This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Should the federal government even have laws regarding marriage?

#11Masta CroutonPosted 3/27/2013 5:15:07 PM
Cutting benefits to all married couples because gay people might get them too is great policy.
---
"I know, it's a bad habit. In an unrelated matter, I also can't help but point out when people crap themselves in public."
-Flashman,on being trolled
#12Bond_543Posted 3/27/2013 5:16:07 PM
No government should be involved in marriage. Get rid of all government benefits for marriage. Let people, heterosexual or homosexual, do whatever rituals they want to show their love for one another and call it what they want, but keep the State out of it.
---
Stop Secular Progressive Dystopias before they ruin America boycott Moveon,MediaMatters,Democracy Alliance,
Think Progress George Soros&OWS=Public Enemy #1
#13azuresou1Posted 3/27/2013 5:36:10 PM
You know, I debated with myself a bit about whether government has a place in marriage at all, and I've come to the conclusion that yes, it absolutely deserves to be legislating marriage.

First and foremost, marriage is not a religious institution, so let's not even pretend churchs should have some monopoly on marriage. My parents are not religious; their marriage is not null and void because they did it at a county clerk's office rather than in a church.

As to why government should care about marriage, it's because it's more or less proven that most people are just more productive and happier when they're in a good relationship. Productive and happy members of society are good for a nation. Plus, they tend to raise at least relatively well-adjusted children, who will then become part of society, even gay couples who can adopt. That, too, is a good thing. Thus, it's really in government's best marriage to track and promote marriages, and also to allow marriage equality.
---
Face it, Blake Griffin is more a SF than (Rashard) Lewis is - Bullet_Proof_18
Formerly Known As SSJ5Vegeta
#14Zero_DestroyerPosted 3/27/2013 7:08:41 PM
Sniper_Brosef posted...
Zero_Destroyer posted...
Sniper_Brosef posted...

Christianity isn't the oldest religion...


I don't think Babylonians married due to religion, good sir.


Right, and our idea of marriage is based on what the babylonians had? lol, just put my views aside and what do you think? The government shouldn't even be involved in this issue right?


I'm fine with them being involved because of all the legal crap involved through children/funds/etc. It's not an inherently religious concept so we should not adhere or respect the religious basis for it. It should be for 2 consenting adults, regardless of gender.
---
The Official Shiek Mainer in SSBB.
I am ZERO! The deck maker o' DOOM!
#15Zero_DestroyerPosted 3/27/2013 7:09:26 PM
azuresou1 posted...
You know, I debated with myself a bit about whether government has a place in marriage at all, and I've come to the conclusion that yes, it absolutely deserves to be legislating marriage.

First and foremost, marriage is not a religious institution, so let's not even pretend churchs should have some monopoly on marriage. My parents are not religious; their marriage is not null and void because they did it at a county clerk's office rather than in a church.

As to why government should care about marriage, it's because it's more or less proven that most people are just more productive and happier when they're in a good relationship. Productive and happy members of society are good for a nation. Plus, they tend to raise at least relatively well-adjusted children, who will then become part of society, even gay couples who can adopt. That, too, is a good thing. Thus, it's really in government's best marriage to track and promote marriages, and also to allow marriage equality.


Also, that^
---
The Official Shiek Mainer in SSBB.
I am ZERO! The deck maker o' DOOM!
#16Nirvna9Posted 3/27/2013 7:16:18 PM
No..although I am all for legal unions. There is nothing wrong with the combination of two consenting adults and their union can but does not have to be based out of procreation, sex, or even love.
---
We rode on the winds of the rising storm, We ran to the sounds of the thunder. We danced amongst the lightning bolts, and tore the world asunder.
#17wally(Moderator)Posted 3/27/2013 7:20:40 PM
If you take the five seconds needed to consider why exactly the marriage contract is necessary, then you'd see why government does have a place in making sure that such a contract is necessary. Considering that mankind has known this for thousands of years prior to Abraham...
---
Home is behind, the world ahead. And there are many paths to tread
Through shadow to the edge of night, until the stars are all alight
#18blacktrancePosted 3/27/2013 10:14:47 PM
If people want to make contracts and refer to them as "marriage contracts", the government should enforce them. But it shouldn't give special benefits to married couples.
---
"With enough brutal force the thieving rabble can be kept in line." - Rebelscum
#19Zero_DestroyerPosted 3/27/2013 10:28:10 PM
blacktrance posted...
If people want to make contracts and refer to them as "marriage contracts", the government should enforce them. But it shouldn't give special benefits to married couples.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

you know, I think a lot of the child-related ones seem

like

necessary
---
The Official Shiek Mainer in SSBB.
I am ZERO! The deck maker o' DOOM!
#20mystic belmontPosted 3/27/2013 10:31:19 PM
Yeah, won't it be great to hit every surviving spouse with an estate tax right during the grieving process? You want to live in that house you both have been paying to maintain? That'll cost you $163,000.
---
"Freedom was meaningless without ownership and control over one's own body" -Henry McNeal Turner
[Evil Republican]