Previous 21 - 30 Next
Right. And having those people marry will not make things better,
That's great. I wonder how Catholic priests mature?
No, but apparently marriage between consenting adults is a fundamental right and we must evolve, right?
Yes, if people are going to have children or cohabitate, they should marry. But what we should be doing is discouraging people from having sex or being in relationships at all unless they're 1) prepared to be a good partner, and 2) have found someone compatible. One of the reasons people are shacking up and/or making babies out of wedlock rather than marrying is that they're not spouse material or are not with someone to whom they want to be married. Having them go through a ceremony or sign a legal contract will not magically make them a good pair.
Unfortunately, "marriage" we have today with our laws and culture have almost no resemblance to the marriage God gave us.
I'll preface this by saying I'm a married father, by choice. I was not nagged into either decision. "Want to make up to $19,000 more annually? Try getting married." THAT is a very irresponsible thing to say. I'll explain why. "A new study by the American Enterprise Institute found that married men have significantly higher incomes than their unmarried peers." Is that surprising? Given the choice, a woman will marry a guy who earns more money than one who earns less. DUH!!!! Cart and horse? ALSO... at least HALF of that income belongs to his wife. So... a married man has to earn TWICE as much as his unmarried counterpart to be financially ahead of his unmarried counterpart. I understand the correlations lead some to conclude it is good for society and good for the GOP. But if a man wants to do what is directly best FOR HIM, it isn't to get legally married. The odds for a lasting, happy marriage under current state marriage laws, combined with the enormous risks a man undertakes in a legal marriage thanks to our current laws, family courts, cultural climate, etc. make is a foolish decision for a man to make. I know, I know, married men are supposedly happier, wealthier, healthier, and live longer and get more sex. Those are statistics about a broad population. We have no way of knowing if any given John Doe would be better off marrying or not, because we can't compare him to himself. How do we know it isn't that women are more likely to marry a happy, rich, healthy, sexually active man over a miserable, poor, sickly guy who isn't interested in sex? Also, men who really think through things - they can be part of the unmarried population that is happier, wealthier, healthier and get more sex than the average married man. My wife enjoys the financial fruits of my labor much more than I do. If she divorces me, I'll have to pay her way through life for the rest of my life. But if my unmarried counterpart is dumped by his girlfriend, he'll owe NOTHING. By the way, I do not support shacking up, either. Along with extensive paperwork akin to a prenup (although judges toss out such paperwork all of the time), it MIGHT be good for a man to get religiously, but not legally, married.
Bend over and get used to it. We're moving from "Stay out or our bedrooms and bars!" to "You have to change marriage laws to accommodate our feelings wah wah wah" to "You WILL participate in and celebrate our unions or you will lose your job, your business, and your freedom."
If two men can "marry", then marriage can't be about children, but is only about the feelings of adults. Since marriage is not about children and about the feelings of adults, no man should ever feel the slightest bit obligated to marry his knocked-up girlfriend nor stay with his wife because they have minor children together.
Let's assume your statements are true. How does that justify coercing people to violate their convictions, convictions based on universal human history?
In response to:

Answering Ted Olson

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Oct 14, 2014 11:32 AM
OK, so what happens if they disagree on how to split their assets? 1) Physical struggle/fight for the assets OR 2) Court orders. Courts are part of the state, right?
In response to:

Answering Ted Olson

Ken the Playful Walrus Wrote: Oct 14, 2014 11:30 AM
The argument isn't that all marriages must produce children, It is that the gender-inclusive union is the only kind that naturally can, and most do. The state simply does not have the same interest in an union that excludes one of the sexes. Our birth certificates note whether we are male or female, and they are government documents. Therefore, no invasion of privacy is needed under the bride+groom requirement. However, if you want to ask intention to have children or fertility, you are invading privacy.
Previous 21 - 30 Next