Marriage Debate

HeavyAaron said:
So can I count on your vote to support me to disban all government recognition of marriage?
Click to expand...

Sure, I will.

Just tell me all you've done toward that end, and I will do the same. What have you done so far to effect that change? Write some letters to your local politicians? Demonstrate at the courthouse? (send me your signs you used and I will use the same ones).

Or have you just sat at your computer and spouted off in some irrelevent discussion board?

But yeah, I'll support that cause. Of course, until that change happens, I will continue to advocate that as long as the government IS involved in marriage, that it will be available to all citizens.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
Sure, I will.

Just tell me all you've done toward that end, and I will do the same. What have you done so far to effect that change? Write some letters to your local politicians? Demonstrate at the courthouse? (send me your signs you used and I will use the same ones).

Or have you just sat at your computer and spouted off in some irrelevent discussion board?
Click to expand...

I've contributed to libertarian think tanks, but yeah, mainly just complain on boards and other discussion groups. I've written a number of letter to the editor, but I'm not certain off-hand if any were on this topic. Thanks for your support!

Aaron
 
wastepanel said:
How moral is it to accept two guys scrogging out of wedlock, yet tell children that sex is only meant for wedlock?
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges. The institution that would be allowing two guys to scrog out of wedlock (the government) is not going to be the institution telling children that sex is only meant for wedlock.
 
Beleth said:
Apples and oranges. The institution that would be allowing two guys to scrog out of wedlock (the government) is not going to be the institution telling children that sex is only meant for wedlock.
Click to expand...

And I suspect that the institutions telling children that premartial sex is wrong, aren't too keen on gay sex in any context.
 
Beleth said:
Apples and oranges. The institution that would be allowing two guys to scrog out of wedlock (the government) is not going to be the institution telling children that sex is only meant for wedlock.
Click to expand...

That's where you're wrong:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/compassion.html

In addition, the 2006 Budget provides support for programs that encourage responsible choices before parenthood. President Bush’s Abstinence Initiative provides grants to States and communities to develop, implement, and evaluate programs for adolescents that promote abstinence and healthy choices. Activities also advance parent education and outreach, media campaigns, and research related to abstinence education. Since 2001, 102 grantees have provided abstinence-only education services in communities nationwide. The Budget provides more than $206 million for abstinence-only activities this year.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I'd also like to point out the following link in regards to this discussion:

http://hrw.org/reports/2002/usa0902/

The conclusion of the report is as follows:

On their website, the Centers for Disease Control maintain a fact sheet on HIV/AIDS among American youth. Their logo reminds the reader that "HIV Prevention Saves Lives;" the fact sheet itself stresses the importance of providing comprehensive information to young people about how to protect themselves from HIV infection, including information about condom use. The CDC's advice is consistent with that of the Institute of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, other federal government institutions that set U.S. public health standards.

Since 1997, the U.S. Congress has allocated more than $350 million-$100 million in fiscal year 2002 alone-to support abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that cannot, by law, follow this advice. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which administers federal abstinence-only programs, cannot grant these funds to abstinence-only programs that would pursue DHHS' own stated objective to "increase the proportion of adolescents who . . . use condoms if sexually active."

Federally funded abstinence-only programs, in keeping with their federal mandate, deny children basic information that could protect them from HIV/AIDS infection and discriminate against gay and lesbian children. In so doing, these programs not only interfere with fundamental rights to information, to health and to equal protection under the law. They also place children at unnecessary risk of HIV infection and premature death. In the case of HIV/AIDS, what they don't know may kill them.
Click to expand...

I feel that both of these links lead credence to my arguments.
 
HeavyAaron said:
Tax law (mostly benifits, some possible drawbacks which will likely soon be nullified)

SSA

inheritance

adoption

ETA: benifits for spouces of state employees
Click to expand...

Tax Law-There are benefits, but there are drawbacks (such as when you file married filing seperate) to this argument also.

SSA-I agree with you here. Do you want to be the one that tells 80 year old Mrs. Robinson that she won't be recieving her dead husband's SSA anymore? If this will be fixed, it will be when SSA is overhauled.

Inheritance-I'm not following this one here.

Adoption-A married couple has priority over a single person with adoption due to the fact that it is easier to care for a child with two parents instead of one. However, I am not aware of any laws that bar single people from adopting.

Here's the thing: If two people choose to marry, then they get the good with the bad. We can argue all day about who has better benefits of married or single people, and it's all besides the point. What it comes down to is that everybody should be able to make that decision if they want.
 
wastepanel said:
Here's the thing: If two people choose to marry, then they get the good with the bad. We can argue all day about who has better benefits of married or single people, and it's all besides the point. What it comes down to is that everybody should be able to make that decision if they want.
Click to expand...

I honestly can't think of any laws BENIFITING singles... but, regardless my solution would handle those, too.

If I had my way government could not recognize martial status, period.

Now, you haven't answered the question. You claimed that it's unAmerican that one group should receive favor over another. Would you support revocation of government recognition of marriage to achieve that end, or would you like to modify your statement?

Aaron
 
HeavyAaron said:
I honestly can't think of any laws BENIFITING singles... but, regardless my solution would handle those, too.

If I had my way government could not recognize martial status, period.

Now, you haven't answered the question. You claimed that it's unAmerican that one group should receive favor over another. Would you support revocation of government recognition of marriage to achieve that end, or would you like to modify your statement?

Aaron
Click to expand...

If the solution to this entire mess was "marriage for none", then I would say that is a good decision based on our Constitution.

BTW...You are obviously single. The drawbacks to being married include lots of nagging, having to split your stuff in half if divorce results, potentially having a working spouse that makes close to the same income you do (married people are supposed to figure their taxes together then seperate to see which garnishes less taxes not to mention lost credits if filing seperate), one spouse cannot own real property without the other spouse having to sign, etc.

But forgetting marriage status for all is going to be met with more fighting than you can imagine and make same sex marriage a cakewalk topic.
 
Beleth said:
We're talking about what is moral, not what the current implementation of the government wants to do.

A government that has the separation of church and state as one of its axioms has no business telling any adult what tabs can go into which slots.
Click to expand...

That is the current definition of "moral" to the government.

My point exactly. If a church doesn't want to marry same sex couples, that's their own business. If the government doesn't recognize MARRIED same sex couples, then it's the people's business.
 
wastepanel said:
If the solution to this entire mess was "marriage for none", then I would say that is a good decision based on our Constitution.
Click to expand...

But would you personally favor it? It seems (to me) to logically fallow from your values.

BTW...You are obviously single.
Click to expand...

And you would be quite wrong. I'm married. Shockingly, I oppose many laws that benifit me (not just marriage related.)

Aaron

ETA last sentence
 
wastepanel said:
But forgetting marriage status for all is going to be met with more fighting than you can imagine and make same sex marriage a cakewalk topic.
Click to expand...

I replied to this seperately as it was a completely seperate idea.

You are, of course, correct here. But is that really the point? You seem to be arguing from a fairness POV. But if the institution of legally recognized marriage needs fixing for the function of fairness, shouldn't the target law be, well, fair? (to everyone?) Instead of increasing the number of people given special treatment, why not make treatment universally the same? Single people, after all, outnumber committed homosexuals by magnitudes.

Aaron
 
HeavyAaron said:
If I had my way government could not recognize martial status, period.
Click to expand...

I just want to note that a lot of people feel the same way. However, they turn around and insist that recognition of gay marriage will in no way affect heterosexual marriage.
 
Meadmaker said:
I just want to note that a lot of people feel the same way. However, they turn around and insist that recognition of gay marriage will in no way affect heterosexual marriage.
Click to expand...
Please write out how it would, without resorting to any of the arguments which have already been refuted in this thread.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Please write out how it would, without resorting to any of the arguments which have already been refuted in this thread.
Click to expand...
I can think of all sorts of odd scenarios. After all, almost anything we do affects other things. For example, suppose you had a gay man who was married to a straight woman (yes, of course it happens). He might have a gay lover which kept him happy and she didn't care, since their marriage was a pretense anyway. But if he could marry the gay lover, he might divorce her.

Unlikely? Not given the number of ways to have relationships. And it would not happen if gays were prevented from marrying. But is it a legitimate reason for prohibiting gay marriage? Not in the least. People stay together in heterosexual relationships for the oddest of reasons too.

My point is, just because you can conceive of a reason why allowing gay marriage might change things is no reason to prohibit it. Divorce laws changed marriage dramatically, but I don't hear anyone arguing that divorce should be prohibited. Things always change. Marriage is not what it was a hundred years ago. Get used to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom