What Should Marriage Be?

[Dr.Who]

Your interpretation is simply flawed. The only limitation to the state's sovereign power is the bill of rights.

Actually the whole of the Constitution is a limitation of the federal governments rights. The bill of rights was added on to appease a few and itself states:

"the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,"[2] and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry or States. "


Most of these restrictions were later applied to the states by a series of decisions applying the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[top gun]

Dr.Who;50695]Well there are all the things that you mentioned just below.

Quote:
The possession of a legal piece of paper giving the ones involved the rights of visitation, inheritance, next of kin notification, family health insurance etc.

Yes, but those things don't adversely affect others. They only allow those 2 people involved to enjoy the same dignity and services as any other married couple.

There is the implied endolrsement of our legistators. There is the possibility that two same gender people cannot raise children as healthily as two opposite gender people. it could be that mothers and fathers are the best people to raise children and to be a stabilizing influence on society. Is it possible that wives temper their husbands in a way that other men cannot? Men and women are different, perhaps they compliment each other in ways that same gender people cannot.

Then following that logic allowing divorce to be legal is an endorsement by our legislators to cheat on ones spouse or break ones word to God. Because as we all know well over 50% of heterosexual marriages end up as divorces and that's totally allowed & legal and kids are dragged through that muck & mire every single day.

As far as raising children goes many scientific studies have been made and in comparison to all the many scenarios children are raised in, parental gender issues have shown to be no bad influence in a loving family unit. And that's a custody issue anyway... not a "marriage" issue. Family Court covers all juvenile protection matters and they are perfectly capably of doing that job.

From that it may be a stretch to say that a tiny amount of gay marriages will be dramatically harmful but we should at least explore the issue before jumping headfirst into what could be a fryingpan. It is not like in the sixties we didn't explore abandoning all sorts of cultural norms and found that we were wrong to think that we could change whatever we wanted without adverse consequences.

My friend the issue has been studied extensively. Gay people have custody of children all over the United States and all over the rest of the world. The only difference is if the parents are married or not. You see just not being married as some benefit to the children?

And it goes even further... in many of our allied countries gays serve openly & responsibly in their military services without a bit of harm.

This isn't about 60's LSD mind altering drugs. This is about two sober adults in love wanting to be treated equally so they can enjoy the same benefits as any other couple.

Truly this really shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, but those things don't adversely affect others. They only allow those 2 people involved to enjoy the same dignity and services as any other married couple.

Marriage is an obligation not a way to get service. An obligation to produce and raise the next generation. And it is only because of the obligation that any priveleges at all are rendered to married persons. At least that is what the state says. I would prefer that the state stay out of it.

And at least one of the items on that list does harm other people. Family health insureance is a greater value than single health insurance. The single people are carrying the load of the married people. The single people are subsidizing the production of chldren. If a gay couple gets married and produces no children then nothing is being subsidized except gay marriage.

Then following that logic allowing divorce to be legal is an endorsement by our legislators to cheat on ones spouse or break ones word to God. Because as we all know well over 50% of heterosexual marriages end up as divorces and that's totally allowed & legal and kids are dragged through that muck & mire every single day.

I agree. And since divorce is so harmful to children it should be sanctioned greatly.

As far as raising children goes many scientific studies have been made and in comparison to all the many scenarios children are raised in, parental gender issues have shown to be no bad influence in a loving family unit. And that's a custody issue anyway... not a "marriage" issue. Family Court covers all juvenile protection matters and they are perfectly capably of doing that job.

yet many people say the reverse.

My friend the issue has been studied extensively. Gay people have custody of children all over the United States and all over the rest of the world. The only difference is if the parents are married or not. You see just not being married as some benefit to the children?

yet all of these people passed custody requirements first so it is hardly a representative sample. You say that there is no difference. But one would expect that a group of gay people who all passed a test to have custody would do much better than a bunch of straight people who got married and had kids with no such test. If they are in fact the same then it must mean that the best of the gays are only doing as well as a random group of non gays.

And it goes even further... in many of our allied countries gays serve openly & responsibly in their military services without a bit of harm.

So what? I am all for that.

This isn't about 60's LSD mind altering drugs. This is about two sober adults in love wanting to be treated equally so they can enjoy the same benefits as any other couple.

It is not about individuals. It is about sociological groups. What are the consequences of changing the definition of marriage we have had for thousands of years? A few case studies tells us very little.

 

[PLC1]

Marriage is an obligation not a way to get service. An obligation to produce and raise the next generation. And it is only because of the obligation that any priveleges at all are rendered to married persons. At least that is what the state says. I would prefer that the state stay out of it.

An obligation to produce and raise the next generation?

Is it the couple's duty to the state to reproduce?

If not, just how is it an obligation to have children?

 

[numinus]

Actually the whole of the Constitution is a limitation of the federal governments rights. The bill of rights was added on to appease a few and itself states:

"the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,"[2] and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry or States. "

Correct. The rule of law curtails sovereign power. But the fact remains, the state is sovereign over its citizens and within its territorial boundaries.

Most of these restrictions were later applied to the states by a series of decisions applying the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Correct.

But nothing in the constitution prohibits the state from regulating the marital institution.

If the constitution is the ONLY limiting instrument of sovereign power, (in this case, the power to regulate a societal institution), then it is the burden of the opposite position to demonstrate exactly how this power is unconstitutional.

 

[numinus]

An obligation to produce and raise the next generation?

Is it the couple's duty to the state to reproduce?

If not, just how is it an obligation to have children?

That is correct.

As a human society, there is an implicit obligation to perpetuate the species.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Sovereign power.

This power is curtailed ONLY by the bill of rights. Take note that the bill of rights enumerates what the state MAY NOT....

Clear?

It's clear that you have no concept of what you're talking about. The only "sovereign power" in the United States belongs to We The People, unless we have SPECIFICALLY granted it to the government. The Bill of Rights includes the 9th and 10th Amendments, which clearly state that ANY POWER NOT SPECIFICALLY GRANTED TO THE GOVERNMENT IS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE! Only those powers SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in Article 1 Section 8 are granted to the government, so, once again, you're WRONG. The Bill of Rights is a PARTIAL list of our NATURAL Rights, and NOT a complete list, which is why the 9th and 10th were SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED by James Madison when he WROTE the Bill of Rights, to protect We The People from individuals like you who apparently hate freedom and wish to give it away to the government.

As I said, you may choose to call it whatever you wish. What these states describe as marriage is FUNDAMENTALLY DEFECTIVE since homosexual marriages has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the PURPOSE of the marital institution -- the founding of the natural family and the relations that accrue from it.

And for homosexuals, being with someone of their own sex IS natural, so once again you've been hoisted by your own petard.

Your interpretation is simply flawed. The only limitation to the state's sovereign power is the bill of rights.

Which specifically says that anything not specifically granted to the government is retained by the people. You really ought to try reading the Constitution some time, at least then you might have some idea of what you're talking about.

Sigh

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

<snip for brevity>

Great, now, have you read the REST of it? If so, then you're fully aware that under UN Resolutions 660, 678, and 1441, we already had authorization from the UN for the War in Iraq, since our stopping hostilities in 1991 was fully contingent upon Saddam complying with the terms of his surrender. He FAILED to comply, so he died, it's as simple as that.

You also conveniently ignore the text of Chapter 7 Article 51 which clearly states

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

We informed the Security Council of our intentions to invoke this Article of the Treaty (which means that, as I stated earlier, we DO have a Right to Declare War WITHOUT their permission), and since the Security Council has FAILED to take ANY measures to "maintain international peace and security" since our invasions, they have DEFACTO given their approval of our actions.

Also, please note that I have provided a LINK to the relevant document I referenced. You have consistently FAILED to do so, which is indicative of an intention to deceive, of which you have been found guilty by your selective and duplicitous application and highly flawed "interpretation" of the document. In case you missed it, I just called you a LIAR.

Then it would be a simple matter to demonstrate how the us political system does not conform with the definition provided, no?

No, your "definition" and the application of it is FLAWED, as it is entirely too general, just as your assertion that the US is a "democracy". You're STILL not smarter than a 5th grader.

As a Charter, it is a constituent treaty, and all members are bound by its articles. Furthermore, the Charter states that obligations to the United Nations prevail over all other treaty obligations.

See above. The Treaty with the UN does not in any way preclude the US from declaring War without first obtaining their approval.

Nonsense. Infertility is a GROUND FOR NULLITY. A null marriage means that THERE WAS NO MARRIAGE to begin with.

As for annulment, according to US Marriage Law, "Annulment is the process by which a Court states that a marriage never legally existed. An annulment must be based on mental illness, fraud, forced consent, physical incapacity to consummate the marriage, lack of consent to underage marriage or bigamy", and since NONE of those applies to infertility UNLESS IT WAS NOT DISCUSSED PRIOR TO THE MARRIAGE, once again, you present a strawman argument, and I have burned it down to nothing but ash.

I have an objection based on the RIGOROUS APPLICATION OF FACTS AND LOGIC.

Neither of which has any bearing on the fact of your illogical, and highly prejudicial intolerance of homosexuals.

I simply do not abide by bigotry.

Must be awfully hard to live with yourself then.

If people wish to cohabit the way married couples do, then by all means, they should do so. What they wish, however, cannot be the basis for re-defining the marital institution nor the laws that govern it.

Capice?

The only thing I capice is that you've presented extremely flawed logic, misinterpretation of US and international law, which means that I capice that you don't know WTF you're talking about.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Actually, it is in the udhr:

Still can't bring yourself to provide a link to your "evidence"? HERE it is, in case anyone is interested in reading what it REALLY says.

Now, let's analyze the specific verbiage of the Article shall we?

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Here we have a specification that "MEN AND WOMEN..." (which precludes dogs, cats, and farm animals, and acknowledges the RIGHT of men and women, even HOMOSEXUAL men and women, or men and women who may not be able to procreate) "...of full age..." (and since it doesn't specify what that age is, it is left to each country to decide for themselves), "...without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to FOUND A FAMILY..." (which is a UNION OF TWO PEOPLE)...

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State

Again, nothing in this Article demands that children result from the union, ergo even those who are incapable of reproducing are fully protected under the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

From the article, the purpose of a marriage is clear -- to found a family.

Which is the union of two people, but it in no way REQUIRES that they even ATTEMPT to procreate.

Therefore, a union between two people of the same gender is not a universal human right.

It says nothing of the sort. You're applying YOUR bigoted interpretations rather than acknowledging the fact that even though the word "family" is mentioned 6 times in the UDHR, it never PRECLUDES a homosexual family.

 

[Federal Farmer]

That is correct.

As a human society, there is an implicit obligation to perpetuate the species.

What are you, a Commie, an Imperialist or a Nazi? The only time in the history of the modern world when it was the "duty" of the people to produce children for the State have been in totalitarian societies like Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Communist Russia and China! Such a "requirement" exists NOWHERE in ANY law in the United States.

 

[Dr.Who]

But nothing in the constitution prohibits the state from regulating the marital institution.

If the constitution is the ONLY limiting instrument of sovereign power, (in this case, the power to regulate a societal institution), then it is the burden of the opposite position to demonstrate exactly how this power is unconstitutional.

The C is not only a limiting document it is the sole source of powers. If a power is not specifically given to the fed then the fed does not have such a power.

So how is the power of the fed to regulate marriage constitutional? If not then there should be no federal law concerning the regulation of marriage.

 

[Dr.Who]

And for homosexuals, being with someone of their own sex IS natural, so once again you've been hoisted by your own petard.

Well whether or not it is natual is not determined. But neverhtless it is not the states right to make that determination.

But stipulating that it is natural then the state should of course not stop two gay people from doing what they want to do as long as they don't harm other people. And that is the question that also remains unanswered.

Additionally if the state does have a responsiblity to regulate the production of the next generation then it might be able to regulate marrige only to the extent that procreation might be involved. So a case can be made for the regulation of straight marriages but not for gay marriages. Alas, if I were only so free that I could get married without the state sticking their nose into my business.

The purpose of marriage from the state pov is to force parents to stay together and take care of children. It is not a right but an obligation. So much so that unmarried parents who live together for so long are considered to be married by the state (common law marriage) whether they want to be or not. This does not mean that the state determines who marries who like in nazi G - that was just ridiculuous. it means that when they get married they have to document it so the state can exercise some control over how the children are cared for.

Since gay people at this time do not produce children the state does not regulate marriage but it does regulate adoptions. That is the extent of how much the state excercises control over gays.

Really gays should be less willing to accept the yoke of state control just because someone told them it was a right or a privilege. It is not. Sure the state gives a few perks (for the sake of the children)but I see these more like the piece of cheese I offer the dog before I slip the collar around his neck.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Well whether or not it is natual is not determined. But neverhtless it is not the states right to make that determination.

Exactly.

But stipulating that it is natural then the state should of course not stop two gay people from doing what they want to do as long as they don't harm other people. And that is the question that also remains unanswered.

Primarily because no such harm has been demonstrated in the first place.

Additionally if the state does have a responsiblity to regulate the production of the next generation then it might be able to regulate marrige only to the extent that procreation might be involved. So a case can be made for the regulation of straight marriages but not for gay marriages. Alas, if I were only so free that I could get married without the state sticking their nose into my business.

Me and thee.

The purpose of marriage from the state pov is to force parents to stay together and take care of children. It is not a right but an obligation. So much so that unmarried parents who live together for so long are considered to be married by the state (common law marriage) whether they want to be or not. This does not mean that the state determines who marries who like in nazi G - that was just ridiculuous. it means that when they get married they have to document it so the state can exercise some control over how the children are cared for.

What confuses me is how the States came to the conclusion that it is any of the States business as to whether the parents stay together or not, when no such Right has been surrendered to the State by We The People. While there is a distinct obligation of the parents to take care of their own children, since no "permission" is required from the State to procreate in the first place, at what point does the State assert that they have any Right to enter into the raising of the children AT ALL? Consider the recent FLDS case in Texas. The State came running in "for the children", and SCOTUS told them that they couldn't do that unless some demonstrable crime had been committed. Simply said, it doesn't matter if you or I agree with how someone raises their children, unless they commit a crime against that child, it's none of the States business.

Since gay people at this time do not produce children the state does not regulate marriage but it does regulate adoptions. That is the extent of how much the state excercises control over gays.

And, as many States have no objection to homosexuals adopting children, the Right of the State is limited to ensuring that the parents are suitably qualified to raise the child without concern for abuse or neglect. Also, since prohibiting homosexuals from parenting children via in vetro fertilization and then those children being carried by a surrogate if necessary, is not an option, again, how can the State assert any proper foundation for in any way regulating homosexuals gaining children any differently than an infertile heterosexual couple?

Really gays should be less willing to accept the yoke of state control just because someone told them it was a right or a privilege. It is not. Sure the state gives a few perks (for the sake of the children)but I see these more like the piece of cheese I offer the dog before I slip the collar around his neck.

I agree wholeheartedly, yet if they are willing to adopt the yoke of tyranny, and abrogate their Natural Rights to the State, that is their choice, and We The People have no Right to infringe upon their choice.

 

[PLC1]

That is correct.

As a human society, there is an implicit obligation to perpetuate the species.

This source seems to agree with your philosophy. Have you read it?

They must, she said, produce a child if they could. So the performance continued to happen, once a week quite regularly, whenever it was not impossible. She even used to remind him of it in the morning, as something which had to be done that evening and which must not be forgotten. She had two names for it. One was 'making a baby', and the other was 'our duty...'

 

[numinus]

It's clear that you have no concept of what you're talking about. The only "sovereign power" in the United States belongs to We The People, unless we have SPECIFICALLY granted it to the government.

Sovereign power resides in the organ that makes laws, controls the armed forces, and administers justice. Clearly, that is the government.

What you meant to say, perhaps, is that the right to govern comes from the consent of the governed.

There is a clear distinction, fyi.

The Bill of Rights includes the 9th and 10th Amendments, which clearly state that ANY POWER NOT SPECIFICALLY GRANTED TO THE GOVERNMENT IS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE! Only those powers SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in Article 1 Section 8 are granted to the government, so, once again, you're WRONG. The Bill of Rights is a PARTIAL list of our NATURAL Rights, and NOT a complete list, which is why the 9th and 10th were SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED by James Madison when he WROTE the Bill of Rights, to protect We The People from individuals like you who apparently hate freedom and wish to give it away to the government.

This is utter nonsense.

Marriage and family laws are chiefly within the province of the INDIVIDUAL STATES. So, you need to look into STATUTORY LAW, NOT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, to see exactly where the right to regulate comes from.

Oh, and the tenth ammendment says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Do you need me to explain that as well?

And for homosexuals, being with someone of their own sex IS natural, so once again you've been hoisted by your own petard.

Nobody is prohibiting a homosexual from 'being with someone of their own sex'.

Its just NOT A MARRIAGE.

Duh?

Which specifically says that anything not specifically granted to the government is retained by the people. You really ought to try reading the Constitution some time, at least then you might have some idea of what you're talking about.

The purpose of the ammendments is to check the powers of the federal government. It doesn't mean the states cannot make their own laws.

Great, now, have you read the REST of it? If so, then you're fully aware that under UN Resolutions 660, 678, and 1441, we already had authorization from the UN for the War in Iraq, since our stopping hostilities in 1991 was fully contingent upon Saddam complying with the terms of his surrender. He FAILED to comply, so he died, it's as simple as that.

He withdrew from kuwait, did he not? Have you even read the un resolutions you just mentioned?

You also conveniently ignore the text of Chapter 7 Article 51 which clearly states
We informed the Security Council of our intentions to invoke this Article of the Treaty (which means that, as I stated earlier, we DO have a Right to Declare War WITHOUT their permission), and since the Security Council has FAILED to take ANY measures to "maintain international peace and security" since our invasions, they have DEFACTO given their approval of our actions.

Correct. The us may do so IN SELF-DEFENSE. Which begs the question -- when has an armed attack by iraq against the us occured, hmmm?

Also, please note that I have provided a LINK to the relevant document I referenced. You have consistently FAILED to do so, which is indicative of an intention to deceive, of which you have been found guilty by your selective and duplicitous application and highly flawed "interpretation" of the document. In case you missed it, I just called you a LIAR.

And what exactly have I lied about, hmmm?

No, your "definition" and the application of it is FLAWED, as it is entirely too general, just as your assertion that the US is a "democracy". You're STILL not smarter than a 5th grader.

Eh????

Commonwealth is a 'GENERAL TERM', as the wiki definition said. How is a 'general term' flawed for being 'entirely too general', eh???

The FACT remains -- what you pay your government IS NO LONGER YOUR MONEY, IT IS THE COMMONWEALTH'S.

I am growing quite tired of your stupidity.

See above. The Treaty with the UN does not in any way preclude the US from declaring War without first obtaining their approval.

And I suppose you can demonstrate self-defense in the recent war with iraq, eh?

As for annulment, according to US Marriage Law, "Annulment is the process by which a Court states that a marriage never legally existed. An annulment must be based on mental illness, fraud, forced consent, physical incapacity to consummate the marriage, lack of consent to underage marriage or bigamy", and since NONE of those applies to infertility UNLESS IT WAS NOT DISCUSSED PRIOR TO THE MARRIAGE, once again, you present a strawman argument, and I have burned it down to nothing but ash.

Nonsense. It points to a condition existing before the marriage, whether that condition is known or not at the time.

And it succintly answers your irrelevant question -- no fertility test required prior to getting married.

Neither of which has any bearing on the fact of your illogical, and highly prejudicial intolerance of homosexuals.

Only a bonehead would fail to see the logic.

A homosexual union is not a marriage simply because it has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the purpose for which marriage is legislated in the first place.

Must be awfully hard to live with yourself then.

Not at all. It is a pain, however, to read your nonsense.

The only thing I capice is that you've presented extremely flawed logic, misinterpretation of US and international law, which means that I capice that you don't know WTF you're talking about.

The only thing flawed around here is your insistence in calling a homosexual union something IT OSTENSIBLY ISN'T,

 

[numinus]

The C is not only a limiting document it is the sole source of powers. If a power is not specifically given to the fed then the fed does not have such a power.

You mean to say the federal government cannot make statutes??? I'm sorry but you are talking apples and oranges.

So how is the power of the fed to regulate marriage constitutional? If not then there should be no federal law concerning the regulation of marriage.

It is constitutional until its constitutionality is challenged.