should the government be involved in marriage?

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by FerrariAKL, Apr 10, 2006.

  1. The purpose of government supported marriage is to encourage the formation of family units. Every study I have ever seen has shown a healthy family unit produces more productive members of society.

    Governments exist for the sole purpose of continuation of their ideal society.

    Government sanctioned marriage also provides a platform through which a person automatically receives certain rights that make navigating through societies legal requirements much easier.

    I know this very well....In the military, many of the "married" rights that civilians enjoy, I don't. My wife cannot have our household goods shipped through the service. She can't register our cars. She can't renew her I.D. card without me...etc, etc.
     
  2. I've been saying that for goddamn forever. I have never recieved a good answer as to why that's not done.
     
  3. Marriage is a religious instititution and the goverment should get out of it. The goverment should give out civil unions so that couples can get a legal agreement so all those spouse benifits and stuff are settled. Then if your church wants to marry you, that is your churches (or religions) decisions.
     
  4. yes, to avoid bigamy.
     
  5. Yes, there has to be some control or some #$%#ed up idiot will go marry his horse.
     
  6. answer my question (right after your post)
     
  7. mabye in a world where gays make up 50% of the population but I wouldnt change the definition of marriage just to be politically correct.

    If something liek that is to be changed just have the population vote on it since it affects almost everyone
     
  8. Thats down the road if things go the way they are with morals going out the window.
     
  9. This will happen sooner than later exactly because people will keep pushing the definition of "marriage" until it's meaningless. Those opponents that were up in arms that gay marriage would be the end of marriage were actually right for a change: I think it's a good thing tho...
     
  10. And should marriage be meaningless? I dont think so. Its hard enough as it is now without making it meaningless.
     
  11. Maybe you're not aware of this, but homosexual marriages can't exist by definition.
     
  12. Traditional marriage is an arbitrary anachronism. There shouldn't be one model for how a relationship should work.
     
  13. how do you mean?
     
  14. Everyone will never be 100% happy, at least make the majority happy instead of moulding society to meet minoroty interests for all to live with day to day.

    Its like me building a go cart and wanting the auto industry to recognize it as a full fledged safe road car. Can a few people come along and just change the definition of a production car? no
     
  15. The covenant of marriage is the union of a man and a woman, not of two people who are the same gender.
     
  16. But theres nothing wrong with having a separate name for the marriage of a man and a woman.

    If others want to think of something new, let them use and leagalize their own name for what they have with hard work. They want a shortcut to the inside, an easy way to attain all the benefits of what has been a marriage for a very long time. Its not right to do it that way.
     
  17. the law says otherwise.
     
  18. By whose definition?
     
  19. and who says? the bible? while I do have great respect for the Christian religion, the Bible, and the sanctity of the institution, your holy book is not legally binding. sorry. your argument does not hold up in an American court of law.

    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    That's the 14th amendment. From the United States Constitution. They used that once in court. I heard it worked.
     
  20. The 14th amendment does not apply because there are no rights that are specifically denied by the federal/state refusal to accept gay marriage.

    It's akin to claiming the 14th amendment condones bestiality, child marriage, arranged marriage, paligamy et. al.

    Even if it could be applied, there are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule. One example in particular: Eminant Domain.

    Case closed.
     
  21. no. in fact, the government (the US government that is) is not involved in marriage. "common law marriages", what everyone thinks of in this hot topic, is nothing more than heterosexual civil uinions.

    and the government being involved in civil unions has proven valuable. so if it went the way of allowing homosexual civil unions, i wouldnt care.
     
  22. shouldn't the question be "should church be involved in marriage?" here, marriage is something you can do with or without your church, and not with or without the government.

    Basically, who else but the government should be mandatory involved in marriage???
     
  23. by the bible sure whatever. but, answer the question, do you in fact think the government should be able to jump in and say "these two can not be married?"

    because that is government controlling marraige.
     
  24. The government does...and has.

    A friend of mine was denied the "right" to marry a girl he met in Thailand when he was stationed there for a few years.

    There are other benefits to governments stepping in. Mandated testing for disease to obtain a marriage license. Don't you think it is a good thing to ensure your bride/husband to be isn't hiding something like syphillis from you...whether it be knowingly or unknowingly?
     

Share This Page