Homosexual marriage

I knew you wouldn't answer the question.

 

Sure. Age of majority is the age at which an individual is considered an adult citizen and becomes vested with the rights and responsibilities thereof. As you have asked me to apply my reasoning to homosexual marriage, it should be quite obvious on its face, but as you appear to need some help understanding, I will oblige your polite request: A person shall not be able to enter a legally-binding contract until having reached the age of majority. As government marriage is a legally-binding contract, a person shall not be able to enter same until having reached that age. Any other questions?

 

I knew you would come up with an excuse. I'm right.

Ignorance is the bliss of atheism.

 

I'm sorry, what excuse did I come up with? I asked you to answer a very simple question and you did not.

 

Uh huh, and the age of consent is what?

And of course, since this means any consenting adults should contractually be able to do anything they want, we must allow our values, finances, and society to be held hostage to moraless process of any minority with enough gumption to seize upon and abuse the process.

See Austria Hungry and how that process ruined an Empire.

Like I said, several steps ahead of you.

 

Its been answered several times, you simply do not want to read it. Your victim schtik is noted ... and as you say ... irrelevant.

 

If you do not understand the difference between age of majority and age of consent, I can not help you. You can proclaim yourself light-years ahead of me and it won't change the fact that you are displaying a fundamental lack of understanding of even the most basic concepts of law.

 

If you do not understand that allowing the whims of every minority to become an iunrestricted contractual process is a dangerous thing prone to abuse and relativism and that this is bad, then I cannot help you.

Go to college or something?

 

that's a crock.

The majority of the posts are about 'equal rights' when no one is claiming the individuals dont have equal rights, but that the couple's dont have equal rights.

it's kind of goofy in many senses. Each can marry anyone they want and many dont have or need a religious preference to be married as it is a legal standpoint that renders that same sex marriage is defined as a male and female which so happens to be natures NORMAL sense of intercourse.

nature aint a religious observation.

It is a natural one and all life is bound to nature, which supercedes any religion or government; all cases.

The US constitution offers all people equality, Has nothing to do with 'all couples'.

Each can marry, whomever they choose and it is common sense, that copulation is between a man and women. it is the self centered that thinks fun and games of sexual intercourse is what love is based on. ie.... for an idiot to suggest that sex is relative to love is a moron.

same as, only a moron believes same sex marriage is a right per the constitution.

The bigots are the idiots that create an argument that dont exist. ie..... each have equal right to marriage in which the institution of marriage is not about benefits but about copulation for lineage protection.

The only reason this issue is even being pursued by the pro-same-sex'rs is because a)..... someone lied to them suggesting it is normal b) playing the sympathy card and fighting anyone based on ignorance.

The argument is over to simple comprehend 3 facts; 1) sex is naturally for procreation 3) marriage is for lineage protection as a standard of the institution.... 3)..... love does not require sex or marriage

So no one needs to be married to be in Love

And no one needs to be married to have or not have children;

the marriage pursuit in the same sex issue is for money, gains and rebellion, it sure aint for LOVE as then it is like the sexual orientation argument; just lying to the self and anyone else


This whole debate is one that brings out the morons to play.

it is kind of like the issue of idiots actually believing they have a right to lie to their children.

 

Oh! You did answer my question. I must have missed this and I do apologize. Now I will respond. "Marriage" in the eyes of the civil institution is a civil contract--nothing more, nothing less. The cultural traditions of marriage may have many different meanings to many different people and that's just fine--you may choose to get married in a church while others may choose to get married while suspended nude from a bungee cord over a canyon (it's happened). Some may get married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas. My wife and I went to the courthouse and signed a form--then we went out for a nice dinner. That is the ceremonial part of marriage--it has NO LEGAL STANDING until the contract ("marriage license") is signed and properly-executed.

My position is that the marriage license is redundant as we already have a whole body of law that deals with agreements between citizens--it's called contract law. With the exception of offspring--which I'll get to in a moment--every single right, grant, and obligation accorded by government marriage can easily be accomplished through a simple, private contract. In today's world you could even download a template for $30, fill in the blanks and file it a way in your safety deposit box. In the unfortunate event of a dissolution of the contract, you've already got the terms spelled out as far as distribution of assets, etc..

As far as offspring are concerned, we also have a whole body of law in place to deal with that--paternity law is clear, as it should be: you make babies, they are your responsibility. When mommy and daddy get too selfish to stay together for the kids, then we have courts in place to consider the best outcome for the children--and these courts make the same rulings whether mommy and daddy are married or not--paternity is paternity.

Now, I understand that some people may not be comfortable with this because it places too much responsibility on the citizen. Well, do we want to live in freedom or do we not? Do we need the government nanny or can we go out there as responsible citizens in control of our own affairs? My guess? Most of us can. And just as now, some of us can't. Those people will always be there, and they will always burden us with their irresponsible behavior. Such is life, we deal with it and move on.

But if we truly want to restore government to its proper place in our constitutional republic, we need to take steps such as this to beat back the beast and make sure it does not consume too many more of our rights and resources. Government marriage is but one of many areas of life where the government has too much involvement in the citizens' daily lives.

So, to summarize my position, marriage is a cultural institution and the government should not be involved because those who wish to form financial unions are already free to do so contractually. HOWEVER -- if it IS going to be involved by maintaining a special kind of contract called a marriage license, it must do so EQUALLY across the board without regard to arbitrary criteria such as gender.

Because the government already intrudes far too much into our lives--in my view--and the more we can put it back in its proper place, the more able we are to truly enjoy the freedom that is our birthright--so long as we never forget that with freedom comes responsibility.

 

I stand corrected. I do see that you did answer the question a few pages back. I apologize for my oversight and have posted a reply above.

 

Thanks for the opinion. You fundamentally failed to address even a single point that offered.

#1 - If marriage is just a contract, which it is not, the part that matters is the combination of assets and the dissolution of assets ina divorce, the dissolution of a contract. Why would it be necessary to have legal process for all other contract disputes but not marriage?

#2 - As there are proven societal level benefots to stable marriages and the tradition nuclear family, why should the government offer equal benefit to all lifestyle choice? Or should they encourage through finance, decisions that make the most sense?

Like use tax credits to make gas efficient cares more attractive?

You cannot expect the government to formalize homosexual 'marriage' and then claim that everything is just silly regarding marriage. That is just silly.

 

That doesn't even make sense--grammatically or syntatctically--but I think you're trying to say that people should not be able to enter certain contracts if the basis of the contract is a whim of a minority? I'm sorry, but I have some bad news for you--they already can. You may consider reading up on a little contract law just to make sure you know what you're talking about here.

Is that supposed to be a little slam? Based on your grammar, usage, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, syntax, and the general flow of your writing, I'd think that it is *I* who should be asking you that question. You also leave several uncorrected typos which is a sign of laziness--especially on a system with spell check, but I'll let that slide.

 

You are welcome.

There already is a process. A contract is a contract. All contract disputes are handled in the same way--in a court of law or settled out of court by mutual agreement. My suggestion would be for marriage contract signers to include an arbitration clause to keep it out of the courts--much fewer headaches and far less expense.

The government should offer no benefits simply because two people decide they want to live together under a contract. There would be no benefits other than the protection offered by the private contract. You want 5 kids? Fine--pay for them yourself.

Likewise, the government should not compel its citizens with the tax code.

Have you read any of this? I am not advocating for government to "formalize homosexual marriage" in this position statement! I am advocating for the DISSOLUTION of government marriage. Good lord man! Pay attention!

 

How? Will people stop getting married? Will finances and growing or lessing income be less complicated? Will custody issues with children suddenly stop? You think all divorces end up before the court?

I really think you have no idea what you are talking about B.

Why? Your opinion is noted. Why? That part is where you actually make your case.

The nuclear family, and by definition a stable monogamous hemosexual relationship, provide proven societal level benefits. If you can prove or disprove these benefits, THAT is the basis for support or non-support.

Really pretty simple.

It isn't just about opinions.

Yep, because government do not need money and should abandon all pretext to planning, organization, and leadership.

And what was that Gold Standard again? What is all this talk of equality before the law?

It just called changing goal posts. Got it.

 

OK. Fair enough. You prefer the leftist/big government solution whereas I opt for reliance on the citizen. Good to know where you stand. Good day...

 

I don't even see a "marriage" contract as being any different than any other partnership contract. The government's concern is predominately related to protecting the property Rights of the Individual even when it comes to children and then only if there is a dispute during dissolution, just like any other contract. It should not require a court order to desolve a marriage so long as those involved have no disputes.

I fully support the abolishment of the legal institution of marriage and allowing it to be purely a matter of contract law. Anyone that is of legal age and mental capacity to engage in a contract would be able to "marry" under contract law. There would be no discrimination.

But that isn't the question on the table today. The question is about same-sex marriage, or more accurately the prohibition of same-sex marriage, under the law. As the Courts have found based upon evidence presented in Court the prohibitions against same-sex marriage deny those involved the equal protection under the law as required by the 14th Amendment. This is only a single issue similiar to the case in Loving v Virginia where race was an unconstitutional discriminating factor. Race, religion, sexual preference, ethnic and/or national origins have nothing to do with whether two people love each other and want to spend their lives together in a partnership. People love each other because they love each other and that is their business, not the business of the government.

Today we address same-sex marriage and it is only one form of discrimination under the law related to marriage. The discrimination needs to end and that is obvious. The limited solution is to include same-sex marriages under the law while the comprehensive solution is to abolish the legal institution of marriage completely and allow all partnerships to be treated as a matter of contract law.

 

As long as I've been around this site, I don't recall seeing an extensive debate over the efficacy of contract philosophy itself. Christopher Hitchens said "This is the age of Hobbes." I think he meant this as a compliment. Many people accept the primacy of the contract without having given any serious thought to the ideas upon which it rests. There are a number of approaches to contract philosophy and I think they all have problems that should be acknowledged if not answered.

 

not bad

but a marriage has a bride and groom issue for procreation aspect of the bonding for the possibility of creating a child.

ie... marriage is of a man and women

so rather than same sex couples pursuing a 'marriage' than a legal contract is perfect. Same; if this issue is not resolved reguarding 'marriage' as the term is of man and women, then perhaps pursue changing the ideology of marriage with an additional type of contract between 2 people, irregardless of the gender.

I could agree on this.

no such thing as 'same-sex marriage except to the liars who continue to suggest that each and everyone CANNOT be married to the opposite sex.

ie... marriage is of man and women and that fact is what the same sex'rs are not comprehending

to change the contract of a commitment to be of any sex, can already be done but to create a lie within the term 'marriage' is just stupid.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Exploitation of women is a totally separate issue, and the fact that you brought it up is dishonest, since your original question pertained to consenting adults. If the women are consenting, then they are not being exploited. In addition, I also support marriages of multiple men to a single woman, and multiple men and women together. As long as all parties involved are consenting adults, I don't care how many there are or what they do.

If multiple women married to the same man somehow start being exploited at any point during the marriage (not at the start, otherwise why consent), then there are already laws to take care of that. Support of thing A, which could possibly have a consequence of X, does not imply that X is also supported or accepted. That is completely illogical.

I also support legalized prostitution (and no, that doesn't mean I would do it, just that I support the right for others who consent to do as they wish). Sometimes, human trafficking and prostitution are intertwined. This certainly does not mean that I also accept or support human trafficking.

 

This argument again fails as it has so many times in the past. While certainly procreation is a part of some marriages, both in the legal and social context, it is not applicable to all. A universal statement cannot be made when it is only partially applicable.

Many couples marry simply because they love each other and never have children. There is no difference between an opposite-sex couple that chooses to marry and not have children and a same-sex couple that chooses to marry and not have children. They must be treated identically under the law.

Also being ignored that having a child isn't really as important as raising a child. Since both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are raising children they they need to be addressed identically under the law.

 

BS. While certainly exploitation has occurred, just as spousal abuse occurs in monogamous marriage, that does not imply that all monogamous marriages include spousal abuse or that all polygamous marriages include exploitation of women.

The legal institution of marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the "Christian" (or religious) institution of marriage which is a social institution.

 

IMO it is folks like you that do that with your promotion of so-called 'gay-marriage.'

On the contrary, marriage (as defined between a man and woman) creates a strong society and contributes greatly to the economy. Frankly, adding homosexual marriage would needlessly expand the government intrusion.

 

Another unsupported and false statement. The legal institution of marriage does not contribute to a "strong society" (whatever that's supposed to mean) and certainly doesn't have any impact on the economy.

One is simply forced to ask how discrimination under the law in any way makes a "strong society" or contributes to the economy? Doesn't the denial of equal protection under the law create a negative impact on society?

 

the failure is the with the fool that dont comprehend the term marriage and what it was initial for: lineage protection

It wasnt based on LOVE. So if historical arguments are what you want to go back to, then you will lose, again; as oooosual

we all know the term has evolved

i agree

the law is not about couples. it is about individuals and the institution of marriage is about a 'man and a women'

the NEw NEW NEW evolution is the idiots want to make men as 'wives' (brides) and women as grooms (husbands) which is an abuse of the insititution of marriage

again, no one needs to be married to be in LOVE

the chicken did not come before the egg

the importance is the integrity to the argument and step ONE is that a child should comprehend that NORMAL child formations come from a male and female copulation and not the same sex copulation as that is impossible

ie.... the children should NEVER be lied too about what is NORMAL for life to procreate

the law enables each individual equality. The idiots either just cant read or like what your posts renders are just being obtuse to the issue no matter how facts and reality presents itself.


You and i both know the bigots are the idiots who are abusing the institution of marriage for selfish purposes, Whether it is for same sex or for marrying just for tax benefits and have no intent of procreation (child (another mouth) to feed)


the problem with your posting and argument is you must lie to yourself to sustain your opinion/bias