Marriages between one man and one woman

[Alimantado]

Ang' date=' we might as well legalize marriage to animals while we're at it (don't anyone tell me there aren't people out there who want that!).[/quote']
Bing!

[deafnva77]

I guess Al knew someone was going to say that... but there were people who tried to marry their pet for their own protection , not for sexual (in Australia somewhere, one wanted chimpanzee to be treated like a human so people will protect him more or this article which cause problems if they did allow it: http://blogs.discovery.com/good_idea/human_rights/)... same reason why a man and a woman got married for benefit and not for love and live separately.

but then again, If human evolution is true, and we are just another creature walking around on earth, Then why not them too? (It is just as gross too, but just pointing out why the line should be drawn rather it make sense or not).

[Alimantado]

but then again' date=' If human evolution is true, and we are just another creature walking around on earth, Then why not them too? [/quote']
If that was meant for me then I should say that just because I believe evolution happened I don't also think we should be marrying animals. :frog

P.S. Of course I didn't know anyone was going to bring up marrying animals! I just remembered the story after Bakers suggested it.

[anime4christ]

I haven't read the whole thread after my reply, but I read some people objecting to not letting homosexuals have the same "benefits" as heterosexuals no matter what the word you call it. Well, let's go back to page one; I addressed this very issue and you guys are just repeating it. To be treated fairly, go ahead and give them government benefits (although I believe the govt should not give those "benefits" to either gays or straights, it's just not their business), but don't call it marriage because if we define marriage including homosexual "marriage" at the federal level then the govt IS redefining a word (as some said they wouldn't) and forcing everyone to use the new definition in this country. Also, I won't support them in calling it marriage, because that is equal to me condoning their sin, which I refuse to do.

From a political and historical point of view:

Homosexuals already have the same rights as married people via a domestic partnership/civil union in some states, it's just not called marriage, so it has nothing to do with "rights".

Allowing homosexual "marriage" means redefining the word marriage itself and would cause a lot of confusion and require every instance of "marriage" in history books to be replaced with "heterosexual marriage". Plus, they would have a lot of fun explaining why "gay marriages" didn't exist until the 21st century. (btw, as for the homosexuals who try to say that marriage has been redefined before and bring in polygamous marriage into the argument: I like to refer to it as a person just being in more than one marriage simultaneously rather than it being one marriage between all of them; marriage has always been between a man and a woman.)

All objections I read (I didn't read everything after my previous post) repeat the same thing and ignore my first post in this thread (quoted above).

[John81]

Ang' date=' we might as well legalize marriage to animals while we're at it (don't anyone tell me there aren't people out there who want that!).[/quote']

If marriage is redefined in favor of homosexuals then the precedent will have been set for others to claim discrimination and according to American law they would eventually win marriage "rights" as well.

Polygamists and adult/child sex advocates have been supporting the homosexual marriage agenda with the clearly stated aim of establishing precedent which will open the door for the acceptance of their own particular preference.

[deafnva77]

historically, marrying someone as young as 9 was very popular in alot of countries. No one bat an eye about it back then. Why do they think we will never go back to that situation again, especially when more teens are sexually active and even pose porn on the internet.

The line have to be drawn rather they like it or not.

[ptwild]

Just a few points: First, our federal government has never, and I mean never, legislated domestic concerns. The Feds don't even come close to touching marriage, divorce, child custody (other than entering international treaties regarding removing a child from the U.S. for the purpose of avoiding a STATE custody order), child support, alimony . . . The legal issues surrounding those matters are reserved to the several states under the 10th Amend. Our government has never "defined" marriage, and frankly has not constitutional authority, that I'm aware of, to do so. The "Defense of Marriage Act" is one of the many unconstitutional acts of the Bush administration.

Second, to address the slippery slope argument that if we allow two men to file a joint tax return it will magically cause people to want to marry their pets and/or underage minors, that arguement is irrational. Our laws are not meant to govern the actions of animals. We do govern the treatment of animals, which is why bestiality is a considered "cruelty to animals" and has thus been criminalized.

[deafnva77]

did I say anyone was doing it for beastility?

Just because the gov't never define marriage, how did it came to be anyhow? How did joint taxes recognize wives?

It seem like you think they want the gov't keep the word marriage because all these taxes. no, it's bigger than that.

The gov't have to consider who can file joint taxes. And that's what they did. And yes, minors could end up filing joint taxes.. I mean two 16 years old can if their parent permitted them to marry (like for pregnancy) and they are working.
And since 13 years old can get pregnant , what if she want to marry the man she loves.. who is 18 year old it IS a slippery slope.

. this actually happened to my friend. She got marry legally to an 18 years old while she was 16 years old... and they both file joint tax because he was working. And this was back in 1995 or 1996

[ptwild]

did I say anyone was doing it for beastility?

Just because the gov't never define marriage, how did it came to be anyhow? How did joint taxes recognize wives?

It seem like you think they want the gov't keep the word marriage because all these taxes. no, it's bigger than that.

The gov't have to consider who can file joint taxes. And that's what they did. And yes, minors could end up filing joint taxes.. I mean two 16 years old can if their parent permitted them to marry (like for pregnancy) and they are working.
And since 13 years old can get pregnant , what if she want to marry the man she loves.. who is 18 year old it IS a slippery slope.

Again, I'm having a hard time following you. Please forgive me if I misunderstand what you are trying to say.

Our Federal government does not legislate marriage. State governments decide who is married, and thus who can file a joint tax return. The IRS merely recognizes the states' decision regarding what is a valid marriage. Since Massechusets deceided that two men or two women may marry, the IRS has not option other than to recognize that marriage and allow them the tax benefits bestowed upon married peoples.

Two 16 year olds in my state can already marry, with parental consent. An 18 year old male may marry a 16 year old female without parental consent. I really don't see what being able to get pregnant has to do with anything. That is not our government's interest in conferring benefits on married people. Statistics show that married persons are more productive and more active in society. Therefore it reasons to conclude that society as a whole benefits from marriage. Hence, our government encourages marriage by allowing married people to take advantage of certain privileges. The ability to have children has nothing to do with it. Two sterile people get the same advantages as two fertile people.

Love has nothing to do with it. The states don't let minors marry because, in the governments interpretation of marriage, it is a contract and minors are incapable of contracting. The states define what a "minor" is and there is some disagreement regarding that. However, if a 16 year old gets married in my state and then moves to another state that does not allow 16 year olds to be married, she is still considered married under the full faith and credit clause. It's a contract. Nothing to do with love or children or anything that a Christian Marriage deals with.

The states alternative interest in not allowing minors to marry is a fear of child abuse. Each human matures, both mentally and physically, at a different rate. So, while some 13 year olds may be perfectly mature enough to make a decision regarding issues such as marriage, most probably are not. So, in order to protect those that are not mature enough, we err on the side of caution and prevent it out of fear that the 13 year old will be taken advantage of and marry against either her will, or best interest.

I understand your position. You don't want gays marrying because it is immoral. But it is not them actually marrying that makes them, and their relationship, immoral. It's the relationship itself. It's immoral whether they marry or not.

[deafnva77]

That kinda sad, because the state of CA wanted to call marriage a man and a woman and leave union for those who are gay or lesbian, They threw a riot over that even though they still had their legal rights. they will probably take it to the Federal gov't too. And when they move to another state and expect them to recognize their marriage as well. And yes, I know these teens would rather if the state recognize their marriage too even though they think they are just minors

being pregnant means they want legal protection and security from the father.

I've never heard anyone call themselves married if the gov't refused to issue a marriage license to them. Other than the mormons because polygamy by law is illegal.

Seriously, never.. when people say they are married, it means 100% committed. from the moment they make a vow to to signing a document, knowing that the gov't have approve their marriage. all they need is a pastor to tell the gov't that he witnessed their oath. So they could be 100% part of each other life, not 50% because they can't do this and that because of law.(usually if they were denied, they will tell people that they can't get marry and give up the idea of marriage, even if they could get marry by a pastor, they just don't feel 100% committed)

[deafnva77]

oh and these teens should not move to a state that don't recognize teen marriages. They would separate them because they are minors.
my friend who was married at 16 (with the parent's permission) with an 18 years old would probably be forced to separate from her husband if she live another state that don't recognize it. Her husband would probably end up in jail too.


but my point is, you say it is impossible for child/adult, and I gave you examples it is possible and a slippery slope. well at least for teens that is.

[deafnva77]

I think we all had our say.. so I am going to lock this thread and move on. I still think marriage should only be defined as one man and one woman. We wouldn't have to deal with this issues if the gov't haven't been into our business so much. Such as Social Security, taxes, etc.

And I hope they will let us pick the type of foster care for our own kids if no family is willing to take them in. And that homosexual would only be discussed at home and not school (another gov't interference of people personal decision, if they are going to interfer that much, we might as well define marriage).