on,
the Libertarians who have been warning about keeping social programming out of govt
will probably rise up and start becoming more vocal about Constitutional corrections to govt.

 

[emilynghiem]

I never got the "government should stay out of marriage business". This may come as a complete shock, but:

A. The government processes/records the certificates and divorce.

B. The government adjusts taxes on who and who isn't married. Course those tax breaks were intended for families, you know, reproduction? Somehow that's over the liberal head, cuz they so smart.

C. The government dictates laws and regulations for property ownership, beneficiary, etc. etc. etc. etc.


Saying the Govt. shouldn't be involved is STUPID RHETORIC

Dear TheDude
and the govt can still manage the secular civil part
without having ANYTHING to do with the social relationship between the partners in a civil union contract.

anyone can agree to be legal guardians or shared custodians of property and estate.
you do not need to have any particular social relationship personally,
in order to act as partners in a civil contract that defines how you share legal duties or financial.