PDA

View Full Version : "New" Conservative Position Regarding Gay Marriage?



AJBIGJ
03-14-2013, 02:08 PM
I've been floating the idea for some time now, but I'm happy to see it might be growing some legs.

In principle, instead of changing the government's definition of marriage, why not change the government's role in "defining" marriage? (So it doesn't have to)

Looks like it may be a viable approach for the future, but I imagine the Rick Santorum variety of Republicans will be the hardest sell.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/03/41752-rand-paul-i-have-an-idea-for-republicans-concerning-the-gay-marriage-issue-and-its-a-good-one/

ThaBufe
03-14-2013, 02:30 PM
I have been wondering for a very long time why the federal government has any involvment whatsoever in marriage in the first place. Sounds like a good plan to me.

sandsjames
03-14-2013, 02:41 PM
I've been floating the idea for some time now, but I'm happy to see it might be growing some legs.

In principle, instead of changing the government's definition of marriage, why not change the government's role in "defining" marriage? (So it doesn't have to)

Looks like it may be a viable approach for the future, but I imagine the Rick Santorum variety of Republicans will be the hardest sell.



Funny you mention this as someone yesterday posted about the governments recent move to not make any decisions regarding anything (which is a good thing, except that it still continues to grow).

The failure to pass a budget so that a decision didn't have to be made on cuts. One other thing was mentioned as well (can't remember) where something was allowed to default to a position so that congress wouldn't have to make a decision.

This is another in line with that, and I think it's a very good thing. Government steps out of marriage altogether. I think the end result should be that as long as all involved are consenting adults then who cares? Whether it's same sex, several "spouses", or something else, if everyone in the relationship agrees to be in it, so bet it.

I'd like to point out that this doesn't mean I have to like the way someone lives, or agree with it. I still have the right to voice my opinion that marriage is between one man and one woman. My beliefs and choices should be respected just as the beliefs and choices of those who choose to go the "nontraditional" route should.

So to summarize, government stays out (to include benefits for ALL marriages) and lets people do what they are going to do. This way, it doesn't matter who recognizes what. The only people who need to recognize anything are the ones in the relationship. Everything is equal. Nobody is being told what they can't do. Everyone is happy.

Rusty Jones
03-14-2013, 02:55 PM
I agree with everyone here. Marriage should be delegalized. Not outlawed, but delegalized.

The only reason why marriage exists as a legal status in the first place is so that the government can establish and enforce property laws. The ideas behind those laws are religious-based anyway (for example, in most Christian denominations, divorce is not recognized - therefore you can "separate," but you still have obligations to each other. Alimony exists to enforce that belief).

Though, if we're honest with ourselves; marriage as a legal status is here to stay.

I personally believe that if a woman can have an abortion - thus, terminating her own responsibility to take care of a child that she created; then a man should be able to do the same. Not the abortion, but walk away scott-free if he doesn't want to take of the baby. The woman can do it, so why can't the man?

Should I ever hold my breath on that law ever changing? Someone else can if they want to, but I wouldn't recommend it.

F4CrewChick
03-14-2013, 03:04 PM
The government has been in the marriage business for a long while and I do not see that ever ending--too much money to be made. To those that hold a moralistic position on marriage, the 'marriage neutral' position in the Rand plan would be seen as a loss. While I don't think the government will ever get out of the marriage business, I think the easiest solution to the "problem" of GAy marriage is super-simple: If you don't believe in Gay marriage, don't marry a Gay.

I'll be around later serving big, hot, steaming cups of mind your own fucking business to anyone who wants to argue about it.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8518/8557800270_cfe636d6ec.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4crewchick/8557800270/) nice-cup-of-STFU (http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4crewchick/8557800270/) by F4CrewChick (http://www.flickr.com/people/f4crewchick/), on Flickr

sandsjames
03-14-2013, 03:23 PM
The government has been in the marriage business for a long while and I do not see that ever ending--too much money to be made. To those that hold a moralistic position on marriage, the 'marriage neutral' position in the Rand plan would be seen as a loss. While I don't think the government will ever get out of the marriage business, I think the easiest solution to the "problem" of GAy marriage is super-simple: If you don't believe in Gay marriage, don't marry a Gay.

I'll be around later serving big, hot, steaming cups of mind your own fucking business to anyone who wants to argue about it.



I think so far everyone is pretty much agreeing with you, so you may need to hold off on that cup.

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2013, 03:28 PM
I agree with everyone here. Marriage should be delegalized. Not outlawed, but delegalized.

The only reason why marriage exists as a legal status in the first place is so that the government can establish and enforce property laws. The ideas behind those laws are religious-based anyway (for example, in most Christian denominations, divorce is not recognized - therefore you can "separate," but you still have obligations to each other. Alimony exists to enforce that belief).

Though, if we're honest with ourselves; marriage as a legal status is here to stay.

I personally believe that if a woman can have an abortion - thus, terminating her own responsibility to take care of a child that she created; then a man should be able to do the same. Not the abortion, but walk away scott-free if he doesn't want to take of the baby. The woman can do it, so why can't the man?

Should I ever hold my breath on that law ever changing? Someone else can if they want to, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Have you picked a sinlge account to post from or will it be the usual multiple accounts? Just wondering.

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2013, 03:34 PM
The government has been in the marriage business for a long while and I do not see that ever ending--too much money to be made. To those that hold a moralistic position on marriage, the 'marriage neutral' position in the Rand plan would be seen as a loss. While I don't think the government will ever get out of the marriage business, I think the easiest solution to the "problem" of GAy marriage is super-simple: If you don't believe in Gay marriage, don't marry a Gay.

I'll be around later serving big, hot, steaming cups of mind your own fucking business to anyone who wants to argue about it.


Why wasn't 'civil union' good enough? That's a serious question btw. If every state passed a law that allowed same-sex couples to be joined in civil unions and therefore be guaranteed the legal rights historically granted to 'married' heterosexual couples would that be good enough for the gay community?

I ask because it seemed in at least one state (and I frankly can’t remember which now) there was talk of a civil union law which was rejected by the gay community so since then I have been puzzled since that would seem to meet the stated goals.

AJBIGJ
03-14-2013, 03:45 PM
The government has been in the marriage business for a long while and I do not see that ever ending--too much money to be made. To those that hold a moralistic position on marriage, the 'marriage neutral' position in the Rand plan would be seen as a loss. While I don't think the government will ever get out of the marriage business, I think the easiest solution to the "problem" of GAy marriage is super-simple: If you don't believe in Gay marriage, don't marry a Gay.

I'll be around later serving big, hot, steaming cups of mind your own fucking business to anyone who wants to argue about it.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8518/8557800270_cfe636d6ec.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4crewchick/8557800270/) nice-cup-of-STFU (http://www.flickr.com/photos/f4crewchick/8557800270/) by F4CrewChick (http://www.flickr.com/people/f4crewchick/), on Flickr

I would think that would come down to whether such an idea as this comes to a vote somewhere down the line. Should it actually make it through the conflicted "moral majority" (as it is often labeled), would you support a plan that puts your formal intimate relationship status on an equal footing (legally) with mine? (I imagine this is rhetorical)

F4CrewChick
03-14-2013, 03:47 PM
Why wasn't 'civil union' good enough? That's a serious question btw. If every state passed a law that allowed same-sex couples to be joined in civil unions and therefore be guaranteed the legal rights historically granted to 'married' heterosexual couples would that be good enough for the gay community?

I ask because it seemed in at least one state (and I frankly can’t remember which now) there was talk of a civil union law which was rejected by the gay community so since then I have been puzzled since that would seem to meet the stated goals.
Serious answer: While this topic has been talked to death here on MTF as well as in the world, the main issue with civil unions vs. marriage are the legal rights and responsibilities. Civil unions simply cannot match up to marriage legally not to mention that clearly it is also a 'second-class' contract. Brown v Board of education strike a bell? "Separate but equal" just ain't. I reiterate, if one doesn't believe in Gay marriage, don't marry a Gay, otherwise STFU, mind your own business and let other get on with their own business of living.

Rusty Jones
03-14-2013, 03:57 PM
Have you picked a sinlge account to post from or will it be the usual multiple accounts? Just wondering.

That all depends. I am considered scrapping this one, and opening a new one. If I do that, I'll disclose that immediately.

Another possibility: right now, Tak is giving me daily neg reps to ensure that I stay in the red. The "ignore it and it will go away" thing, I believe, doesn't apply to Tak. He's a sociopath.

This is my only account now, and there's nothing I can do to deter him or reduce his abilities. This isn't so much about rep points, so much as it is about the fact that; frankly, this is getting old. Tak seems like the type that can keep himself entertained off of the simplest shit forever.

So, whatever I have to resort to in order for this to end with Tak, I just might. Any help from others is welcome, but if I have to help myself, so be it.

sandsjames
03-14-2013, 07:00 PM
Serious answer: While this topic has been talked to death here on MTF as well as in the world, the main issue with civil unions vs. marriage are the legal rights and responsibilities. Civil unions simply cannot match up to marriage legally not to mention that clearly it is also a 'second-class' contract. Brown v Board of education strike a bell? "Separate but equal" just ain't. I reiterate, if one doesn't believe in Gay marriage, don't marry a Gay, otherwise STFU, mind your own business and let other get on with their own business of living.

Ah, yes, the "Agree with me or STFU" argument. That would make this board pretty interesting.

TJMAC77SP
03-14-2013, 07:19 PM
Serious answer: While this topic has been talked to death here on MTF as well as in the world, the main issue with civil unions vs. marriage are the legal rights and responsibilities. Civil unions simply cannot match up to marriage legally not to mention that clearly it is also a 'second-class' contract. Brown v Board of education strike a bell? "Separate but equal" just ain't. I reiterate, if one doesn't believe in Gay marriage, don't marry a Gay, otherwise STFU, mind your own business and let other get on with their own business of living.

Evidently not quite talked to death....

You missed the part where the civil union WOULD grant all legal rights a marriage does so therefore it does 'match marriage legally'.

No offense but what I am reading here is that it is the word marriage which is the true goal and not the stated reasons of legal rights.

If so, fine, say so.

Reminds me of the advertising in NC by same sex marriage proponents during the run up to the vote over the state constitutional amendment which declares a marriage is between a man and a woman. If the movement had been honest and simply stated their goals and why they sought them there might have been a different outcome. Instead they used blatantly false fear tactics which resulted in groups of people (a great number of district attorneys for one) banding together to fight the amendment who might have not weighed in at all. All the clever one line quips will never move the issue along.

There are a lot of moderates who are looking to make up their minds on this and other issues. They need to be engaged without emotional diatribes.

Banned
03-14-2013, 09:56 PM
Looks like it may be a viable approach for the future, but I imagine the Rick Santorum variety of Republicans will be the hardest sell.


That guy got a lot closer to the presidency than he should have. I was about ready to get a plane ticket to Canada during that election season!

sandsjames
03-14-2013, 10:51 PM
That guy got a lot closer to the presidency than he should have. I was about ready to get a plane ticket to Canada during that election season!

Don't let that stop you. I'm going up to see inlaws in early July. I'll drive you.

Banned
03-14-2013, 11:16 PM
Don't let that stop you. I'm going up to see inlaws in early July. I'll drive you.

Nah I'm good. You haven't turned America into Saudi Arabia YET...

Robert F. Dorr
03-15-2013, 01:39 AM
Serious answer: While this topic has been talked to death here on MTF as well as in the world, the main issue with civil unions vs. marriage are the legal rights and responsibilities. Civil unions simply cannot match up to marriage legally not to mention that clearly it is also a 'second-class' contract. Brown v Board of education strike a bell? "Separate but equal" just ain't. I reiterate, if one doesn't believe in Gay marriage, don't marry a Gay, otherwise STFU, mind your own business and let other get on with their own business of living.

A minor technical point, perhaps, but must one be gay to marry a same-sex partner? I like that abbreviation STFU.

RobotChicken
03-15-2013, 02:06 AM
A minor technical point, perhaps, but must one be gay to marry a same-sex partner? I like that abbreviation STFU.
:clock Not...Going...there...BOB...You R...(are)...on...ur...(Your)...own...(and maybe owned) :brick

F4CrewChick
03-15-2013, 02:46 AM
Ah, yes, the "Agree with me or STFU" argument. That would make this board pretty interesting.
STFU was preceded by "Mind your own business."

Gay marriage has no effect whatsoever on straight marriage. Since what I want, what is fair and the fact it doesn't affect you, that makes it none of your business. I'm pretty sick of other people telling me how to live my life while denying me the same availability to the opportunities they themselves enjoy.

RobotChicken
03-15-2013, 02:56 AM
:spy 'F4CC' you go girl! No problem with RC on your Stand. ':kiss

F4CrewChick
03-15-2013, 03:12 AM
Evidently not quite talked to death....

You missed the part where the civil union WOULD grant all legal rights a marriage does so therefore it does 'match marriage legally'.

No offense but what I am reading here is that it is the word marriage which is the true goal and not the stated reasons of legal rights.

I didn't miss it at all. All the many different types of NGO's have different policies. One blanket law to make civil unions exactly the same as marriage would require writing hundreds, maybe thousands of new laws all the while having the 'equal' civil union challenged constantly. Do you really think all the clamor by activists regarding Gay marriage is just sour grapes? Children arguing over a ball? The differences between marriage and civil unions in California for example, are about 900 different rules, regulations, policies, etc. Civil unions are unable to offer the same rights as marriage.
If so, fine, say so.


Reminds me of the advertising in NC by same sex marriage proponents during the run up to the vote over the state constitutional amendment which declares a marriage is between a man and a woman. If the movement had been honest and simply stated their goals and why they sought them there might have been a different outcome. Instead they used blatantly false fear tactics which resulted in groups of people (a great number of district attorneys for one) banding together to fight the amendment who might have not weighed in at all. All the clever one line quips will never move the issue along.

There are a lot of moderates who are looking to make up their minds on this and other issues. They need to be engaged without emotional diatribes.
Honestly, I don't know why straight people care. Does it make you feel superior to have access to a legal protection Gays don't? Why do you feel like us being able to marry diminishes your marriage? It doesn't cost straight people a thing to share the right of marriage they have with others.

If this is a religious or moral issue with you, fine. Moralists and religion has had it's way for virtually the whole of human history. The struggle and movement for Gay Rights is a train that has done left the station and that toothpaste is never getting back in the tube. How about if these folks spend half as much time on checking their own moral behavior and there own relationships with God and mind their own business.

Mostly, I just think it selfish.

TJMAC77SP
03-15-2013, 10:17 AM
That guy got a lot closer to the presidency than he should have. I was about ready to get a plane ticket to Canada during that election season!

You could go to France with Alec Baldwin.........oh wait he didn't carry out that threat did he?

TJMAC77SP
03-15-2013, 10:38 AM
I didn't miss it at all. All the many different types of NGO's have different policies. One blanket law to make civil unions exactly the same as marriage would require writing hundreds, maybe thousands of new laws all the while having the 'equal' civil union challenged constantly. Do you really think all the clamor by activists regarding Gay marriage is just sour grapes? Children arguing over a ball? The differences between marriage and civil unions in California for example, are about 900 different rules, regulations, policies, etc. Civil unions are unable to offer the same rights as marriage.
If so, fine, say so.


Honestly, I don't know why straight people care. Does it make you feel superior to have access to a legal protection Gays don't? Why do you feel like us being able to marry diminishes your marriage? It doesn't cost straight people a thing to share the right of marriage they have with others.

If this is a religious or moral issue with you, fine. Moralists and religion has had it's way for virtually the whole of human history. The struggle and movement for Gay Rights is a train that has done left the station and that toothpaste is never getting back in the tube. How about if these folks spend half as much time on checking their own moral behavior and there own relationships with God and mind their own business.

Mostly, I just think it selfish.

Why do you start your last paragraph referring to me personally? At no time have I professed to being against same sex marriage. In fact I have stated my support for it in the past. I won't however support anyone who tries to force someone to go against their religious beliefs because that is also a protected right. I see that a lot in these arguments.

I asked a simple question and got the answer I expected. In the end, when you strip away all the rhetoric, it is the word marriage which is the goal. All the other arguments seem disingenuous. So why is the word the goal?

Pullinteeth
03-15-2013, 11:58 AM
Nah I'm good. You haven't turned America into Saudi Arabia YET...

Actually, CNN had an article about the U.S. being the new Saudi Arabia a couple of weeks ago...I will see if I can find it.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/14/opinion/ghitis-obama-energy

JD2780
03-15-2013, 12:09 PM
That guy got a lot closer to the presidency than he should have. I was about ready to get a plane ticket to Canada during that election season!

Perhaps you should have. With the free healthcare and overly strict gun laws you'd feel right at home. I love talking to my Canadian counter parts. When I tell them about our ability to carry guns they're jealous. When I tell how we're going to universal healthcare, they flip out saying thats horrible idea, and thats why there are many Canadians that move to the US. To get away from that idea. However, feel free to go to Canada. You'd love it

sandsjames
03-15-2013, 12:20 PM
I didn't miss it at all. All the many different types of NGO's have different policies. One blanket law to make civil unions exactly the same as marriage would require writing hundreds, maybe thousands of new laws all the while having the 'equal' civil union challenged constantly. Do you really think all the clamor by activists regarding Gay marriage is just sour grapes? Children arguing over a ball? The differences between marriage and civil unions in California for example, are about 900 different rules, regulations, policies, etc. Civil unions are unable to offer the same rights as marriage.
If so, fine, say so.



Which is why we just scrap ALL legal protection/advantages/benefits of marriage. Let marriage be between the people involved and nobody else. Let all other issues (who gets to visit you in the hospital, who gets your stuff when you die, etc) take place in a written contract between the two/three/17 people involved. Then there are no issues.

Then, have no options of "married, filing joint", etc, on taxes. All taxes are taken from each individual.

Now, everyone has the same "rights". If churches still wish to recognize marriages, that's up to them and the people getting married in the church. There would be no "advantages" for them outside of the church.

Banned
03-15-2013, 03:30 PM
Actually, CNN had an article about the U.S. being the new Saudi Arabia a couple of weeks ago...I will see if I can find it.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/14/opinion/ghitis-obama-energy


Couldn't find it, but read something a while back discussing how, from a social and cultural standpoint, the USA has more in common with Saudi Arabia than with Europe - fanatically religious, and a large segment of the population has an incredibly backwards viewpoint towards women and gays. A really sad thought...


Perhaps you should have. With the free healthcare and overly strict gun laws you'd feel right at home. I love talking to my Canadian counter parts. When I tell them about our ability to carry guns they're jealous. When I tell how we're going to universal healthcare, they flip out saying thats horrible idea, and thats why there are many Canadians that move to the US. To get away from that idea. However, feel free to go to Canada. You'd love it

The way I see it - in both systems I'm going to end up paying for SandJames's parents' healthcare, so might as well have a standardized system for raising revenue for it.

BTW - as I've told you before, I have a weapon - I just don't see a reason for every random untrained moron on the street to also have a gun.



Which is why we just scrap ALL legal protection/advantages/benefits of marriage. Let marriage be between the people involved and nobody else. Let all other issues (who gets to visit you in the hospital, who gets your stuff when you die, etc) take place in a written contract between the two/three/17 people involved. Then there are no issues.

Then, have no options of "married, filing joint", etc, on taxes. All taxes are taken from each individual.

Now, everyone has the same "rights". If churches still wish to recognize marriages, that's up to them and the people getting married in the church. There would be no "advantages" for them outside of the church.

I have no objection to the legal concept of marriage. Essentially a tax break and a variety of other benefits for two people who partner up - and is also a useful tool to facilitate raising children, be it biological or adopted.

To be honest, this sounds like the argument of a child - mad that certain religions no longer get a special privilege on marriage, so now you're trying to make it so NO ONE can have it.

JD2780
03-15-2013, 04:59 PM
Couldn't find it, but read something a while back discussing how, from a social and cultural standpoint, the USA has more in common with Saudi Arabia than with Europe - fanatically religious, and a large segment of the population has an incredibly backwards viewpoint towards women and gays. A really sad thought...



The way I see it - in both systems I'm going to end up paying for SandJames's parents' healthcare, so might as well have a standardized system for raising revenue for it.

BTW - as I've told you before, I have a weapon - I just don't see a reason for every random untrained moron on the street to also have a gun.




I have no objection to the legal concept of marriage. Essentially a tax break and a variety of other benefits for two people who partner up - and is also a useful tool to facilitate raising children, be it biological or adopted.

To be honest, this sounds like the argument of a child - mad that certain religions no longer get a special privilege on marriage, so now you're trying to make it so NO ONE can have it.

So only trained cops and former military members should be authorized to carry? I get what youre saying about trained folks carrying. In FL you have to provide proof of taking a pistol course before having a carry permit.

What constitutes training in your book? Grandpa or Dad teaching the kids firearms safety? Sight acquisition? Training comes in all shapes and sizes. Yes, in FL it has to be an official course. No where in the constitution does it say we have the right to bear arms only after completing trainging.

Tough spot.

sandsjames
03-15-2013, 06:24 PM
The way I see it - in both systems I'm going to end up paying for SandJames's parents' healthcare, so might as well have a standardized system for raising revenue for it. That's where you're wrong. They pay for their own healthcare. And they continue to work to pay for it. But thanks for the offer.


I have no objection to the legal concept of marriage. Essentially a tax break and a variety of other benefits for two people who partner up - and is also a useful tool to facilitate raising children, be it biological or adopted. I can't believe that you are arguing for the tax break and I'm arguing against it. As far as the children being raised (and we'll say for the sake of argument that it's two parents doing it) it doesn't take a legal marriage to do that.


To be honest, this sounds like the argument of a child - mad that certain religions no longer get a special privilege on marriage, so now you're trying to make it so NO ONE can have it.You are so far of base on this, Joe. I'm basing this position off of nothing remotely related to religion. If you'll look back at several of my post regarding ALL benefits (even military dependents) I don't think it should happen. I'm not pissed of about it. I think gays should be able to get married. I think a 2 guys and 3 women should be able to be married to each other. I just don't think that the government should have ANY involvement in it at all.

I'd feel the same if the idea of gay marriage had never come up.

But I'm glad you were able to weave in a religion comment. It took you longer than usual.

AJBIGJ
03-15-2013, 07:44 PM
SJ and JB's discussion does bring up an interesting point I feel is worth revisiting. Why do we incentivize "marriage" at the state and Federal levels, and should we continue to do so? That's an interesting question. I think the argument from any side of the aisle who would choose to tend to believe the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs in tax burden should be asking it. Well there is the potential control of VD's when people choose to maintain monogamous relationships with one another vice promiscuous lifestyles certainly. But I think the primary benefit comes from the building of a family. In reality mainly effective child-rearing. In an ideal setting, a child raised in a healthy family lifestyle will have a higher probability of transitioning into adulthood as a taxpayer working in a job, vice a tax burden siphoning off our taxpayer dollars either as a welfare recipient or someone interned into the penal system. Obviously this is not a foolprooof solution. So I ask is it worth incentivizing (JB's position from what I derive between the semi-witty exchanges with various posters), or are the "benefits" derived from incentivizing strong familial relationships so negligible that it isn't worth the tax dollar inequity that most frequently results from it (aligned to SJ's position)?

Nowhere here do I mention the "man and a woman" definition we utilize currently in the Federal and most State governments. The omission was intended, I think the use of the term "marriage" in our government as something to be incentivized is a distraction which generates a whole crapload of non-essential controversy. I tend to think the existence of an actual "marriage" is completely auxiliary to what we choose to incentivize for all intents and purposes. Why not incentivize other forms of legal domestic partnerships who make the choice to raise a young life to adulthood effectively? Why not take all of these incentives from childless geographically separated married couples who for societal purposes mostly live the lifestyles of single individuals, and instead direct them to people who have made the decision to become conservators or guardians of minors, whether it entail biological relations or otherwise? Isn't the primary intent for the incentive to create productive members of society? Are romantic ties even required towards two (or potentially even more) adults joining into legal partnerships that decide to raise young children to adulthood? The history of network television has done a pretty fantastic job in bringing our cultural realizations to discover that the basic "nuclear family" is not necessarily always the most effective at raising our children. Think "Full House" or "Who's the Boss" (before the final season) or "Modern Family" or just about any unconventional family setups you've seen out there. Could we incentivize and provide legal protections and exemptions in these cases as well? Do we really need Uncle Sam verifying that there is actually activity in the bedroom between these adults to allow for legal provisions that add convenience in the situations where one of the participants health is at risk or to have other such matters attended to?

I think the actual problem here in this controversy is that same-sex marriages actually get ignored TOO MUCH where government is concerned, as so many choose not to recognize one and instead treat the married pair as single, independent adults.

Is two participants even a requirement? Couldn't the incentives be distributed among more participants based on the number of children being raised (on a graduated scale similar to our Veteran Affairs Disability Benefits System perhaps?) For example, instead of a 15% incentive shared by a couple, couldn't we also divide it as 10% in a small community family of three adults instead? I think one of the most rational arguments preventing polygamist marriages from being recognized is that under current stipulations of legally recognized marriage contracts, it would essentially allow people to "game the system" by marrying more people in loveless marriages to derive even more Federal and State sponsored benefits. This problem could easily be resolved by, rather than cutting the pie (aka benefits) in half to feed two adults, you just cut more, smaller pieces to feed the larger community of adults as a legal agreement of domestic partnership. (Kind of like moving a business from sole proprietorship, to a partnership between two partners, to a business having multiple partners owning and managing the company, split the revenues among each owner in an equitable distribution).

If we ever could learn to treat the "legal terms" surrounding marriage as the cold, spiritually devoid terms that governments really see it as, we could throw this whole "definition of marriage" controversy into the trivialities that really esist. Let Catholics define marriage between a man and a woman should they wish to, Let Methodists allow same sex couplings as well if their church supports it. Hell, let Mormons tie one man to ten women if that's what their beliefs allows of them. We can easily divine a system that treats equitably all scenarios. As far as incentives go, it doesn't bother me in the least that the most benefits would be applied towards the single parent families (they get to eat the entire pie), anyone who has ever known a single parent also knows they can use all the help they can get. The last thing I would ever want is for our government to discourage a scared housewife who experiences regular patterns of physical and emotional abuse from getting out of her relationship and trying to do it on her own at least temporarily until she can find another adult willing to help share the burden of responsibility (again, romantic involvements with this partner being mostly ancilliary to its overall effectiveness).

In closing, in legalistic terms, why do we even care as to what combination of elements a marriage consists of? Scrub the definition from text, redistribute benefits more equitably towards things worthy of incentivizing, and all this gay/straight controversy can get thrown into the garbage where it belongs.

Banned
03-15-2013, 09:50 PM
So only trained cops and former military members should be authorized to carry? I get what youre saying about trained folks carrying. In FL you have to provide proof of taking a pistol course before having a carry permit.

What constitutes training in your book? Grandpa or Dad teaching the kids firearms safety? Sight acquisition? Training comes in all shapes and sizes. Yes, in FL it has to be an official course. No where in the constitution does it say we have the right to bear arms only after completing trainging.

Tough spot.

I would by no means turn up my nose so to speak at the non-military/police people - I have no issue with that - provided there's a training requirement. You have to prove yourself a semi-competent driver before getting a driver's license... why not the same with a gun? Why give a guy a gun if you have no idea if he knows to check his chamber before messing with it, or how to safely carry and shoot it?

Also, that in itself would probably make it more difficult to illegally acquire a gun - at least I think it would. If you had to go through two-three weeks of training, that would skyline you - that's probably more than most people conducting illegal straw purchases would be willing to risk... or perhaps at least drive up the price of an illegal weapon.

And that's the key to stopping criminals from getting weapons - we can't competely prevent them from getting weapons - there's almost more guns in America than there are people - but we can make it so difficult and expensive to go through the black market that most criminals won't bother, and will resort to a less powerful weapon, like knives.


That's where you're wrong. They pay for their own healthcare. And they continue to work to pay for it. But thanks for the offer.

I can't believe that you are arguing for the tax break and I'm arguing against it. As far as the children being raised (and we'll say for the sake of argument that it's two parents doing it) it doesn't take a legal marriage to do that.

You are so far of base on this, Joe. I'm basing this position off of nothing remotely related to religion. If you'll look back at several of my post regarding ALL benefits (even military dependents) I don't think it should happen. I'm not pissed of about it. I think gays should be able to get married. I think a 2 guys and 3 women should be able to be married to each other. I just don't think that the government should have ANY involvement in it at all.

I'd feel the same if the idea of gay marriage had never come up.

But I'm glad you were able to weave in a religion comment. It took you longer than usual.

So if one of them gets sick, you'll just let him/her die? I call bullshit. The hospital is legally required to give emergency care regardless of whether the patient can afford it, insured or uninsured - which means higher premiums, which means increased costs for all of us. Your position is so incredibly selfish its unbelievable.

There's people who can't afford healthcare - I get it. But at least let's acknowledge the problem and fix it, instead of getting on your moral high horse and claim that they can "pay for their own healthcare", because that's a complete and utter lie, and you know it. No middle class person could afford tens of thousands of dollars in bills for a medical emergency, that position is ridiculous.


SJ and JB's discussion does bring up an interesting point I feel is worth revisiting. Why do we incentivize "marriage" at the state and Federal levels, and should we continue to do so? That's an interesting question. I think the argument from any side of the aisle who would choose to tend to believe the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs in tax burden should be asking it. Well there is the potential control of VD's when people choose to maintain monogamous relationships with one another vice promiscuous lifestyles certainly. But I think the primary benefit comes from the building of a family. In reality mainly effective child-rearing. In an ideal setting, a child raised in a healthy family lifestyle will have a higher probability of transitioning into adulthood as a taxpayer working in a job, vice a tax burden siphoning off our taxpayer dollars either as a welfare recipient or someone interned into the penal system. Obviously this is not a foolprooof solution. So I ask is it worth incentivizing (JB's position from what I derive between the semi-witty exchanges with various posters), or are the "benefits" derived from incentivizing strong familial relationships so negligible that it isn't worth the tax dollar inequity that most frequently results from it (aligned to SJ's position)?

Nowhere here do I mention the "man and a woman" definition we utilize currently in the Federal and most State governments. The omission was intended, I think the use of the term "marriage" in our government as something to be incentivized is a distraction which generates a whole crapload of non-essential controversy. I tend to think the existence of an actual "marriage" is completely auxiliary to what we choose to incentivize for all intents and purposes. Why not incentivize other forms of legal domestic partnerships who make the choice to raise a young life to adulthood effectively? Why not take all of these incentives from childless geographically separated married couples who for societal purposes mostly live the lifestyles of single individuals, and instead direct them to people who have made the decision to become conservators or guardians of minors, whether it entail biological relations or otherwise? Isn't the primary intent for the incentive to create productive members of society? Are romantic ties even required towards two (or potentially even more) adults joining into legal partnerships that decide to raise young children to adulthood? The history of network television has done a pretty fantastic job in bringing our cultural realizations to discover that the basic "nuclear family" is not necessarily always the most effective at raising our children. Think "Full House" or "Who's the Boss" (before the final season) or "Modern Family" or just about any unconventional family setups you've seen out there. Could we incentivize and provide legal protections and exemptions in these cases as well? Do we really need Uncle Sam verifying that there is actually activity in the bedroom between these adults to allow for legal provisions that add convenience in the situations where one of the participants health is at risk or to have other such matters attended to?

I think the actual problem here in this controversy is that same-sex marriages actually get ignored TOO MUCH where government is concerned, as so many choose not to recognize one and instead treat the married pair as single, independent adults.

Is two participants even a requirement? Couldn't the incentives be distributed among more participants based on the number of children being raised (on a graduated scale similar to our Veteran Affairs Disability Benefits System perhaps?) For example, instead of a 15% incentive shared by a couple, couldn't we also divide it as 10% in a small community family of three adults instead? I think one of the most rational arguments preventing polygamist marriages from being recognized is that under current stipulations of legally recognized marriage contracts, it would essentially allow people to "game the system" by marrying more people in loveless marriages to derive even more Federal and State sponsored benefits. This problem could easily be resolved by, rather than cutting the pie (aka benefits) in half to feed two adults, you just cut more, smaller pieces to feed the larger community of adults as a legal agreement of domestic partnership. (Kind of like moving a business from sole proprietorship, to a partnership between two partners, to a business having multiple partners owning and managing the company, split the revenues among each owner in an equitable distribution).

If we ever could learn to treat the "legal terms" surrounding marriage as the cold, spiritually devoid terms that governments really see it as, we could throw this whole "definition of marriage" controversy into the trivialities that really esist. Let Catholics define marriage between a man and a woman should they wish to, Let Methodists allow same sex couplings as well if their church supports it. Hell, let Mormons tie one man to ten women if that's what their beliefs allows of them. We can easily divine a system that treats equitably all scenarios. As far as incentives go, it doesn't bother me in the least that the most benefits would be applied towards the single parent families (they get to eat the entire pie), anyone who has ever known a single parent also knows they can use all the help they can get. The last thing I would ever want is for our government to discourage a scared housewife who experiences regular patterns of physical and emotional abuse from getting out of her relationship and trying to do it on her own at least temporarily until she can find another adult willing to help share the burden of responsibility (again, romantic involvements with this partner being mostly ancilliary to its overall effectiveness).

In closing, in legalistic terms, why do we even care as to what combination of elements a marriage consists of? Scrub the definition from text, redistribute benefits more equitably towards things worthy of incentivizing, and all this gay/straight controversy can get thrown into the garbage where it belongs.

Call me a silly idealist, but I think two people bonding and facing life together hand to hand, regardless of children - is a good, nice thing - and gives me warm fuzzy feelings inside.

JD2780
03-15-2013, 09:56 PM
Hey Joe, here is shocker. We agree.

MisterBen
03-15-2013, 10:04 PM
Eff this gay revolution. I do not condone it. Whatever changes come about; then so be it but nobody is ever going to convince me on how gay marriage is acceptable and how the times are changing. Like I said, when I was stationed in Germany, it was acceptable for adults to have sex with 15 year olds and we got briefed that does not apply to American military. I doubt any father on here will accept their 15 year old daughter having sex with an old male (yea, I know it happens here regardless), so I know how a agenda can be lobbied and passed as the new status quo.

The majority of service members I have met; never agreed with POTUS/Congress repeal. I am not a bigot because I am not out there protesting or personally have an agenda to prevent someone's goals or someone's mindset. I just let it go. I just give answers; even if you do not like to hear them. I am ok with civil unions but the only reason that gays are pushing DOMA is simply for benefits. Another entitlement. Another group wanting to be entitled and lumping it under fairness. Talk about fair? I never had fair since I was born; and that is what life is. You adapt. I rather remove the financial benefits and legalities under heterosexual marriage than having it changed for the convenience of gays.

I have daughters and I get asked that stupid question; "what if your daughters turn out to be lesbians?"

Well, what if my daughters turn out to be murderers or some other social misfit of society? I will always love my daughters; regardless of actions they will make and not condone.

Let the states decide and if you do not like changes, then move on and move to where society fits you, your social circle and/or beliefs. It is that plain and simple.

I just worry about me. This forum is full of liberal like-minded people which are mostly Air Force. I just hang on to my military.com forum with the Republican-conservative members and gung-ho combat arms Soldiers who are my people. ;)

I am just happy that the first two humans were not gay or we would not be having this debate. To me, it is just a defect similar to all other defects that humanity has (e.g. retardation, midgets).

Banned
03-15-2013, 11:04 PM
Hey Joe, here is shocker. We agree.

That might be a poor choice of words on a thread about homosexuality. ;)

AJBIGJ
03-16-2013, 04:00 PM
Call me a silly idealist, but I think two people bonding and facing life together hand to hand, regardless of children - is a good, nice thing - and gives me warm fuzzy feelings inside.

Call me a cold-hearted pragmatist if you like, but what exactly becomes the return on investment for providing inequitable treatment (aka incentives) to two individuals who agree to sign a certificate of marriage? If two people meet in Vegas, have a freaky sex night and decide to seal the deal under a state of complete inebriation, who go their separate ways in life but leave the legal contract intact, has society really gained anything from the legal agreement? Isn't this the point of providing inequitable treatment from a collective? As although it creates a cost to the collective in its investment, it also purportedly would provide some form of return whether it be a tangible or intangible one? Unfortunately the scenario I laid out is entirely possible and actually quite easy to arrange in modern society, and although by itself it is somewhat uncommon, we do not lack for loveless and even abusive marriages that are something at least as worthy of being discouraged against as a loving relationship is to be encouraged.

The point I am making is raising children effectively at least has non-neglible tangible and intangible benefits associated with it, so at least there is a fairly good argument for a society to seek to incentivize such a thing.

In this I speak from the position of firsthand experience on both ends of the spectrum, I am legally bonded to another adult in the act of marriage and I also have assumed legal guardianship of our biological son. Of the two the only challenges to living faithfully in the first is a product of my own level of maturity. I really don't need added incentive to engage in such an act of my own free will. Also, if I don't choose to live this way, the effect towards society is next to null.

Speaking as a father however, there are at the very least additional challenges created by this responsibility, quite a lot of them actually, while for myself it is a no brainer to seek to raise him to become the best man he can possibly be. It still has its challenges, and I speak from a position where my income level is at least sufficient to pay the bills and cover the additional costs (of which there also are many) involved. Society arguably stands to gain quite a bit from my continuing to raise him effectively, he may one day become a crucial element in leading the world towards a more peaceful era or become the inventor of an innovation that leads to solve world hunger, or I could raise him poorly and he could instead gun down a classroom of young kids before taking his own life. For those who do not operate at my income level and have to live with the additional costs of extra children, I can see how it could be a struggle to raise children effectively, inadvertantly potentially leading to the same scenario even with the best of intentions in place. If anything in a family relationship stands to become a benefit to our collective society, raising our youth effectively as parents is certainly that, and the most worthy of incentivizing.

I agree, an ideal, loving relationship between two adults is a great thing to have but really doesn't need (and is completely unaffected by) external encouragement from the soceity at large. Struggling parents, especially those who had to abandon the pairing because their counterpart lacked the basic competence to become an effective guardian, if anyone can use the help effectively. I would also broaden this form of partnership towards adults who assume the extra burden of responsibility without direct romantic ties to the biological parent. (Consider for instance the parents of a 16 year old girl who gets pregnant that help their daughter raise the child, it seems fairly logical if society desires anyone to benefit these would be among them.)

F4CrewChick
03-30-2013, 05:41 AM
Why do you start your last paragraph referring to me personally? At no time have I professed to being against same sex marriage. In fact I have stated my support for it in the past. I won't however support anyone who tries to force someone to go against their religious beliefs because that is also a protected right. I see that a lot in these arguments.

I asked a simple question and got the answer I expected. In the end, when you strip away all the rhetoric, it is the word marriage which is the goal. All the other arguments seem disingenuous. So why is the word the goal?NOT THE FUCKING WORD--THE FUCKING RIGHTS THAT GO WITH IT. I am not attacking you personally but I am addressing you personally because you wrote in the first person voice. GAys want to marry to have the same rights as straights. That simple. Why are you so territorial about the word?
If you have espoused support for gay marriage in the past, why are you even asking these questions in your commentary?

CrustySMSgt
03-30-2013, 08:30 AM
I've got an interesting debate going about this on my Facebook wall... over 80 responses so far. Most agree it is time, but I do have a few conservative religious friends who disagree... but here's one point they just can't seem to answer to:

IF the institution of marriage is SO sacred that it MUST be protected, where are the masses in the streets demanding divorce me made illegal, except for the conditions Jesus conceded to in the Bible (abuse, infidelity, lack of support...)? Where are the masses in the streets demanding that anyone who gets divorced and remarried be branded an adulterer? If all sins are equal, divorce is as aggregious a sin as homosexuality, but other than an occasional shoutout against it in church or from the pope, you don't hear a peep. Just another example of how folks want to apply the rules, as long as the rules don't inconvienience them!

Pueblo
03-30-2013, 08:40 AM
Funny you mention this as someone yesterday posted about the governments recent move to not make any decisions regarding anything (which is a good thing, except that it still continues to grow).

The failure to pass a budget so that a decision didn't have to be made on cuts. One other thing was mentioned as well (can't remember) where something was allowed to default to a position so that congress wouldn't have to make a decision.

This is another in line with that, and I think it's a very good thing. Government steps out of marriage altogether. I think the end result should be that as long as all involved are consenting adults then who cares? Whether it's same sex, several "spouses", or something else, if everyone in the relationship agrees to be in it, so bet it.

I'd like to point out that this doesn't mean I have to like the way someone lives, or agree with it. I still have the right to voice my opinion that marriage is between one man and one woman. My beliefs and choices should be respected just as the beliefs and choices of those who choose to go the "nontraditional" route should.

So to summarize, government stays out (to include benefits for ALL marriages) and lets people do what they are going to do. This way, it doesn't matter who recognizes what. The only people who need to recognize anything are the ones in the relationship. Everything is equal. Nobody is being told what they can't do. Everyone is happy.

Under this scenario, who would be entitled to SOFA status for overseas assignments in service of the US Government?

Banned
03-30-2013, 02:19 PM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/538699_539527126100005_746799644_n.jpg

AJBIGJ
03-30-2013, 03:51 PM
IF the institution of marriage is SO sacred that it MUST be protected, where are the masses in the streets demanding divorce me made illegal, except for the conditions Jesus conceded to in the Bible (abuse, infidelity, lack of support...)? Where are the masses in the streets demanding that anyone who gets divorced and remarried be branded an adulterer? If all sins are equal, divorce is as aggregious a sin as homosexuality, but other than an occasional shoutout against it in church or from the pope, you don't hear a peep. Just another example of how folks want to apply the rules, as long as the rules don't inconvienience them!

I guess the best way to speak to that is the simple fact that it is a farce at best to call this a "ban on same-sex marriage". The misnomer term confuses the issue quite a lot in fact. Same-Sex marriages are not technically "illegal" anywhere in this country, they are just not "legally recognized" under specific conditions. Since a state or federal government in the status quo is able to recognize an agreement to marriage between certain individuals, it also stands to reason that they would be able to recognize the termination of the contract.

Not being one who grows all too offended if I hear my own personal definition of a marriage challenged, I could only hope to speak in the abstract towards those that might. However, I do think there is value to the principle put forward that the institution of marriage is at the very least a spiritual, if not also a religious institution and an imposition of the government on that institution is outside of the bounds of the the authority of either level of government.

Some people only know how to "solve problems in our culture" by passing laws first, expecting an overnight cultural paradigm shift in millions of Americans if you just make something a "law" and word it a specific way. Funny irony is this really never works as was intended, the only thing that can be relied upon somewhat consistently is that it starts the snowball rolling down hill, and there is very little controlling what lies in its path. Sometimes the solution is far simpler, you abolish any laws trying to "control" the way of thinking of Americans and just allow culture to run its natural course. This is when government intervention in any form exacerbates the situation, which in my minds at least very much applies in this sitiuation.

In more concise terms, to allow people who feel strongly about the issue in any direction to avoid having their beliefs and freedoms overruled, you don't need to legalize any specific definition of marriage, but as Rusty Jones put very well, you delegalize all its forms and allow it to remain a significant spiritual and social bonding of individuals.

Most people who see any value in marriage whatsoever tend to agree the social and spiritual bond it constitutes is very sacred, regardless of which combination of individuals are involved.

To preserve the sanctity of marriage, you fire the lawyers.

Pueblo
03-30-2013, 06:04 PM
In more concise terms, to allow people who feel strongly about the issue in any direction to avoid having their beliefs and freedoms overruled, you don't need to legalize any specific definition of marriage, but as Rusty Jones put very well, you delegalize all its forms and allow it to remain a significant spiritual and social bonding of individuals.

Where does that leave spouses of gay servicemembers overseas?

Banned
03-30-2013, 10:54 PM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/521267_539244202794964_1026508787_n.jpg

efmbman
03-30-2013, 11:33 PM
Where does that leave spouses of gay servicemembers overseas?

Depending on the host country, I would imagine that would the work of the State Department to get the respective SOFA's amended, if needed. Which country would have issues with it, other than the Middle East? I am serious - I don't know off the top of my head.

AJBIGJ
03-31-2013, 08:22 AM
Where does that leave spouses of gay servicemembers overseas?

Heaven forbid the Department of State be tasked with revising a single word located in some documents to another word or term with a slightly revised definition, especially a broader one that might say for allow live-in parents of single mother servicemembers who volunteer to assist with childcare responsbilities or other such arrangements that allow single servicemembers to have more flexible careers. Nobody ever changes words or terms in the government service to other words or terms that have a slightly revised meaning in governing doctrine. That just seems way too hard!:biggrin

Pueblo
03-31-2013, 10:31 AM
Heaven forbid the Department of State be tasked with revising a single word located in some documents to another word or term with a slightly revised definition, especially a broader one that might say for allow live-in parents of single mother servicemembers who volunteer to assist with childcare responsbilities or other such arrangements that allow single servicemembers to have more flexible careers. Nobody ever changes words or terms in the government service to other words or terms that have a slightly revised meaning in governing doctrine. That just seems way too hard!:biggrin

My concern also lies with allowances for a PCS, issuance of military IDs, Tricare coverage, etc. But government involvement is fairly important to standardize a relationship so that when/if that couple seeks judicial help later on to dissolve it, there is sufficient case law to ensure consistent treatment and resolution. An established legal standard like marriage is essential to common law. So rather than entertain non-committal rhetoric that the government should end the practice of granting marriage licenses, keep in mind the almost unprecedented upheaval that the end of government-sanctioned marriage would entail as its effect would ripple through civil law, the banking system, insurance, etc. And this is all to accomplish what end state?

AJBIGJ
03-31-2013, 10:51 AM
My concern also lies with allowances for a PCS, issuance of military IDs, Tricare coverage, etc. But government involvement is fairly important to standardize a relationship so that when/if that couple seeks judicial help later on to dissolve it, there is sufficient case law to ensure consistent treatment and resolution. An established legal standard like marriage is essential to common law. So rather than entertain non-committal rhetoric that the government should end the practice of granting marriage licenses, keep in mind the almost unprecedented upheaval that the end of government-sanctioned marriage would entail as its effect would ripple through civil law, the banking system, insurance, etc. And this is all to accomplish what end state?

Fairly obvious I should think, 100% equitable treatment throughout the system. Language that adapts to modern definitions of family, which does not necessarily require sexual intimacy between consenting adults to be recognized as guardians of minors. The reason marriage has become such a controversy in our government is that its definition is so very narrow that it cannot keep up with the modern family dynamic. Regardless of what happens this whole "marriage equality" movement is at best a bandaid solution to the larger problem. A legal definition is purely that, a legal definition. A marriage in Vegas that is over the next morning is treated to be just as valid as a lifelong commitment between a couple that raises a family together for decades, undergoes many months of pre-marital counseling in advance, and has the most fantastic wedding ceremony ever witnessed.

In short, it robs the spirituality of the commitment to apply legal constraints to it that are absolutely unnecessary for the government to execute its functions, any single one of them. So the end state is to separate the government from the marriage business, and the only price to pay is the salaries of the lawyers, government civilians, and contractors who are tasked with writing the executable policies in a definition neutral form.

Pullinteeth
04-01-2013, 03:07 PM
Eff this gay revolution. I do not condone it. Whatever changes come about; then so be it but nobody is ever going to convince me on how gay marriage is acceptable and how the times are changing. Like I said, when I was stationed in Germany, it was acceptable for adults to have sex with 15 year olds and we got briefed that does not apply to American military. I doubt any father on here will accept their 15 year old daughter having sex with an old male (yea, I know it happens here regardless), so I know how a agenda can be lobbied and passed as the new status quo.

But a father would be great with it if their daughter was one year older? The UCMJ sets the age of consent at 16....(10 U.S.C. § 920) so overseas or in any of the following states, a servicemenber can bang a 16 year old-even if they are 50..
Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia

But yeah, go ahead and judge Germany because their arbitrary line is one year younger...In Hawaii and Maine a 19 year old can bang a 14 year old.... In Iowa, Vermont, Tennessee, New Jersey, and Maryland a 19 year old can bang a 15 year old...


https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/521267_539244202794964_1026508787_n.jpg

Might work better if your photo said Americans...also the bible doesn't prohibit shaving of beards...it says some gibberish about shaving the CORNERS of your beard??? Also, your block for gay marriage doesn't have a biblical text cited...so might be a bit of a farce 'eh?

JD2780
04-01-2013, 03:29 PM
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/521267_539244202794964_1026508787_n.jpg

I'm sure if the other topics were as politically charged as the other ones there would be plenty of protests. We won't know though until people start trying to pass laws prohibiting premarital sex, prohibiting divorce, heck even prohibiting adultery. Those topics would be bringing people out of the wood work. We truly don't know though.

Pullinteeth
04-01-2013, 03:42 PM
I'm sure if the other topics were as politically charged as the other ones there would be plenty of protests. We won't know though until people start trying to pass laws prohibiting premarital sex, prohibiting divorce, heck even prohibiting adultery. Those topics would be bringing people out of the wood work. We truly don't know though.

I think the point was that the Bible forbids divorce and we allow it.....prohibits premarital sex but we allow it...prohibits adultery...but we allow it... Prohibits gay sex but we allow it... Says nothing about gay marriage but we don't allow it...?

Banned
04-03-2013, 11:07 PM
I'm sure if the other topics were as politically charged as the other ones there would be plenty of protests. We won't know though until people start trying to pass laws prohibiting premarital sex, prohibiting divorce, heck even prohibiting adultery. Those topics would be bringing people out of the wood work. We truly don't know though.

You're right... but why don't they try to pass those laws? It might have something to do with the fact that the "family values" politicians tend to often also be ones with multiple divorces, cheat on their spouses, and get caught having gay sex.

The openly gay elected officials seem to be much happier people than the angry and bitter closet gay officials. Like that one sheriff who got busted for blackmailing a male illegal immigrant for sex.

RobotChicken
04-04-2013, 12:42 AM
:lock1 I like that moon-view..quiet, nice place to retire....hmmmm, no joe in the morning, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!:music

Measure Man
04-05-2013, 10:11 PM
I've been floating the idea for some time now, but I'm happy to see it might be growing some legs.

In principle, instead of changing the government's definition of marriage, why not change the government's role in "defining" marriage? (So it doesn't have to)

Looks like it may be a viable approach for the future, but I imagine the Rick Santorum variety of Republicans will be the hardest sell.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/03/41752-rand-paul-i-have-an-idea-for-republicans-concerning-the-gay-marriage-issue-and-its-a-good-one/

I"m not sure how this gets the conservatives what they want. Under this scenario, gay marriages are equal to straight marriages...neither recognized by the government, and both having Church marriages, as some churches do perform gay marriages.

At the heart of the Christian Conservative argument is a belief that societal recognition of marriage is an abomination to God that will bring fire and brimstone upon America, some believe that literally, some metaphorically.

It certainly appeals to the Libertarians, though. However, I'm not sure how practical it is. Are we saying that NO couples will be given, say, family PCS entitlements? So, when you go overseas, your wife is not included? If she is included, then the govt. must make a judgement on whether the marriage is valid or not.

What about getting a spouse/fiancee visa? Will US citizens who marry foreigners no longer be able to petition for their permanent residency and/or citizenship? If you marry a Mexican national, will she have to wait in the 20 year waiting line to join you legally the same as any other? Or will marriage still be a ticket to the head of the line? If so, they'll have to make a judgement on which marriages are valid.

USN - Retired
04-06-2013, 02:59 AM
Are we saying that NO couples will be given, say, family PCS entitlements? So, when you go overseas, your wife is not included?

Absolutely.

All overseas assignments should be unaccompanied assignments. Sending a military family overseas on PCS orders is silly.

We should do away with family PCS moves and establish a military homesteading program instead. The government should establish a geo-bachelor airlift using both military airlift and commercial airliners to send married military service members home with their families as much as possible (and no, I don't work for the airlines). A viable homesteading program with a geo-bachelor airlift would probably be considerably less expensive than the current PCS system. Moving a military family and all their possessions every few years just doesn't make financial sense.



What about getting a spouse/fiancee visa? Will US citizens who marry foreigners no longer be able to petition for their permanent residency and/or citizenship? If you marry a Mexican national, will she have to wait in the 20 year waiting line to join you legally the same as any other? Or will marriage still be a ticket to the head of the line? If so, they'll have to make a judgement on which marriages are valid.

The government should do away with the fiancee visa. Most of those marriages end as soon as the foreign spouse gets her (or his) permanent green card. Spouse visas should be limited to those couples who have been married AND living together for a year or longer. I saw many sailors marry bar girls (aka prostitutes) in the Philippines or Thailand and those marriages were usually a disaster. You can take the girl out of the bar, but you can't take the bar out of the girl.

AJBIGJ
04-06-2013, 07:31 AM
I"m not sure how this gets the conservatives what they want. Under this scenario, gay marriages are equal to straight marriages...neither recognized by the government, and both having Church marriages, as some churches do perform gay marriages.

At the heart of the Christian Conservative argument is a belief that societal recognition of marriage is an abomination to God that will bring fire and brimstone upon America, some believe that literally, some metaphorically.

It certainly appeals to the Libertarians, though. However, I'm not sure how practical it is. Are we saying that NO couples will be given, say, family PCS entitlements? So, when you go overseas, your wife is not included? If she is included, then the govt. must make a judgement on whether the marriage is valid or not.

What about getting a spouse/fiancee visa? Will US citizens who marry foreigners no longer be able to petition for their permanent residency and/or citizenship? If you marry a Mexican national, will she have to wait in the 20 year waiting line to join you legally the same as any other? Or will marriage still be a ticket to the head of the line? If so, they'll have to make a judgement on which marriages are valid.

I tend to disagree with conservatives not getting what they want. The reason being for precisely what you stated to be the "Christian Conservative" argument. They don't want societal endorsement of homosexuality as far as I can tell, this would prevent that. By taking on a neutral position the government would also be taking the null position. Any person who truly seeks to preserve a marriage's spirituality and sanctity would recognize that government involvement is a major player in the degradation of it if they are being intellectually honest. The only ones who would not be satisfied are those who are effectively big government Christian conservatives, who actually prefer government enforcing standards on churches about what should and should not be recognized, and that it enforces only their definition.

As far as the latter, those are fairly trivial obstactles you mention in the grand scheme of things from my perspective. I tend to agree with USN-Retired in the belief that any overseas assignments should be unaccompanied tours, I also believe there should be less of them and that they be entirely voluntary. If we traded the cost of PCS ing a spouse with simple massive incentives for servicemembers to go on these unaccompanied tours, I still would foresee massive savings overall from a holistic cost-to-government perspective.

The visa thing, in my mind, should only require a qualified endorsement from a US Citizen, which states why a person should be granted a VISA rather than submitting to the more standardized path towards US Citizenshep. The endorsement would be presented in front of the state court system and conditional visas granted based on the quality of the cases presented. A qualifying factor for an immigrant spouse would be shared guardianship of a naturalized minor, for instance, but that could now also apply to a mother-in-law of a widow who volunteers to assist with child-rearing responsibilities or any other adult who accepts this role in the home. Quite frankly I see no reason to grant a visa to someone just for marrying a US Citizen, unless there is a significant reason why they must be granted legal protections quickly vice the more involved process of becoming a citizen such as a shared conservatorship of minors quite frankly I consider it a standard geo-bachelor situation in the modern age. Marriages that are meant to last can survive a few prolonged absences. I speak from direct experience.

Banned
04-06-2013, 10:40 PM
I tend to disagree with conservatives not getting what they want. The reason being for precisely what you stated to be the "Christian Conservative" argument. They don't want societal endorsement of homosexuality as far as I can tell, this would prevent that. By taking on a neutral position the government would also be taking the null position.

Which is why I make the argument that Christian Conservatives are taking this position because they are sore losers. They realize they can't win this battle - they will no longer get special treatment from the government... so rather than to have to share a privilege with their fellow man, they would prefer that privilege be taken away altogether.

Equivalent of a child breaking his toy, or throwing away his jelly beans, when he's told he has to share them.

RobotChicken
04-06-2013, 10:54 PM
I nominate 'JOE'..Chaplain of the year'.......of course my friend CMDR BAEZ, Chaplain ret. might disagree....

AJBIGJ
04-08-2013, 05:45 AM
Which is why I make the argument that Christian Conservatives are taking this position because they are sore losers. They realize they can't win this battle - they will no longer get special treatment from the government... so rather than to have to share a privilege with their fellow man, they would prefer that privilege be taken away altogether.

Equivalent of a child breaking his toy, or throwing away his jelly beans, when he's told he has to share them.

Yes and no would be my response to that. There is certainly a place at the table for those who believe marriage is a sacred, spiritual bond between individuals and that it should continue to be given such consideration. Just clinging to the one-man one-woman concept as the only thing preserving that sanctity is entirely another thing, and quite frankly intellectually dishonest.