The marriage debate. (stats, biased, vote, homosexual)
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.
Yes. Many rights are determined by state law, which have federal implications. For example, the right to file a joint bankruptcy petition, or a joint tax return, and claim exemptions and benefits as a spouse.
State laws are not allowed to discriminate either.
State law defines marriage. For example, minors and incompetents are not allowed to marry; and, likewise, incestuous and bigamous marriage is prohibited. And, the law provides how, and under what circumstances a married person can get a divorce, and the determination and disposition of the marital property, and obligations for the marital debts, support inter se, and child support.
State law does not define marriage any more than state law defines male and female. Marriage, like sex or "gender", exists independently and objectively prior to the state. The state merely affirms the pre-existing reality of marriage and makes laws respecting this reality.
To the extent that our laws do not conform to the independent and objective reality of marriage, they are defective.
sure, leave marriage between a man and a woman, and let there be civil unions for everyone else. I have no problems with them having the same benefits, my problem is with the term marriage being used for anything other then a man and a woman.
State law does not define marriage any more than state law defines male and female. Marriage, like sex or "gender", exists independently and objectively prior to the state. The state merely affirms the pre-existing reality of marriage and makes laws respecting this reality.
To the extent that our laws do not conform to the independent and objective reality of marriage, they are defective.
That is not correct. All rights, including the right of marriage, exist only by law. In addition, the state is a party to every marriage.
That is not correct. All rights, including the right of marriage, exist only by law. In addition, the state is a party to every marriage.
There are legal rights, and there are natural rights, correct? A man has a natural right not to be enslaved, but that natural right may or may not be recognized in law. There is, in a certain non-absolute sense, a natural right to marriage. That right exists whether or not it is recognized by the state. If the state were to ban marriage altogether, it would be tyrannical because it violates the natural right of men and women to marry.
But before you can even get to the subject of "rights", you have to know what those rights pertain to. Marriage exists. The state doesn't invent it. Men, women, and children exist. The state doesn't invent them. Land, air, and water exist. The state doesn't invent them. All of these independent entities have some relationship to natural rights, which the state is bound to acknowledge and reflect in its laws. What is the state's role? To conform itself to reality, to make laws that respect reality.
There are legal rights, and there are natural rights, correct? A man has a natural right not to be enslaved, but that natural right may or may not be recognized in law. There is, in a certain non-absolute sense, a natural right to marriage. That right exists whether or not it is recognized by the state. If the state were to ban marriage altogether, it would be tyrannical because it violates the natural right of men and women to marry.
But before you can even get to the subject of "rights", you have to know what those rights pertain to. Marriage exists. The state doesn't invent it. Men, women, and children exist. The state doesn't invent them. Land, air, and water exist. The state doesn't invent them. All of these independent entities have some relationship to natural rights, which the state is bound to acknowledge and reflect in its laws. What is the state's role? To conform itself to reality, to make laws that respect reality.
Marriage is a man made concept.
Homosexuals exist. The state didn't invent them either. They have been around as long as man has walked the earth. Even before there was any form of recognized "marriage" there have been homosexual unions, and heterosexual unions.
Homosexuals exist. The state didn't invent them either. They have been around as long as man has walked the earth. Even before there was any form of recognized "marriage" there have been homosexual unions, and heterosexual unions.
Marriage is a God-made concept.
“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Homosexuality exists, true, as do many other forms of misbehavior, and the state should make laws preventing it or at least minimizing the damage.
I voted for call everything civil unions. And no, not "separate but equal".
Everyone gets the same benefits and legal things that come with a "marriage", except it's called a civil union. Because of the word civil, the state should be involved in it. Then, based on one's religious preferences or moral preferences, you can be married/together/whatever. The state is not involved in this part. If you choose not to observe what someone else calls their civil union, that's fine. But you must respect the civil union itself.
Seriously, this argument is getting pretty tired. We are arguing over how a word is defined, and that will never end, because what is the true meaning of a word. They are just letters strung in a certain order, placed on an object that we know. They are not official, so arguing over what the definition of "marriage" is will never move forward.
Just have the state call all unions of two people the same thing. Have the couple call their union whatever they want. Win.
“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Homosexuality exists, true, as do many other forms of misbehavior, and the state should make laws preventing it or at least minimizing the damage.
God is a man made concept.
A book written by men 2000 years ago has nothing to do with the laws of this country in 2012.
Homosexuality doesn't cause damage any more than heterosexuality does..
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.
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.
