Who should regulate marriages?

[gabosaurus]

Maybe not, but it invites God's judgement.

People who don't believe in God don't care if he judges them or not.

[aboutime]

There are already age restrictions. As I said in my original statement. Therefore, your point is invalid.
Who says you aren't a fucking loon?

Gabby. Most of us know from experience here. ONLY YOU qualify as That kind of LOON. And we don't mean the bird. That would be an insult to those poor flying things. So. YOU ALONE hold that distinction for all of Eternity, and nobody will, or can ever take that away from you. looneyleft.jpg

[Thunderknuckles]

How is marriage not a religious matter? Marriage IS a religious institution.

Government out of marriage. THat means out as far as marriage benefits or anything of that matter to.

Civil contracts for those who don't with to be married but want certain contractual protections.

Churches can marry whomever they like (consenting adults of course)

Amen.

[mundame]

I doesn't matter if you think homosexuality is disgusting. It's not against the law. Therefore, there should be nothing saying that homosexuals shouldn't get married.

Such reasoning scrambles my brain.

An article in Commentary put it best, I think: Caligula made his horse a Consul, a Senate office.

But is the horse a Consul? Caligula had it walked in and tied in the Senate when it met, with hay and water. Does that make the horse a Consul?


The answer is, no, the horse is not a Consul, whatever Caligula said.

[Robert A Whit]

I say no one should.
First of all, marriage is not about religion. It is a civil ceremony. There are a lot of people who don't believe in religion. Or, if they do, it is not the religion that follows the teachings of the Christian Bible.
I know a lot of you advocate that the government should stay out of people's lives. Why is this different.

I know homosexuality offends a lot of you. It doesn't offend me. But what if I decided that I am offended by an American marrying someone from Russia, or from South America? Can I move for a law or constitutional amendment stating that American citizens can not marry those from other countries?

Why is it the business of the government who should get married? The U.S. is supposed to be a free country. The government should not regulate morality.
We do have laws concerning age limits and behavior with animals. I am talking two willing people, whether they be same sex or different sex.

Please tell me why the government should interfere.

So far as I know, religion has not taken over marriages. As you personally admitted.

So, why ought marriage be the business of your state? It ought not to be the business of the Feds. They should butt out.

If you forsee a troubled marriage where party A decides to ignore Party B and Parties C,D, E and so forth, maybe you understand the purpose of marriage laws.

Here is what your plan would amount to is to cast off regulations or law giving children rights inside the parents marriage. What would you do if the parents legally can deny child support?

If the state that actually has laws over marriages allow what you want to allow, they will have no basis to deny any adult from marrying the person or persons they want to marry. A man could of course marry as many women as he can support. Matter of fact, currently a man may date as many women as he wants to date and live with many of them at the same time. Hugh Heffner is a good example of a man with his personal harem. Since that is lega, why couldn't he marry all of them?

Then you have the case of a mother in CA that put the newborn up for adoption. She played no role in his growing up. When he was an adult, the son tracked down his birth mother. They fell in love. I guess they did since they had not known each other and perhaps the son so resembled his father she fell in love all over again. And they had two children.

The upshot was when the cops discovred this, both adults got arrested and put on trial.

An adult woman author wrote a book that when she was in her early twenties, she decided to try to get closer to her father. The two of them lived in harmony and were lovers. This lasted about 3 years. She wrote of her reasons and experiences.

Suppose they wanted to marry each other?

Well, do you want government in marriage or not?

[aboutime]

I say no one should.
First of all, marriage is not about religion. It is a civil ceremony. There are a lot of people who don't believe in religion. Or, if they do, it is not the religion that follows the teachings of the Christian Bible.
I know a lot of you advocate that the government should stay out of people's lives. Why is this different.

I know homosexuality offends a lot of you. It doesn't offend me. But what if I decided that I am offended by an American marrying someone from Russia, or from South America? Can I move for a law or constitutional amendment stating that American citizens can not marry those from other countries?

Why is it the business of the government who should get married? The U.S. is supposed to be a free country. The government should not regulate morality.
We do have laws concerning age limits and behavior with animals. I am talking two willing people, whether they be same sex or different sex.

Please tell me why the government should interfere.

Gabby. If you are presently married to a man. You should cease being a hypocrite, and find a woman who will please you more. And don't forget to tell the man in your life how little you value him...in lieu of the affections of a woman whom offers a gay alternative.

[fj1200]

Here is what your plan would amount to is to cast off regulations or law giving children rights inside the parents marriage. What would you do if the parents legally can deny child support?

Balderdash. Child support is not related to marriage.

[fj1200]

Gabby. If you are presently married to a man. You should cease being a hypocrite, and find a woman who will please you more. And don't forget to tell the man in your life how little you value him...in lieu of the affections of a woman whom offers a gay alternative.

Please point out where she stated that everyone should only marry those of the same sex.

[mundame]

Balderdash. Child support is not related to marriage.

Right, IMO. Child support is what the state requires instead of marriage. It's the substitute for marriage.

Good way to depopulate the country.

[Robert A Whit]

There are already age restrictions. As I said in my original statement. Therefore, your point is invalid.
Who says you aren't a fucking loon?

Deregulate as you ask for and there are no age restrictions. Logic supplied to you free of charge.

[Robert A Whit]

That's not my point. I want to know why the government shouldn't sanction same sex marriage.
Individuals can think and do what they believe.

Easy, because your premise is to get the Government out of that business.

Logic supplied free of charge.

[fj1200]

Deregulate as you ask for and there are no age restrictions. Logic supplied to you free of charge.

Your logic fails. Minors lack the legal capacity to engage in a civil contract, which it essentially becomes.

[ConHog]

Right, IMO. Child support is what the state requires instead of marriage. It's the substitute for marriage.

Good way to depopulate the country.

Um what?

You may not realize this but child support can be agreed upon and collected without marriage being a factor. Or the government for that matter.

[Robert A Whit]

Originally Posted by Robert A Whit
Here is what your plan would amount to is to cast off regulations or law giving children rights inside the parents marriage. What would you do if the parents legally can deny child support?

Balderdash. Child support is not related to marriage.

I was discussing her plan. In a marriage, child support is related to marriage. She calls for the government stepping aside from marriage. And if the children are step children, the law will not force the step dad to pay for their child support. So not saying you are wrong, but I am saying she will not be pleased if the government goes out of the marriage bueiness.

[Robert A Whit]

Your logic fails. Minors lack the legal capacity to engage in a civil contract, which it essentially becomes.

Non responsive to my actual point. I agree with the above remark.