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.
IF marriage is all about children/families, then either you ban marriage to every couple that can not biologically reproduce together, or you allow ANY couple that has children from any means. Which is it?
You promote what benefits the nation the most. Who are more likely to end up as parents, a hetero couple, or a gay couple? You know the answer to the question. Should we promote marriage between sibligns, because they migh successfully adopt a kid? No, you promote what benefits the nation as whole, and in this case it happens to be a traditional family with a mother and a father.
You promote what benefits the nation the most. Who are more likely to end up as parents, a hetero couple, or a gay couple? You know the answer to the question. Should we promote marriage between sibligns, because they migh successfully adopt a kid? No, you promote what benefits the nation as whole, and in this case it happens to be a traditional family with a mother and a father.
If marriage is all about reproduction, then why wouldnt you promote marriage between siblings? Clearly a brother and a sister can reproduce, correct?
Every gay marriage with kids are missing either father, or a mother. The best environment for a child to grow up in is a family with both father and mother.
They are missing a birth mother or father or possibly both.
You promote what benefits the nation the most. Who are more likely to end up as parents, a hetero couple, or a gay couple? You know the answer to the question. Should we promote marriage between sibligns, because they migh successfully adopt a kid? No, you promote what benefits the nation as whole, and in this case it happens to be a traditional family with a mother and a father.
So promoting stable families that adopt children is not important? Obviously heterosexual couples are not adopting every child in the system since even with same sex couples adopting there are thousands that age out of the system every year. Promoting stability for same sex couples with children is not important? Why? Do our children not count? Do our families not matter?
Some couples have children, some do not that goes for heterosexuals and homosexuals. Do you think that just because we can't get married we won't have families? I had my first long before getting legally married was even a possibility, in fact 2 of our 3 are adults now. Just because you deny us equal protections for our families we aren't going to magically become heterosexual and get married to the opposite sex, or stop having or adopting children. So please do explain why our families do not deserve the same legal protections that your family has.
Does your new marriage rules only apply to same sex couples that can not or do not have children, or will it also apply to the elderly that marry, or sterile heterosexuals, or heterosexuals that do not want children?
Will you be voiding my mothers second marriage since she is post menopausal, and can not longer have children and is too old to adopt? How about my sisters marriage? She had to have a hysterectomy due to a medical condition and can no longer reproduce, and her new husband doesn't want any children so she will not be adopting either.
I noticed you completely avoided the judges quotes about reproduction in the Utah same sex marriage case and the Turner V Safley case quotes that I posted earlier. Care to address them now?
The answer is simple, and it also answers why it should not promote, or allow same sex marriage or legalization of drugs
The government should promote those things which benefit the nation as whole. This is what "promote general welfare" in the Constitution means. Promoting traditional marriage benefits the nation as whole, because it brings forth new generations of people, and gives the children an opportunity to grow up in a family with a father and a mother, like nature intended. Familes stabilize the nation as whole. Kids who grow up in families are far less likely to end up as bad apples of the society. It keeps crime low, and number of productive people high. Family life even tames the men. It is also an economic issue, because a stable nation is an an economically thriving nation, with fewer people to support.
So, promoting traditional family benefits the nation as whole.
Same sex marriage does not benefit the nation in any way, so there is no reason to promote it.
The government does three things:
1. Promote those things which benefit the nation, like traditional family.
2. Allow freedoms. We are free to work, earn income and own property, live where we want etc
3. Prohibit those things which are harmful to the nation.
Violent crime is definetly harmful to the nation, which is why it is prohibited. Drug use is harmful to nation as whole which is why it is prohibited. Same sex marriage? I have yet to see one compelling reason why it should be promoted, or even allowed.
I agree, it should not promote OR discourage any marriages... heterosexual or not... now, what do you think about the MARRIAGE PENALTY in taxes? Why should married people pay higher taxes compared to singles?
Families arent necessarily composed of married individuals. I've been living with my "live in girlfriend" for 19 years now. We're beyond stable.
Marriage btw, doesnt take place under the general welfare clause of the Constitution, it takes place under the Pursuit of Happiness in the Declaration of Independence..
Thats why I support gay marriage (and yes, I once opposed it). Gays are entitled to the same happiness that straight folks are entitled to and I've read very compelling legal arguments as to how I was wrong and I changed my stance on it.
Excellent post. I was once against SSM, then indifferent, and now think it should be allowed.
I think the nation benefits when its people are happy. The benefit for gays that want to be married far outweighs the outrage felt by some that two people of the same sex want to marry.
I want the government out of marriage. I want marriage out of the tax code entirely.
We should all oppose the government using taxes as carrots to modify our behavior. It is offensive.
You promote what benefits the nation the most. Who are more likely to end up as parents, a hetero couple, or a gay couple? You know the answer to the question. Should we promote marriage between sibligns, because they migh successfully adopt a kid? No, you promote what benefits the nation as whole, and in this case it happens to be a traditional family with a mother and a father.
This "promotion" of marriage you want has been in place for centuries, backed by federal law for most of that time. You already have what you want - yet it doesn't seem to have any positive effect on inner city urban minority people.
I'm sorry but how does the government "Promote" any marriage? They provide a license to marriage, but thats not the same thing as promoting it..
The promotes general welfare clause, deals with promoting the general welfare OF THE NATION, not the individuals, nor the family..
A marriage isnt general welfare, its an individual welfare, of the two being involved.
That's a myopic view of marriage, if you think it's only about two people. Marriage as an institution is about the husband and wife, but it's also about children and the extended family.
The immediate and extended family, e.g. grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc... traditionally take care of one another, which relieves government from having to take on those responsibilities. Single parents raising bastard children, put a huge strain on the government social welfare system. A strong family of mom and dad, and the extended family removes a huge burden from the shoulders of the people's government.
I think we can all agree that our future as a nation, as a culture and as a society depends solely on the children being born today. We can also agree that the best environment to raise these children is by the parents who gave birth to them, ostensibly in a long and loving relationship.
The government is the people. It's the people who have demanded that government be involved in the single most important thing to our future, the children. By creating a binding framework of laws, policies and such, government promotes, encourages endorses and creates stability for marriage.
I agree, it should not promote OR discourage any marriages... heterosexual or not... now, what do you think about the MARRIAGE PENALTY in taxes? Why should married people pay higher taxes compared to singles?
I said they SHOULD promote things which benefit the nation, so obviously you DO NOT agree. The bread winner in a married couple benefits from filing as married, and the non-earner does not benefit. The overall result is a win.
This "promotion" of marriage you want has been in place for centuries, backed by federal law for most of that time. You already have what you want - yet it doesn't seem to have any positive effect on inner city urban minority people.
Yes, I said it already promotes it because it benefits the nation as whole.
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.
