Why is the government in marriage at all?

Before you moderators move this thread, just read this statement. If the government should not get into marriage, then gay marriage is wrong, so this can be considered an attack thread on gay marriage.

What benefits does government marriage afford a couple? Why have it at all? How does it help create a stable household? How does it affect the children?

 

Marriage serves to protect the family unit. It affords rights and benefits to the spouses. It ensures that the children's custody is ensured in the event of one parents death. It provides many benefits, responsibilities, and protections in one easily identifiable and obtainable package.

That is why marriage is so important. It is an essential building block of society. The precedent has been set that marriage is a fundamental human right. Moreover we have seen studies that assert that children of married couples do better than those of single or unmarried people. For these reason it is important that homosexuals should have the right to marry. At its core it serves to strengthen the couple, monogamy, and the country as a whole.

 

but there exists today, contracts which can accomplish all that you stated. So, there is no valid reason why govt should be involved in marriage.

 

Government is involved in marriage because of legal issues dealing with property, tax and immigration primarily. Less importantly it is involved because of social and political issues. If the government had no say in what a marriage was, and what it entitled partners to expect, this role would be left to individuals who could write marriage contracts (as limited by current human rights laws) as they wished. Gay marriage would be legal as would polygamy or any personal union between consenting adults. Resulting in chaos for our courts who would be left to decide who had legal rights to property, resulting children and other related issues when these unions fail.

 

If you want to extract government from the marriage process, please start that movement now. Otherwise, I'm sure you'll be very old/dead before (or if ever) the government will have no interest in marriage.

 

Well stated, valid and reasonable points made.

 

Well, you had me until that last sentence. First off, its children of married heterosexual couples that do better. And studies that examine the children raised by their married, biological parents show they do better than children who are not. Secondly, its the building block of society, because it is the building block of the nuclear family. Mothers and fathers raising the children they have created. Has nothing to do with homosexual couples. Two gay guys, married or not, no children are born. Married lesbian couple, one of them gets pregnant, the other has no obligations to that child. No rights of custody to her partners child. Marriage does nothing for a gay couples children in the event one of them dies.

Marriage only creates parental rights and obligations in the case of a man married to a woman who gives birth to a child while he is married to her. Cant fit a square peg into a round hole.

gender isnt neutral
§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY.
(a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;.......

Gays want all the tax breaks and governmental entitlements that heterosexual get, but they will never be subjected to the obligations marriage imposes upon husbands in regards to the children his wife bears.

 

presumption of paternity does nothing for your argument(as you well know). it's not binding. if daddy isn't the daddy, he has no responsibility.

 

Since my argument is that the law doesnt apply in the case of a gay couple, it demonstrates my argument very nicely. As usual, you dont comprehend my arguments. Or is it that you cant comprehend the impossibility of the statute applying in the case of same sex couples? The frequency with which it applies to heterosexual couples is irrelevant to the fact that it never applies in the case of a same sex couple.

 

Actually, at this point people realize you're just being disruptive. Your mention of "procreation" (in any aspect), is not useful and it is also annoying.

It's just about equivalent to "trolling".

 

No, its the equivalent of an argument you have no response to. And it was Osiris that brought up children, their wellbeing and custody arrangements. Childre, ALWAYS follow procreation. Cant have one without the other. But your right in that gays are doing everything they can to ensure that any relation between marriage and procreation be dismantled. Destroy any preference in the law for fathers and mothers raising he children theyve created, al because it offends the gays who dont want to participate. Like selfish, spoiled children.

 

since all of this is merely opinion based threads then the opinion of dixon is no more right or wrong than your opinion

I understand that introducing natural procreation leaves a gaping hole in the gay movement but it's an entirely different topic

I view gay marriage as nothing more than a group who does not wish to utilize the existing contract laws available to accomplish what they seek.

 

Want to bet on that? Not all opinions are of equal value or accuracy; most people realize that.

It's not relevant, unless any given law or interest of government demands or prohibits the same. dixon throws out "procreation" as NOISE... that is its function when he uses the term. Many are rightly annoyed by it.

But I agree, it is his right to share his opinion.

And that isn't reality, it is YOUR OPINION. As long as that distinction is made, then that is upon YOU... not what others must regard or live by. See the very important distinction?

How can homosexual couples (who seek to marry the MOST compatible person) "utilize" present marriage contract laws when they do not allow them to?

 

My opinions mirror those of dozens of court cases across the country. His mirrors that of about 4. My opinion mirrors the current day law in 44 states, his mirrors the law in 6. And his only response is that my arguments are irrelevant, when CLEARLY my arguments are more than 7 times as relevant as his.

 

You IMAGINE that your opinions are what they are; not all agree with you.

Looking forward dixon, not back to the 20th century.

Now, do you think that the government should have nothing to do with marriage?

 

No, I was referring to the present. Not the 20th century and not the future world you have imagined. My view has relevance in this world. Yours in some future world you have imagined.

 

What you're saying isn't reiterative to arguments of the present; I think that's pretty clear.

 

44-6 in the present.

 

but opinions still. One could also point to prop 8 and many more.

Govt needs to get out of it entirely and just let us use contracts and no johnny, not marriage contracts. That would be joint ownerships etc which any 2 or more people can do.

WRT marriage, if you like the term and want it to be more than a cold contract, then that is when you envoke your religion or other entity in which both participate

 

Legally binding court precedent that has the effect of law.

I dont believe you can establsh paternity by contract.

 

I support Gay Marriage but I agree with some of the right wingers here that Govt shouldnt be involved in Marriage at all. When it comes to Gays in the Military then the Commander in Chief has the right to dictate how it goes as far as I am concerned.

But it should work both ways for marriage. Neither the State nor the Federal Government should be involved in Marriage at all. Neither to legalize or ban it.

Obviously things factor in like Marriage benefits and what not and so the Govt is going to get involved, but honestly I think going the route of having it on ballots and what not isnt really valid in this instance.

 

you are correct. It takes a male and a female to create a baby. Homosexual sex will never yield a baby.

But, if the role of govt is to have laws and rules which are fair and easy to follow (like it's ever happened) then they must view US citizens as simply individuals and not as individuals and also married couples.

If I choose to have a baby with a woman and stay with her all of my life, but never marry, why can't I take the child exemption?

 

yours is losing in FEDERAL court.