FReep this Poll: Should marriage be legally defined as only a union between a man and a woman?

CNN.com ^ | 8-03-03 | CNN

[Salvation]

Should marriage be legally defined as only a union between a man and a woman?

[FReepaholic]

>>...Legal record for inheritance and family involvement in related affairs...<<

Seems to me two people could enter into a legal contract to cover this.

>>...Legal record to inhibit and prosecute bigamy...<<

There's Government again butting into private lives.

>>...Legal record to assert paternal responsibility...<<

Paternity can be established without being married.

Seems to me, licensing marriages is basically another means for governments to get revenue.

[Celtman]

Yes: 31%, 268570 votes
No: 69%, 599955 votes
Total: 868525 votes

      Actually, as was pointed out in another thread, this is another case of Newspeak, re George Orwell.  The word "marriage" is being redefined by the courts, altering existing law.  Welcome to 1984.

[Jay D. Dyson]

...Legal record for inheritance and family involvement in related affairs...

Seems to me two people could enter into a legal contract to cover this.

Um...that's what a marriage license is. A legal contract.

Legal record to inhibit and prosecute bigamy.

There's Government again butting into private lives.

Are you being serious or facetious? It's hard to tell.

Legal record to assert paternal responsibility.

Paternity can be established without being married.

And as I said in my previous post: The institution of marriage far predates blood and DNA tests.. So essentially we're dealing with a legacy system.

Have fun trying to get it discontinued.

-Jay

[ppaul]

Whole lotta queers porkin' that poll!

[FReepaholic]

>>...Um...that's what a marriage license is. A legal contract...<<

Well, yes. What I'm trying to get at is that two people that want to establish a "Legal record for inheritance and family involvement in related affairs", as you mentioned, don't need to "get married". They can enter into a business-type legal contract (maybe...I'm not a lawyer).

>>...Are you being serious or facetious? It's hard to tell...<<

I don't know. :-)

This is a tough issue. I'm on the side of folks trying to maintain some semblance of morality in our society, yet I hate for Government to intrude into our lives as much as it does.

[tiki]

FReeped but the gays and liberals must really be on it.

[Jay D. Dyson]

If you don't like the government butting into your private life, then why are you a republican?

Because the Democrats/Liberals spend far more time interfering with my private life than the Republicans. Thanks to the Left, I have to register for my RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Thanks to the Left, my property that I OWN outright is taxed to near nonexistence. Thanks to the Left and Democrats, I have to give up a third of my income to people who make stupid decisions in life and either get knocked up outside of marriage, get AIDS, immigrate illegally to this nation, or otherwise demonstrate that they are too stupid to live.

Next question?

-Jay

P.S. -- The next time you ask me a question in the public forum, exercise some self-restraint and patience. Contrary to your idiot world view, my life does NOT revolve around YOUR expectations, sport.

[dsc]

Looks like every pickle-smoocher in America is sitting at his computer repeat-voting.

[gsrinok]

Really - homosexuality is as old as humanity. It's not going away. If it offends you, don't do it, but don't expect everyone to live according to your morality.

You have a point there, but asking society to sanction homosexual behavior, which this thread is about, is a different matter. If two homosexuals want to get together and do their thing, that's between them and God. Saying that society should recognize their behavior as marriage and extend to them the same benefits as such makes it all of our business.

[gsrinok]

If two people want to share their lives and their property in a legal arrangment, how does that affect you on a personal, basic level?

Nice argument, but it's fairly easily rebutted. Most would agree that social laws should be based on the concept of morality. The majority of people in this country believe that homosexual marriage (and even homosexual behavior) is immoral. Therefore, asking society to condone and sanction homosexual marriage offends the will of the majority, which pretty much destroys the concept of democracy, something that the left claims to care deeply about.

[gsrinok]

Oops, posted before I was ready.

One more thing -- you mentioned that the concept of marriage doesn't belong exclusively to Christians, and you are right. I would also mention that plenty of people who don't consider themselves Christians and even some who don't adhere to any religion at all are against the idea of homosexual marriage.

[dsc]

Oh, goody, another mind-numbed, lockstep robot of the left here to "enlighten" the conservatives.

Gee, it's been *hours* since we've seen one of those.

You're not "bisexual." You are heterosexual, just like every other human being. You're a part-time rug muncher because you suffer from a psychosexual disorder. Treatment is available. I advise you to seek it out.

Your business was your business until you paraded it in public, which constitutes an invitation for anyone to "mind it" who will.

"homosexuality is as old as humanity."

You don't know that, nor does anyone. If one accepts that homo sapiens sapiens first appeared 100 to 150K years ago, as the fossil record seems to suggest, that leaves about 95 to 145K years undocumented.

We don't have any idea at what point Satan introduced that perversion to humanity.

As for "my morality," there is only one valid morality, and that has been revealed by God. I not only have a right to advocate it, I have a right to lobby to have it enacted into law.

[grania]

Why should people be required to get a LICENSE from the GOVERNMENT to marry, anyway??

In my mind, there are two things that should be separated. People get married, under the witness of the religion they accept. The state should have nothing to do with that...it's really none of their business.

For legal stuff, like pooling assets, inheritence, the couple care for one another before anyone else does, government affirms that agreement.

I'll stay away from any church that performs gay marriages. But, I don't think it's the business of the government to tell the church what to do. And I don't think "civil union" is gay (or any kind) of marriage.