DOMA and Prop 8 - Page 18
+ Reply to Thread
Page 18 of 48 FirstFirst ... 814151617181920212228 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 479
Like Tree248Likes

Thread: DOMA and Prop 8

  1. #171
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,521

    Default

    I do not have all the answers. Now that the government is deeply invested in marriage it would be difficult to change. I do think it would be better if they had never gotten involved in the first place.

    ~Bonita~

  2. #172
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    I do not have all the answers. Now that the government is deeply invested in marriage it would be difficult to change. I do think it would be better if they had never gotten involved in the first place.
    But why? How would it be better? What is the alternative?
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 6 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  3. #173
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    First, I am not sitting around fantasizing about how wonderful this would be. I rarely ever think about it.

    I think most people (even people that own guns), would say they wish there was no need for guns and in their ideal situation there would not be a need for guns. They might however feel that as long as there is a need for guns, that they need to have one.

    (I do not own a gun, nor do I have a desire to own a gun. This is just for illustration purposes.)
    It's not a good analogy, but it would be if you felt that there was no need for marriage at all.

    I think maybe everybody wishes we didn't need guns, except for hunters who use them for something other than shooting people/protection.

    I don't think there are a lot of people who think there should be no marriage at all. Even the ones who don't like it just don't get married, and that's that.

    But people who think CITIZENS shouldn't own guns don't actually own them.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 6 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  4. #174
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    I do not have all the answers. Now that the government is deeply invested in marriage it would be difficult to change. I do think it would be better if they had never gotten involved in the first place.
    Why!?!?!! Marriage is good for society?

  5. #175
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    Bonita, not trying to hound you to be a jerk, I just truly do not understand.You wish there was no need for a government marriage? I mean, you can say that there isn't a true need for it, but I certainly get that there are a lot of rights and whatnot that you forgo when you forgo the government marriage which is why people are fighting so hard to have it. So yeah, there is a "need" for it - but then if you got rid of the government marriage, how would you get those right otherwise? Like we talked about the need for a marriage for an easy name change. But how would the government be able to track who is married to who and allow the easy name change if you didn't register it with them somehow? Ditto for every right that you currently enjoy with your marriage.
    If government marriage didn't exist I'm sure there would be another way to handle those things legally by setting up some kind of legal partnership contract that would be just as easy or maybe even easier because it would probably make property ownership easier to split up if it is defined from the beginning. In my fairy tale land marriage is between a man and a woman as it has been since this country was founded and there is no divorce unless there is cheating involved. Couples don't live together before they are married and children grow up with a mother and a father. Government can't just take something over and then change the definition of what it is.

    It's strange that you talk so much about government bestowing rights based on marriage, how is that not discriminatory in the first place that you have to be married to get those rights? You don't want the government to discriminate, but yet the whole practice of bestowing rights based on marriage is discriminatory.
    Rivergallery likes this.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  6. #176
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    If government marriage didn't exist I'm sure there would be another way to handle those things legally by setting up some kind of legal partnership contract that would be just as easy or maybe even easier because it would probably make property ownership easier to split up if it is defined from the beginning. In my fairy tale land marriage is between a man and a woman as it has been since this country was founded and there is no divorce unless there is cheating involved. Couples don't live together before they are married and children grow up with a mother and a father. Government can't just take something over and then change the definition of what it is.
    So in your ideal world, it's illegal for couples to live together unless they're married? And marriage is handled by. . .?

    Is spousal abuse a reason for divorce? Abandonment? Hating each other? I think people would end up cheating just to have a reason for a divorce.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 6 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  7. #177
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    If government marriage didn't exist I'm sure there would be another way to handle those things legally by setting up some kind of legal partnership contract that would be just as easy or maybe even easier because it would probably make property ownership easier to split up if it is defined from the beginning. In my fairy tale land marriage is between a man and a woman as it has been since this country was founded and there is no divorce unless there is cheating involved. Couples don't live together before they are married and children grow up with a mother and a father. Government can't just take something over and then change the definition of what it is.

    It's strange that you talk so much about government bestowing rights based on marriage, how is that not discriminatory in the first place that you have to be married to get those rights? You don't want the government to discriminate, but yet the whole practice of bestowing rights based on marriage is discriminatory.
    In your fairy world would divorce, living together before marriage, et cetera be against the law or would be people choose not to do them of their own will?

    I don't think it's discriminatory if people have the choice to get married but choose not to. The problem now is that some people do not have the choice.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  8. #178
    Prolific Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    Choosing not to use a right that you can use is up to you. I have the right to own a gun and I choose not to. I don't feel discriminated against.

    There are many people who have a moral compass that doesn't allow divorce for cheating but would for spousal abuse? How do we pick and choose which morals to go by?
    Mom to Elizabeth (6) and Corinne (4)

  9. #179
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,442

    Default

    Honestly, guys, these imaginary worlds are so tailored to you and your needs that they're not really helpful in a debate.

    I could say that in my ideal world, marriage would only be for atheist Canadian Jews paired up with Christians, and everyone has to live together for 3 years first, and weddings can't have more than 11 guests.

    But yeah, those things were just how I chose to do it, not how everyone else should do it.
    Spacers, Potter75 and Alissa_Sal like this.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 10 ) and Juliet ( 6 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  10. #180
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    A fairy tail world where my husband beats me and I can't divorce him? Man you guys have some twisted "dream worlds!" Why not just say that the only legal things should be exactly what you've done in your life, Gloria?

    there is nothing discriminatory about a government giving tax breaks or incenting people to do things (like buying homes or giving to charity or investing in retirement plans) which benefit society as a whole. That's obvious.
    Spacers likes this.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions