U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should the "State" establish requirements to marry?
No - the State should not be involved in any way with who can, and cannot, marry 18 34.62%
Yes - the State should be involved in a very limited way - such as the age of the parties 16 30.77%
Yes - the State should have the right to establish the guidelines for marriage in that particular state 16 30.77%
Undecided 2 3.85%
Voters: 52. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-07-2008, 07:51 AM
 
3,566 posts, read 4,491,128 times
Reputation: 1846

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
Why the bitterness?
I cannot say that theres genetic consequences for same sex marriage no. But the reason for that is they arent viable biologically & serve no purpose in society. Its obviously not a "right", if it is maybe you can point it out in the constitution.

I can say that same sex marriages are detrimental to society because I believe its true. You can say it doesn't harm the children shoved into such arrangements but theres little to base that on. Its simply too new of a phenomenon to say one way or the other.

Its not about like or dislike. Its about reality. The reality is that regardless of the social standing of a gay couple & the contracts involved its no more right than siblings getting married.
If the reproductive consequences bother you then its hypocritical to support gay marriage because there is not even a possibility to reproduce. If you say they can adopt & raise healthy kids as a justification it still doesn't work because siblings could as well.

Its not morality, its common sense & logic. If two men can marry then siblings should be allowed the same thing if they so choose as consenting adults. If there is to be no common sense involved than any two adults should be allowed equal oportunity regardless of all else to be wed. So far 40% think the state can decide. It is a legal thing & the state or fed govt has jurisdiction. Of that there is no doubt.
Again, 9th Amendment. Actually, there is no harm in same sex couples raising children and you cannot find one shred of evidence to say otherwise. No, I'm not being hypocritical. Genetic consequences of siblings having children does not equal the lack of ability to have children. Just because you repeat this does not make it true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-07-2008, 08:07 AM
 
Location: 3814′45″N 12237′53″W
4,152 posts, read 9,580,830 times
Reputation: 3398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
Why draw the line there? The only justifications are moral ones.
How about if they are rendered infertile first so they need to adopt like gay couples? Certainly its no worse for a child to be raised by siblings that love each other than a same sex couple, in honesty its probably a better situation. The child need not know they are siblings but they WILL know they have two dads or moms.

So, if siblings love each other & want to get married, how on earth is that worse than two men or women?

In my mind neither is acceptable, but certainly if one is then so is the other.

Talk to the medical community about the results of inbreeding. The state's restriction of familial blood line marriage has the potential for breeding. Therefore it has used a scientific, not moral justification for this restriction.
The scientific angle has been used to explain the potential harm for the society based on a strain to the health of future members of society. I don't see how same sex marriage would fall under that argument.

Consenting,not directly bloodline related, adults over the age of 18 should be the law I think.

The original purpose of marriage was a business transaction not a moral or religious one. Women were one half of the property exchange back then.

I'm not saying we should go back to that, but I'm attempting to illustrate the lack of moral high ground in its original incarnation.

Our government should not be legislating based on one segment of the population's religious beliefs. Quite the keystone of our country right there.

Last edited by bellalunatic; 11-07-2008 at 08:19 AM.. Reason: left out key statements by accisdent
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2008, 12:45 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,939,282 times
Reputation: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by f_m View Post
The only reason people have to get a marriage certificate with the government is to have a government recognized marriage. This isn't necessary, but then you don't get any of the legal benefits/coverage from the same government.

A religious wedding ceremony is generally considered the official marriage, but without the government document the government doesn't recognize anything. People do not have to have the documents if they don't want. That is why a government recognized marriage is different than a religious marriage.
My argument still stands. There are churches and members of clergy that solemnize same-sex marriages. The debate here, however, is about marriage recognized by the State (i.e. "government"). When you ask the government to recognize your union, you are inviting it to "get involved", so to speak, with your relationship; you can't simultaneously demand that the government should stay out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2008, 12:47 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,939,282 times
Reputation: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by bellalunatic View Post
Talk to the medical community about the results of inbreeding. The state's restriction of familial blood line marriage has the potential for breeding. Therefore it has used a scientific, not moral justification for this restriction.
In that case, shouldn't we mandate genetic testing for everyone and prohibit people who are carriers for serious genetic disorders from marrying?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2008, 01:42 PM
 
5,273 posts, read 11,910,304 times
Reputation: 5750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
Should the "State" have the right to prohibit marriages between Parent / Child? Or, between Siblings?

How about people & animals?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2008, 09:16 PM
 
Location: McKinleyville, California
6,413 posts, read 8,856,810 times
Reputation: 4190
Quote:
Originally Posted by f_m View Post
The only reason people have to get a marriage certificate with the government is to have a government recognized marriage. This isn't necessary, but then you don't get any of the legal benefits/coverage from the same government.

A religious wedding ceremony is generally considered the official marriage, but without the government document the government doesn't recognize anything. People do not have to have the documents if they don't want. That is why a government recognized marriage is different than a religious marriage.
No, the government recognized marriage is the official marriage. A government recognized marriage document is needed to make a church wedding official, otherwise it is just a ceremony in a church. Now a church wedding is sanctioned by the church, but that is another story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2008, 04:28 PM
 
268 posts, read 942,552 times
Reputation: 196
As a society we invest the state with certain powers in the hope that it will act for the common welfare. In this sense, we welcome the state mandating that murder is unlawful, that taxes be levied and used for societal services, etc. There may be a few people who don't think that all murder should be illegal but they are a very small fraction of our society, require the burden of proof, and need to increase their numbers in order to be heard and considered.

The problem happens when the state, acting on behalf of a small majority, restrict the rights of a large minority. This usually means that the law is enacted without overwhelming proof of its goodness or benefit to society. I would argue that in such cases, while the state may still be enforcing the will of the majority, it is over-reaching its mandate to act for the welfare of all its constituents and wrongly assuming that the minority is immoral or unlawful simply because it is in the minority.

In this sense then, I would think that the state has been empowered to enact laws against incest and bestiality because there is just cause, scientific evidence (not moral judgement) of harm, and the will of the vast majority. However, in the case of same-sex marriage when there is still an ongoing debate and no overwhelming majority (California voted yes: 52 vs 47%) then a law should not be enacted because there is a possibility of harming a large minority. The state should not be allowed to legislate morality (which is what this is since there is no scientific evidence of harm) based on a small majority.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2008, 06:15 AM
 
Location: Michigan--good on the rocks
2,544 posts, read 3,451,419 times
Reputation: 1931
In that the States retain the right to manage contract law, then, yes, they would also retain the right to control who may enter into the contract of marriage.

However, marriage is unique in that it involves both a legal as well as a religious aspect. In keeping with our generally accepted doctrine of separation of church and state, it would make sense to separate the legal from the religious aspect of marriage. Therefore, in order to be "married", a couple would go to their church. In order to enter into the legal contract we now refer to as marriage (civil union), a couple would go to their government in keeping with contract law.

The two aspects are not mutually exclusive, nor are they mutually required.

In this way, the traditional definition of marriage is protected, and the legal benefits of marriage are extended to gay couples. The legal aspect of marriage would be available to all consenting adults, and the religious aspect would be available to whomever the church was willing to sanction (if a gay couple found a church willing to sanction their civil union as marriage, so be it.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top