What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
Scary Quiz - Do you have what it takes to attract women? view!
doubleyourdating.com - Think you know a thing or two about meeting women? Take this quiz and find out...
458 Comments
- inactive, on 03/16/2009, -26/+1921.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.
http://www.lp.org/platform
Vote for it..........Next time - emmettgolf, on 03/16/2009, -11/+129With the divorce rate at 50% among heterosexuals, you have to wonder who the expert is that is trying to tell people who can and can't get married. Think of the taxpayer money that would be saved on court costs if we banned marriage as a legal entity and replaced it with a civil contract that had to be negotiated before the union. Anyone could still have a marriage ceremony in the church of their choice.
- disingenious, on 03/16/2009, -15/+114The current quasi-governmental, quasi-religious marriage situation really is a cluster *****. This is good alternative to the schizophrenic system we have now.
- normlsparky, on 03/17/2009, -7/+80Marriage is not a word. It's a sentence.
- zizzybaloobah, on 03/16/2009, -7/+69Given that at least in Christianity, marriage was a religious rite long before it fell under the domain of government, this is a great idea. The state doesn't dictate who can be baptised, christened, branded, cut, or what-have-you, so why marriage?
Furthermore, the religious right has screamed bloody murder whenever government attempts to do things like license ministers, regulate church schools and daycares, etc, out of fear that government licensing means government control (and rightfully so). So where was the yelling when the marriage sacrament fell under government control (there was none of course, because nobody figured it would ever be expanded beyond male/female, same race unions).
Even without the idea of civil unions, if you gave up marriage to be controlled by the state, then the state is allowed to define it however they wish. - PuterPrsn, on 03/16/2009, -6/+65This works for me. That way, any group of adults can unite for mutual support, regardless of whether the group is even sexually active amongst themselves or not. Shouldn't matter to the "state". Marriage is a sanctified union through one's religion. While the state may require a license for mutual support, a marriage doesn't actually require a state license, it requires a frame of mind.
- atomicpoet, on 03/16/2009, -5/+56I've always considered marriage to be more of a religious designation anyway.
- idoj, on 03/16/2009, -3/+45Is it also news to you that not all heterosexual couples can produce children? Couples, gay and straight, adopt and have children by other means. Producing children biologically is not what makes a family.
- mbelrose, on 03/16/2009, -3/+45Marriage isn't what produces children. You need to research how babby is formed.
- lydecker, on 03/16/2009, -6/+42This is what I've always recommended to conservatives who believe that a definition is really important, because it's clear that equality is coming. This is the way to bring that equality, get rid of special preference to heterosexual unions, and not have the government define any word.
- lydecker, on 03/16/2009, -3/+38If that's your belief, government should get rid of all marriage and spousal benefits, and only give benefits when couples have children.
Then, when a gay or straight couple has children, the government only supports those families.
Because gay marriages can either have children or not, straight marriages can either have children or not. - mrsteveman1, on 03/17/2009, -2/+32The power to decide ***** like this should not be given to any government, at any level.
This ***** distinction between what the federal government can do and what the states can do has allowed completely outrageous things to happen. The government should not be allowed to do anything more than short list of things you can count on one hand.
Keep a military
Maintain public infrastructure
Protect people from each other including corporations
Arbitrate civil disagreements
I'm forgetting a few, but in no circumstance is it ok for a state to define marriage, issue licenses for what is at this point a disposable relationship, etc etc. - eir574, on 03/16/2009, -6/+34"Point of marriage from a government perspective: production of children."
That must explain why infertile couples are not allowed to marry. Oh, wait . . . you must have it wrong. - mrsteveman1, on 03/17/2009, -5/+32That is essentially what we have now, a religious ceremony means absolutely nothing without the legal license. Problem is, a bunch of backwood hicks think the governments definition of marriage should match their religions definition.
- lydecker, on 03/16/2009, -3/+28Marriage was even a social practice long before any religion started their own traditions and beliefs about it, but it seems many are stuck on a word used to describe all those partnerships, and would be willing for another word to describe those same partnerships equality.
- SQLDigger, on 03/17/2009, -3/+26
No, the government doesn't really have any right to regulate marriage, or the family, other than regulating the various contractual obligations associated with it. What's most ridiculous is that the government DEFINES the contractual obligations associated with marriage.
What other contract does the state regulate the terms of? Personally, I think everyone should have to draw up their own pre-nuptial contract, and have it work like any other civil contract. Catholic? Make it harder to get a divorce. Hollywood star? Make divorce obligatory after 3 years. Don't want to fight about who gets the kids if you divorce? Maybe you should think about it and set the terms before you get married. Want to fight about the kids and what a horrible parent the other party is? By all means, build that into the contract as well. Want a religious official to arbitrate your marriage / divorce? That should be up to you as well. That is the only truly fair, small government solution. - lydecker, on 03/16/2009, -2/+25"Its new to me that gay people can produce children."
I didn't say the gay couple would produce children solely by their own ability. They may have them due to sperm donation, other relationships, adoption, turning an egg into a sperm, etc. - fasda, on 03/17/2009, -3/+26Well if you want to let states discriminate with this issue why not let them decide if they want to institute jim crow laws again, ban abortion, hell lets let them re criminalize gay sex again.
- StaticThunder, on 03/16/2009, -3/+25I am confused. Where in the Constitution does it say "to encourage the reproduction of its citizens?"
- punx, on 03/16/2009, -0/+20Well you know my opinion on this one. I don't care what people want to call it. Call it marriage, what's the difference?
Take a look around us. We have people who kill their children, strap bombs to themselves and blow everyone around them to kingdom come, men who kill their daughters and call it honor, war, famine...
And we're worried about two people, regardless of sex, falling in love? Yeah, that's at the top of my list to spend energy opposing. - pmkenny1234, on 03/17/2009, -0/+18More accurately...not in EVERY church. There are indeed churches that are quite amicable to the idea of marrying homosexual couples.
- s73v3r, on 03/17/2009, -0/+18You don't? Wow, um... I need to go make a phone call...
- armourer, on 03/17/2009, -2/+20Obvious troll is obvious
- Michael9636, on 03/16/2009, -11/+29The major problem this option misses is the impact current law derives from the word "marriage." Over 1,000 federal laws grant benefits to a two person union based on the word "marriage."
Why all this contortion to come up with a different word, e.g. "civil unions?" If a gay relationship is to be legally equivalent to "marriage," then just call it a "marriage" and move on. - inactive, on 03/17/2009, -1/+18ZT doesn't realize that when you become gay, you don't surrender your testicles/ovaries.
- ScottyAnimal, on 03/17/2009, -1/+17I've said this from day one.
- Jordan117, on 03/17/2009, -0/+16Precisely the right thing to do. If marriage is so vital to religion that religious people feel the need to keep gay people out of it to preserve its "sanctity", then why is government so entangled in it? You can't have it both ways.
- synapz, on 03/17/2009, -1/+16All this money we give government, and they can't run search and replace on a few thousand laws? Give me a break.
- bryrb, on 03/17/2009, -1/+16I've been saying this for years. If the religious aspect is the problem for people then why let heterosexual couples marry without being religious? Either cut the term entirely or issue everyone the same license and allow religious marriage ceremonies in addition.
- lendrick, on 03/17/2009, -2/+17What about two girls and one cup?
- mrsteveman1, on 03/17/2009, -1/+16This is true, the legal part seems to have come later. However we still have exactly what i said, religions attempting to get legislation passed to ensure the governments definition matches their own.
- everlast88, on 03/17/2009, -0/+14Doug Stanhope: Baby I love you so much and what we have is so great we have to get the *****' government in on this *****!
- elTito, on 03/17/2009, -1/+15I believe this has been the Libertarian approach for quite some time. Regardless it's the only thing that's ever made any real sense to me.
Let the churches decide what does and does not constitute a "marriage." Government shouldn't be in that business. - Shawn4168, on 03/17/2009, -3/+16As a Christian, this is an idea that I've supported for a long time. Marriage, in the legal sense of the word, has become such a joke in our society, that I don't think that we can seriously call it marriage anymore. We've become a society that abandons "til death do us part" in favor of dropping a relationship as soon as you get "tired" of the other person. People are signing prenuptial agreements to enter into a union that should be unconditional. Marriage should belong to the church, keep the government out of it. Let them have their civil unions and everybody's happy.
- videodroner, on 03/17/2009, -2/+15I'm a republican, and I even I agree with this article. It almost sounds as common sense.
- TevinC, on 03/17/2009, -1/+14A marriage should really just be a series of contracts (like power of attorney) that give another person certain privileges. The rest of it is private.
- acroyear2, on 03/17/2009, -0/+12I agree with the republican above. I'm currently a "liberal" and this is a very conservative and libertarian idea. Don't encourage the government to have a role in matters it shouldn't. Let's retire its control over defining marriage. Let the churches decide.
- inactive, on 03/17/2009, -2/+14So I suppose when two atheists get married, they're "disrespecting" Christians by not having a religious ceremony? That's bull.
- deadbaby, on 03/17/2009, -8/+20They'll just come up with another excuse to oppose it. One of the things I dislike the most about the Republican party is how scared they are to just come out and say what they really believe. They think homosexuals are sub-humans who do not deserve the same rights as 'normal' people. Instead of just saying it they're hiding behind some silly defense of "protecting marriage" They're just cowards who won't tell you what they really believe.
- billraydrums, on 03/17/2009, -2/+14Hahaha!! That's classic.
- mawdurnbukanier, on 03/17/2009, -0/+11I'm pretty sure he was talking about the world at large, not just what he encounters on his commute to work everyday.
- Galaxylander, on 03/17/2009, -3/+14Ever noticed how when gay people get upset about being forced to have something called a Civil Union because they don't 'deserve' the word Marriage the Christian People are all like "Why are you getting all pissy, it's the same thing but it's just named something different." Now if we take the word away from them, how much you wanna bet they're going to bitch and complain?
- LordVance, on 03/17/2009, -0/+11The key point isn't that they aren't "good enough" for the term Marriage. It is that history has shown us, many times across many nations and in many situations, that separate but equal is inherently unequal. Either we call them all marriages, or all civil unions - I don't care which (as a bisexual in a long term heterosexual relationship). As long as they are all referred to the same way, and there is no difference in the eyes of the law, then I don't care if we call them pancake partnerships for ***** sake.
- ProfessorSYM, on 03/17/2009, -3/+14If they want to, who cares?
- Gerz1219, on 03/17/2009, -2/+13The state actually has a compelling interest in regulating polyamorous relationships. Courts, by definition, must be run by the state, and child custody, inheritance, divorce and medical decisions must all be adjudicated by the courts.
If the state recognized polyamorous relationships, the courts would be swamped with perilous legal cases. If a group of seven people marry each other, and one of them gets hit by a car and becomes brain dead, who gets to decide when to pull the plug if the parties disagree? Who gets custody of the group's children? How is the estate divided up?
These questions are difficult enough when two parties are involved. When multiple parties are involved, it becomes impossible. The resulting caseload would literally swamp our courts. Purely out of concern for practical legal considerations, the state can only recognize monogamous relationships.
I would further argue that the state must recognize monogamous partnerships, because any dispute regarding such partnerships will be decided by the courts, which are run by the state.
Therefore, the ridiculous idea of the state not recognizing *any* partnerships, gay or straight, is unworkable. There must be a state-controlled authority recognizing partnerships in order to confer legal authority to them. The idea of "let's end marriage!" is a semantic one, because then the state is issuing partnership licenses to gay and straight couples which have the full force of marriage.
Let's all grow up and just grant gay people the full marriage rights to which they are naturally entitled, without dragging in silly complicating scenarios to muddy the waters. - SumoSniper, on 03/17/2009, -1/+12I've been saying this for a while. Although I doubt it will happen any time soon, I'm glad some people with PhDs have seen some sense on the subject. Why sanction and regulate one religious ceremony when they ignore all the others. The problem is that all sorts of hacks would come out against this, arguing that taking away the legal status of marriage is going to ruin families etc, etc.
If everyone pitched in, maybe we could make such a proposition work. It would instantly nullify ***** like prop8 and so on. I wonder how we'd go about getting that done here in Australia... - buckrogers1965, on 03/17/2009, -1/+12Yes, 50% of marriages end in divorce. But 90% of couples stay married for life.
How can this be?
Because 10% of people get married 10 times.
These numbers aren't exactly perfect. - pmkenny1234, on 03/17/2009, -0/+11A good friend of mine is lesbian and she's going through one of the nastiest divorces I've ever witnessed. Make no mistake, gays have been given the right to divorce. If you have a civil union, you must resolve all property differences, custody and all the other crap that married people get the pleasure of dealing with.
For the record, I totally agree that this might be the reasonable solution. I'm don't know why the government has any say in a religious ceremony period. This seems doubly true for the gay marriage issue where only SOME churches in SOME religions practice the ceremony. - fasda, on 03/17/2009, -1/+12ricperry1 what part of LIFE LIBERTY AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS don't you understand? these states are infringing on basic liberties. If states started restricting free speech should we move to another state because its the states right to decide decency? ***** NO we sue that state for violating our first amendment rights.
I really don't know what country you live in but the one I'm familiar with the minority gets the same rights as the majority because they are fundamental to our being. But if you still feel like your previous post lets try something closer too home what if one day the states come after a freedom you enjoy? - Mattwdj, on 03/17/2009, -2/+12YEAAAAAAAAAA
Why would we ever get ride of slavery, changing the entire tradition of owning slaves just to accommodate some minority. Why would be ever do that. AAAAAAAHHHHHHH -
Show 51 - 100 of 464 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is