We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
I know, it's an unfamiliar concept to you.objective reality ?
I know, it's an unfamiliar concept to you.
Thanks, but it's not just my idea. The Constitution does not contain a provision for marriage, so the Founding Fathers then did not intend for the government to have that power. At least not the federal government.Interesting idea Jez. I'm not sure I agree with you, but I certainly don't disagree with you about the government needing to stay out of our bedrooms.
No, and they technically don't have the power to begin with.How would this work practically speaking? Should government officials still have the power to marry couples?
Should stopping them be the responsibility of the government? Why? They're weird, but is victimless weirdness really cause for government censure? If they're boinking their pets, we already have laws that protect the rights of animals.If government has no power in who can and can't marry, what's to stop the people who want to marry inanimate objects or pets? Should they be stopped?
Without parental consent? We already have laws about sex with minors as well. According to our existing (nonmarital) laws, minors are not allowed to make decisions like that without their parents' consent.What about someone wanting to marry a minor - with or without parental consent?
Yes, but the tax system is another one that has gone far outside the realm of what is allowed.Jez, would you then agree that tax breaks for married couples should be eliminated and everyone taxed purely as individuals?
Private businesses are free to choose to alter (or not) their rates based on whatever they want, including marital status.And how would that also affect, say, company insurance plans that cover families of employees?
That is a huge consideration, but it isn't excuse enough to continue on the same wrong path, or make it worse through even more intrusions (like gay marriage laws).I also agree it isn't something in which the Government should stick it's nose, but its nose is already in and to pull it out would have many ramifications.
I would vote against legislation allowing gay marriage.
The government does not have the power, constitutionally, to dictate who can and who cannot marry--gay, straight, polygamous, or otherwise. By granting the government the power to allow gay marriage, we are granting the government the right to disallow marriages as well. Allowing the government to run outside its constitutional bounds to grant marriage between straight couples was the first wrong move. Allowing the government to run further outside the bounds of their power is just another wrong step.
The question should not be, "Should the government allow gay marriage?" The fight should not be for expanding the government's power outside of its constitutional bounds even further. The fight should be about correcting the previous wrong of ever allowing government to overstep its power and begin dictating who is allowed to marry and who is not allowed to marry. Marriage is none of the government's business.
Yes, and the rights of every other possible marriage combination that isn't one human male and one human female are also denied. Had the government never gotten involved, no one's rights on this matter would have been denied.The problem with this argument is that in the meantime gay adults are denied a fundamental right to marry until we figure out how to disentangle the government from its role in sanctioning marriage.
Can a man marry a real doll girl? Can a woman marry five men? Can a man marry his cat? If aliens came to earth, could a human marry an alien? Etc. Under the current system, none of these groupings are on the white list, so all of these groupings are by default banned until they make and win their individual fight.How does the government "dictate who is allowed to marry and who is not allowed to marry" besides not allowing two gay adults to do so?
No, it is not.This is less about an expansion of government power than it is about an expansion of gay rights. A fear of an increase in government power (and why it follows that that is always a negative) at the expense of a particular group of people is placing value in the abstract over the apparent.
Yes, and the rights of every other possible marriage combination that isn't one human male and one human female are also denied.
If you fight to allow gay marriage, then you are only fighting for one group while denying other groups even longer.
If you fight to remove government from where it constitutionally does not belong, then you are fighting a shorter fight. You're cutting off an arm, I'm suggesting cutting off the head. Your approach necessitates that each new group will have to fight for their inclusion on a government white list. My approach would deny no group the right.
Can a man marry a real doll girl? Can a woman marry five men? Can a man marry his cat? If aliens came to earth, could a human marry an alien? Etc. Under the current system, none of these groupings are on the white list, so all of these groupings are by default banned until they make and win their individual fight.
Can a man marry a real doll girl?
Can a woman marry five men?
Can a man marry his cat?
If aliens came to earth, could a human marry an alien?
Is it? Ok, what about human/non-human pairings?The human part is a given.
I listed them. There are also all the unknown pairings/groupings that may come up in the future. I'm not sexually deviant, so I have trouble fathoming what some other people might want to marry. Regardless, they're all banned until they start and win their individual fight.Who? What groups are you talking about?
I answered the "new groups" above and previously.What are these "new groups?" I see what you mean here by getting government out of it entirely, but I'm not sure it's realistic. Other than not allowing two gay adults to marry the government does not regulate who marries who to nearly the extent you suggest. I'm not clear what a government "white list" is. Again, who is currently being denied the right to marry?
The pandora's box argument. What exactly is ambiguous about two consenting adults?
No, the relationship will blow up.
No, she would go crazy and kill them after a week of picking up after them, and don't even bring up their inability to hit the hamper.
Yes, an angry feline with its claws out is no different than...oh wait...I mean......:whistling:
Three words:
Lisa Marie, Michael
Is it? Ok, what about human/non-human pairings?