What Should Marriage Be?

[Federal Farmer]

Because, the concept of a legal "marriage" was to ensure the legitimacy of the children of the union for inheritance of land and wealth. Without a "legal" heir, the land and money could be seized by the state instead of being passed down to the children. Since, by definition, homosexuality precludes the possibility of unassisted reproduction, there can be no children as a result of the union, ergo, no need for a legal union.

EDIT: Oh, and BTW, I am not a member of any church, fundamentalist or otherwise.

 

[SW85]

The only people though that are fighting against gay marriage is the fundamentalist churches. So how could this NOT be about religion. Why should not two men, or two woman, be as happy or as miserable as the rest of us.

Because marriage isn't about promoting happiness or misery?

 

[Dr.Who]

The only people though that are fighting against gay marriage is the fundamentalist churches. So how could this NOT be about religion. Why should not two men, or two woman, be as happy or as miserable as the rest of us.

Just not true.

Even in California a majority of people are against gay marriage. All sorts of people are against gay marriage. It is just too black and white to paint all these diverse people as fundamentalists (a small percent of the population). That is just another bigoted label the way it was used.

 

[poptart]

But they are the most upset, and most organized in the fight against it. Thats what I meant.

 

[numinus]

As for the rest, I agree with at least this much of it, get the government completely out of personal relationships. No more "marriages" to be recognized by the government at all. One good thing about this will be, especially since women are now "equal" (in some alternative universe maybe ), when a couple breaks up, if she takes the kids, she keeps the kids, and raises them on her own, with NO CHILD SUPPORT, NO ALIMONY, NO WELFARE, NO FOOD STAMPS, NO WIC, NO NOTHING! Yup, getting the government out of the way will be a REALLY good thing, and will save the taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars every year taking care of a bunch of craven slut brood cows who automatically fall over backwards with their feet in the air every time the conversation dries up.

Now, someone was saying....what?

Except that the majority of the world's governments, including the us, are signatories on the protocols of the rights of children.

And the rights of children are intimately intertwined to the natural family.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Except that the majority of the world's governments, including the us, are signatories on the protocols of the rights of children.

And the rights of children are intimately intertwined to the natural family.

That is not an "exception" in any way. One can have a natural family whether or not it is a state sanctioned "marriage". In fact, until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the vast majority of marriages were simply religious ceremonies and had no state sanction at all, and they worked quite well, thank you very much. The children of those marriages turned out quite well, and became healthy productive members of their societies without the UN or any other governmental body intruding. The only thing that government did was horn in on an eons old tradition in order to extract their tribute.

Oh, and BTW, the UN is a major clusterf*ck, and needs to be disbanded immediately.

 

[numinus]

That is not an "exception" in any way. One can have a natural family whether or not it is a state sanctioned "marriage". In fact, until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the vast majority of marriages were simply religious ceremonies and had no state sanction at all, and they worked quite well, thank you very much. The children of those marriages turned out quite well, and became healthy productive members of their societies without the UN or any other governmental body intruding. The only thing that government did was horn in on an eons old tradition in order to extract their tribute.

So, what you are saying is that a religious institution works for a very secular purpose? Makes perfect sense.

Oh, and believe me, the un protocols for the protection of children is VERY necessary.

Oh, and BTW, the UN is a major clusterf*ck, and needs to be disbanded immediately.

And why might that be, hmmm?

Because the un tempers the self-interest of powerful nations to do as they wish on undeveloped ones? Perhaps you are refering to the threat of nuclear annihilation imposed on other nations wishing to have nukes? I never took you for a shoolyard bully.

 

[Federal Farmer]

So, what you are saying is that a religious institution works for a very secular purpose? Makes perfect sense.

Not at all, only pointing out that the seculars jumped all over a religious institution once they realized that they could make a buck off of it. But then again, that's a very secular thing to do, scream about some mythical "separation of church and state" out one side of their mouths, and then claim some "right" to profit off of it out of the other. If the secularists were being honest about it, they wouldn't want to take any of the money that's been 'tainted' by the "religious fanatics".

Oh, and believe me, the un protocols for the protection of children is VERY necessary.

Oh really, and how is that? So that they can sit on their butts in New York and condemn someone, but never bother to actually DO anything about the abusers? If the UN really gave a rat's a$$ about "the children", they'd have been behind our plans to depose Saddam Insane looonnnggg before we went into Iraq in '03 because it was Saddam who was starving those same said children, along with their mothers, by giving the money from the oil for food program to TERRORISTS?

What about all of the children in Darfur? Where are the UN troops riding to the rescue there? What about Rwanda? What about ANYWHERE? Nope,
too much wailing, crying, and gnashing of teeth, and too little action for my taste. Oh, and one other thing, too many penny ante dictators stealing the food and medicine from all of the charitable organizations that's intended for the children. When was the last time the UN actually got anything done? That would be.......NEVER.

And why might that be, hmmm?

Because the un tempers the self-interest of powerful nations to do as they wish on undeveloped ones? Perhaps you are refering to the threat of nuclear annihilation imposed on other nations wishing to have nukes? I never took you for a shoolyard bully.

You'll have to do a lot better than that numinus. The UN is a complete waste of time, energy, and money. See above for a primary example.

 

[numinus]

Not at all, only pointing out that the seculars jumped all over a religious institution once they realized that they could make a buck off of it. But then again, that's a very secular thing to do, scream about some mythical "separation of church and state" out one side of their mouths, and then claim some "right" to profit off of it out of the other. If the secularists were being honest about it, they wouldn't want to take any of the money that's been 'tainted' by the "religious fanatics".

That is a stretch. The truth is, marriage has a very secular purpose -- it is the basis of the fundamental group unit of society. That is the reason why the state promulgates laws governing marriage. It is NECESSARY.

Oh really, and how is that? So that they can sit on their butts in New York and condemn someone, but never bother to actually DO anything about the abusers? If the UN really gave a rat's a$$ about "the children", they'd have been behind our plans to depose Saddam Insane looonnnggg before we went into Iraq in '03 because it was Saddam who was starving those same said children, along with their mothers, by giving the money from the oil for food program to TERRORISTS?

What about all of the children in Darfur? Where are the UN troops riding to the rescue there? What about Rwanda? What about ANYWHERE? Nope,
too much wailing, crying, and gnashing of teeth, and too little action for my taste. Oh, and one other thing, too many penny ante dictators stealing the food and medicine from all of the charitable organizations that's intended for the children. When was the last time the UN actually got anything done? That would be.......NEVER.

I'm sorry but you are barking at the wrong tree. The un protocols for the protection of children and their rights provides for a basic framework for all member states to provide legislation according to its principles. These principles are the most universally reconizeable in view of the number of countries who agree to them -- even more universal than the declaration of human rights.

I do not see how such a declaration is bad. And the fact that atrocities against children still occur in some parts of the world makes the declaration all the more imperative. Obviously, there is a need for more immediate and radical action -- often times more pressing than diplomatic considerations. I would be the first to agree with you in this regard.

You'll have to do a lot better than that numinus. The UN is a complete waste of time, energy, and money. See above for a primary example.

I'm afraid it is you who have to do a lot better than that.

Frankly, I find your other posts quite reasonable. That is why your opinion here comes as a surprise. Do you consider american jurisprudence a waste of time just because crime still persists? Same banana, isn't it?

 

[Federal Farmer]

That is a stretch. The truth is, marriage has a very secular purpose -- it is the basis of the fundamental group unit of society. That is the reason why the state promulgates laws governing marriage. It is NECESSARY.

What about all of the couples who have never 'formalized' their marriage? A very good friend of mine and his wife have been together almost as long as my wife and I have, the only difference is that they never bothered to go buy a license from the government. Is their "marriage" any less valid than mine?

I'm sorry but you are barking at the wrong tree. The un protocols for the protection of children and their rights provides for a basic framework for all member states to provide legislation according to its principles. These principles are the most universally reconizeable in view of the number of countries who agree to them -- even more universal than the declaration of human rights.

If they are so "universally recognized", then why was a declaration necessary in the first place? I'm sorry numinus, but the UN simply does no good. They talk and talk and talk and never DO anything, so all of their "declarations" and "resolutions" and all the rest of it are so much hot air, and nothing more.

I do not see how such a declaration is bad. And the fact that atrocities against children still occur in some parts of the world makes the declaration all the more imperative. Obviously, there is a need for more immediate and radical action -- often times more pressing than diplomatic considerations. I would be the first to agree with you in this regard.

Fine, then we agree, something needs to be done, but the UN isn't going to do it, now or ever, so they are WORTHLESS.

I'm afraid it is you who have to do a lot better than that.

Frankly, I find your other posts quite reasonable. That is why your opinion here comes as a surprise. Do you consider american jurisprudence a waste of time just because crime still persists? Same banana, isn't it?

Not at all. In America we ARE doing something about crime, the UN isn't, doesn't, never has, and never will. How many resolutions did they have on Saddam before the US finally got tired of sitting around and DID something about that little P.O.S.? And even when we did, the UN had the temerity to complain about it! The UN is nothing but a ladies coffee klatch, all they do is sit around and talk about what's going on, but they never DO anything, and when somebody DOES do something, then they sit around talking about how much better they could have done it, or how it should have been done differently.

It's no different than when my kids were coming up, they'd be acting up like children will do, and my wife would sit around complaining about it, but when I finally DID something to correct their behavior (like applying the "board of education to the seat of learning", then she complained about the way I did it. So my attitude about the UN is the same as what I told her, if you don't like the way I do it, then next time STFU and DO something about it yourself, but I don't want to hear a bunch of whining and crying about it! To me, the UN is nothing but a bunch of women sitting on their fat a$$es and complaining, and I don't have the time, tolerance, or patience for it. You either DO something, or STFU about it.

 

[numinus]

What about all of the couples who have never 'formalized' their marriage? A very good friend of mine and his wife have been together almost as long as my wife and I have, the only difference is that they never bothered to go buy a license from the government. Is their "marriage" any less valid than mine?

Not at all. The state is obligated to protect the fundamental group unit of society. If it does not need protection in the case of your couple friends, then good for them. Sadly, not all marriages are like that. What is even sadder is that children who had no say in the marriage to begin with are the people most affected by its dissolution.

If they are so "universally recognized", then why was a declaration necessary in the first place? I'm sorry numinus, but the UN simply does no good. They talk and talk and talk and never DO anything, so all of their "declarations" and "resolutions" and all the rest of it are so much hot air, and nothing more.

This isn't a very good counter-argument. Same can be said about the american declaration of independence and the constitution that came about from it.

Did it ever occur to you why the self-evident truth emboddied in them needed to be said?

Fine, then we agree, something needs to be done, but the UN isn't going to do it, now or ever, so they are WORTHLESS.

Something done in behalf of the whole of humanity should be done by the whole of humanity. Anything less is absurd -- as absurd as the us effort to establish a democracy in the middle east at gun point.

Not at all. In America we ARE doing something about crime, the UN isn't, doesn't, never has, and never will. How many resolutions did they have on Saddam before the US finally got tired of sitting around and DID something about that little P.O.S.? And even when we did, the UN had the temerity to complain about it! The UN is nothing but a ladies coffee klatch, all they do is sit around and talk about what's going on, but they never DO anything, and when somebody DOES do something, then they sit around talking about how much better they could have done it, or how it should have been done differently.

Hmmm.

I was under the impression that democracy is about building a consensus. It doesn't quite work if someone goes out blazing on its own, now, does it?

It's no different than when my kids were coming up, they'd be acting up like children will do, and my wife would sit around complaining about it, but when I finally DID something to correct their behavior (like applying the "board of education to the seat of learning", then she complained about the way I did it. So my attitude about the UN is the same as what I told her, if you don't like the way I do it, then next time STFU and DO something about it yourself, but I don't want to hear a bunch of whining and crying about it! To me, the UN is nothing but a bunch of women sitting on their fat a$$es and complaining, and I don't have the time, tolerance, or patience for it. You either DO something, or STFU about it.

Democracy is a drag? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Federal Farmer]

Not at all. The state is obligated to protect the fundamental group unit of society. If it does not need protection in the case of your couple friends, then good for them. Sadly, not all marriages are like that. What is even sadder is that children who had no say in the marriage to begin with are the people most affected by its dissolution.

It's not the governments job to protect marriage, of any type or description. As a matter of fact, unless there's something in Article 1 Section 8 that I've missed, ANY intrusion on the part of the government into ANY relationship is strictly UN-Constitutional on it's face, including taking care of the children.

This isn't a very good counter-argument. Same can be said about the american declaration of independence and the constitution that came about from it.

Did it ever occur to you why the self-evident truth emboddied in them needed to be said?

Two entirely different subjects. The founding of our nation demanded a specific set of rules for our government to operate under, as at that point in time, we could have adopted any form of government. There were those suggesting a Monarchy, some were advocating a Democracy, still others (the majority in this case) were advocating for a Constitutional Representative Republic, which is what we have today, so the charter for our government, the Constitution and B.O.R., were drawn up to specify what type of government we were going to have, and to define the limits of that government. As it stands now, we have our government formed, and taking care of "the children" isn't any part of it. That responsibility falls to the people who brought them into this world, and if they can't hack it, there are plenty of PRIVATE organizations who can assist them, or even take the children off of their hands if they don't want to take care of the responsibility any longer.

Something done in behalf of the whole of humanity should be done by the whole of humanity. Anything less is absurd -- as absurd as the us effort to establish a democracy in the middle east at gun point.

The last time I checked, we weren't trying to establish anything in the ME, at gun point or otherwise. The Iraqi people decided what form of government they wanted to have (and it's not a "democracy"), and since the adoption of their Constitution, we have remained in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government. If, at any time, they wish us to depart, all they have to do is tell us to leave, and we will have no choice but to comply.

As far as something being done on behalf of the whole of humanity being done by all of humanity, again, you've failed to comprehend the most salient fact of the equation, that being that the UN HASN'T, AND WON'T DO ANYTHING, which renders your entire stance moot. WHEN the UN decides to stand up and DO something, I might begin to develop a modicum of respect for them, especially if they do it without the United States shouldering the majority of the cost, manpower, and equipment, but until such time as they do, they're still nothing but a bunch of whiny a$$ed little girls crying about how mean the big bad world is.

Hmmm.

I was under the impression that democracy is about building a consensus. It doesn't quite work if someone goes out blazing on its own, now, does it?

Democracy is a drag? Is that what you are saying?

Democracy is nothing but 'mob rule' where 51% can subjugate 49% with the stroke of a pen. Democracy is the absolute worst form of government there is. Also, 'consensus' is a bold-faced lie, since only the ones being asked form the 'consensus' to the express exclusion of all who oppose the proposal, which is why anthropogenic CO2 induced GW is such a joke. The IPCC only included those scientists in their 'consensus' who agreed with them, and intentionally excluded all of the scientists who disagreed. So much for 'consensus'. Also, if the UN forms a 'consensus' without the US, they can go for it on their own, with their own money, their own troops, and their own equipment, and take care of every child in the world (except here in the US that is), and THEN I might begin to believe anything that they have to say, but until then, they're all show and no go.

Look, in case you haven't figured it out by now, I really don't give a rip about "the children". I raised mine, and I'm helping to raise 3 of my grandchildren, as well as doing my part with my 2 God sons, so I've got all of "the children" I can handle right now. If YOU'RE so damned worried about "the children", then why don't you get out there and take care of them yourself and leave me alone. While you're at it, and if you really care so much about "the children", get your hands out of my pockets, because you're stealing money from MY grandchildren and MY God sons, which means that you're HURTING "the children".

 

[numinus]

It's not the governments job to protect marriage, of any type or description. As a matter of fact, unless there's something in Article 1 Section 8 that I've missed, ANY intrusion on the part of the government into ANY relationship is strictly UN-Constitutional on it's face, including taking care of the children.

Protection does not mean intrusion. You are free to exercise your right to marry whomever you wish -- subject to the legal form attendant to it.

Two entirely different subjects. The founding of our nation demanded a specific set of rules for our government to operate under, as at that point in time, we could have adopted any form of government. There were those suggesting a Monarchy, some were advocating a Democracy, still others (the majority in this case) were advocating for a Constitutional Representative Republic, which is what we have today, so the charter for our government, the Constitution and B.O.R., were drawn up to specify what type of government we were going to have, and to define the limits of that government. As it stands now, we have our government formed, and taking care of "the children" isn't any part of it. That responsibility falls to the people who brought them into this world, and if they can't hack it, there are plenty of PRIVATE organizations who can assist them, or even take the children off of their hands if they don't want to take care of the responsibility any longer.

They are no different in that the us and the un are both political organizations -- hence subject to the principles on which they were established in the first place.

And as far as human rights are concerned, especially regarding persons who are incapable of protecting their own interests, it is the obligation of the state to protect them, AGAIN, based on the principles on which the state was established.

The last time I checked, we weren't trying to establish anything in the ME, at gun point or otherwise. The Iraqi people decided what form of government they wanted to have (and it's not a "democracy"), and since the adoption of their Constitution, we have remained in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government. If, at any time, they wish us to depart, all they have to do is tell us to leave, and we will have no choice but to comply.

You could have fooled me! No less than the american president, the commander-in-chief of the us military, says otherwise.

As far as something being done on behalf of the whole of humanity being done by all of humanity, again, you've failed to comprehend the most salient fact of the equation, that being that the UN HASN'T, AND WON'T DO ANYTHING, which renders your entire stance moot. WHEN the UN decides to stand up and DO something, I might begin to develop a modicum of respect for them, especially if they do it without the United States shouldering the majority of the cost, manpower, and equipment, but until such time as they do, they're still nothing but a bunch of whiny a$$ed little girls crying about how mean the big bad world is.

Of course the un has done a lot of good. It has been the mouthpiece of the us government and private citizens in criticizing other nations on human rights. Nations have been put under sanctions by it.

Oh, and as far as costs are concerned, I do not see anyone criticizing the permanent membership of the us in the security council. The us is there simply because it is the most powerful nation in the world. As if anyone forced the us its un membership in the first place.

Democracy is nothing but 'mob rule' where 51% can subjugate 49% with the stroke of a pen. Democracy is the absolute worst form of government there is. Also, 'consensus' is a bold-faced lie, since only the ones being asked form the 'consensus' to the express exclusion of all who oppose the proposal, which is why anthropogenic CO2 induced GW is such a joke. The IPCC only included those scientists in their 'consensus' who agreed with them, and intentionally excluded all of the scientists who disagreed. So much for 'consensus'. Also, if the UN forms a 'consensus' without the US, they can go for it on their own, with their own money, their own troops, and their own equipment, and take care of every child in the world (except here in the US that is), and THEN I might begin to believe anything that they have to say, but until then, they're all show and no go.

Are you talking about global warming? Its a big leap from the thread topic, wouldn't you say so? There is a difference between democracy and mob rule. If it were a mob rule, then there would be no need for the three main branches of government. Everything can be decided based on opinion polls.

Look, in case you haven't figured it out by now, I really don't give a rip about "the children". I raised mine, and I'm helping to raise 3 of my grandchildren, as well as doing my part with my 2 God sons, so I've got all of "the children" I can handle right now. If YOU'RE so damned worried about "the children", then why don't you get out there and take care of them yourself and leave me alone. While you're at it, and if you really care so much about "the children", get your hands out of my pockets, because you're stealing money from MY grandchildren and MY God sons, which means that you're HURTING "the children".

I have no intentions of putting my hands in your pockets. And I suppose you are sore about your payment of your marriage license? What else are you sore about? Driving license? Business license? Income taxes? Any of the payments made to government to insure its continued function?

 

[Federal Farmer]

Protection does not mean intrusion. You are free to exercise your right to marry whomever you wish -- subject to the legal form attendant to it.

Again; Perhaps you can show me the salient part of the Constitution that grants the government the Right to regulate marriage, and impose such a legal form on We The People? No? Didn't think so, ergo they are intruding.

They are no different in that the us and the un are both political organizations -- hence subject to the principles on which they were established in the first place.

Sorry, no cigar. One is a GOVERNMENTAL government, one is a Ladies Coffee Klatch.

And as far as human rights are concerned, especially regarding persons who are incapable of protecting their own interests, it is the obligation of the state to protect them, AGAIN, based on the principles on which the state was established.

Again, show me where in the US Constitution it grants the government the "Right" to intrude into a families business, even if it is "for the children". It simply does not exist.

You could have fooled me! No less than the american president, the commander-in-chief of the us military, says otherwise.

Well then, you've been fooled. We only provided THEM with the opportunity to establish their own government. We didn't establish anything.

Of course the un has done a lot of good. It has been the mouthpiece of the us government and private citizens in criticizing other nations on human rights. Nations have been put under sanctions by it.

Oooh, and what good have these "sanctions" done, other than to starve the very children you seem so concerned about? A mouthpiece? What a load of tripe. We don't need the UN to be a platform of us, if we want to tell someone something, we tell them.

Oh, and as far as costs are concerned, I do not see anyone criticizing the permanent membership of the us in the security council. The us is there simply because it is the most powerful nation in the world. As if anyone forced the us its un membership in the first place.

Ducking the point I see. Care to try again?

Are you talking about global warming? Its a big leap from the thread topic, wouldn't you say so? There is a difference between democracy and mob rule. If it were a mob rule, then there would be no need for the three main branches of government. Everything can be decided based on opinion polls.

We are NOT a "democracy", we are a Constitutional Representative Republic. And if you'll notice, the more people talk about "democracy" the closer we get to mob rule. Haven't you noticed that in the past few decades, how so many people are complaining because the popular vote doesn't count in Presidential elections? Mob Rule.

I have no intentions of putting my hands in your pockets. And I suppose you are sore about your payment of your marriage license? What else are you sore about? Driving license? Business license? Income taxes? Any of the payments made to government to insure its continued function?

If you're telling me that the UN is somehow a good thing, without providing any proof in support of that specious argument, you ARE putting your hand in my pocket, because it's people like you, and your un-constitutional hacks in Washington DC, who raise my taxes to support the UN.

Marriage license? Show me where in the Constitution it gives the government the right to in any way regulate it, and I'll support their "license", but until then, yes I will complain about their un-constitutional activities.

Drivers licenses? Not at all. The Constitution specifically grants the government the right to establish the "post roads", and as such, they have the right to regulate the use of the "post roads". It also grants them the right to regulate interstate commerce, so again, Completely Constitutional.

Business licenses? For businesses doing business only in their own community (like mine does), completely un-constitutional. If a business engages in business across State lines (like a business I worked for at one time), then their licenses are covered by the interstate commerce clause, and are completely constitutional.

Income taxes are covered under the 16th Amendment. What I will complain about though is the fact that my tax dollars are being spent on so many things that are blatantly un-constitutional ON THEIR FACE.

Payments to the government for it's continual operation are fine, but only so long as those payments are strictly for those functions specifically enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Any other expenditure is purely un-constitutional ON IT'S FACE.

 

[SW85]

Again; Perhaps you can show me the salient part of the Constitution that grants the government the Right to regulate marriage, and impose such a legal form on We The People? No? Didn't think so, ergo they are intruding.

Maybe you can point out the relevant bits of civil or common law in which the government "imposes" marriage on anyone?

If marriage is indeed a contract, all parties (including the state) must enter into it voluntarily -- if people were compelled to marry, the marriage contract would be void on grounds of duress, no?