Judge orders injuction against DADT

I agree Mike, and I think I pointed out in one of my posts that there would have to be a pretty strong burden of proof that the person involved with the offending partner was aware that they were intruding on another relationship. I also believe there has to be a solid case made that the affair was indeed a primary reason for the eventual dissolution, or at least that it contributed significantly to it.

All that being said, I really do believe that the state needs to get out of the ‘marriage business’. I think it would solve a whole wealth of problems.

All that being said, I really do believe that the state needs to get out of the ‘marriage business’. I think it would solve a whole wealth of problems.
==========

I dunno. I think the government being in the “marriage business” is a net positive for our society, basically giving incentives for a stable family.

What I do think causes a wealth of problems is the government being in the ‘subsidizing single motherhood’ business. That has made it such that women feel they now don’t need fathers around to raise children, in addition to also making men feel they don’t need to stick around to raise children, since the government will take care of single mom and baby/children. I think this — along with many other factors in our deteriorating society — has led to a culture of promiscuous sex and single parenthood (ie women feel they can have sex as they please and if they get pregnant, no problem, since they can either just get an abortion or get the government handouts for single mothers). In addition to pregnancies and single parenthood, more promiscuous sex leads to the spread of more STDs.

So while I’m not in favor of the government legislating morality with regards to sex, there was a societal benefit to when our culture promoted the ideal of waiting to have sex until marriage. Less spread of STDs, less children born out of wedlock and more children raised in stable families, etc. So I don’t believe that deemphasizing the importance of marriage is a way to solve our current problems. I don’t think how the government treats marriage is the problem so much as how our culture treats sex and marriage that is the cause of the problems.

“Mike, a question. Do you believe gay marriages should be recognized?”
==========

No, because that would involve redefining what is marriage.

I used to be in favor of opening up civil unions for homosexuals, but because of their BS with harassing people regarding their votes on Prop 8 in Cahleefornyah and the GLBT movement calling anyone who disagrees with their agenda to be a “hater” and a “homophobe” (including their BS movement to stop people from saying “that’s so gay”, with the latest example of calling Vince Vaughn’s joke “hate speech” in his movie where he calls Priuses “gay”), I am now against their entire agenda out of spite.

Spite aside, I’d probably agree with civil unions. However, I am 100% against redefining marriage.

The problem is, my spite comes back when the GLBT movement won’t accept civil unions and insists on redefining marriage. At this point, my attitude is to hell with them. They went from just wanting tolerance to now telling us that if we don’t 100% accept them and their agenda, we are “haters” and “homophobes” and jokes about “that’s so gay” is “hate speech”. If that’s how it’s going to be, then they’ve lost my support for anything they want.

LOL, ROS. 🙂

Mike, ok, you don’t want marriage re-defined, I’m with you, and there’s a reason.
Where does the accepted definition of marriage come from?

I’m curious about one thing in particular:

We profess to want determinate separation of church and state, yet we want them to make and enforce laws concerning what is (for most) a holy union. Why is that?

To me (and my opinion matters less than most), a marriage is not defined by a marriage license, per se. That’s only a document which may be utilized to obtain societal benefits, i.e. insurance and the like.

Where is the line drawn?

ROS,
I personally believe ‘marriage’, or ‘holy matrimony’ should be the sole jurisdiction of religious institutions. And if you want ‘out’ of a marriage, you should be subject to what ever binding agreements you’ve entered into based on the beliefs of your order, so long as it doesn’t infringe on your assumed natural rights as a citizen of this country.

I further believe that ‘domestic partnerships’ should be the default term for any one else wanting to join their lives for personal, political, or ‘societal’ benefit. Entering into a domestic partnership should be difficult, with a lengthy and legally binding exit strategy already agreed upon before signing on the dotted line.
Unless you are a religious person, the whole idea of a formal marriage is nothing but a façade any way, the reason being quite simply what has been pounded into us for years by the whole debate, that marriage is a religious institution describing the commitment of one man and one woman.

Yep, I knew that’s where you were going with it. 🙂

I disagree, but I have a question, Jacobite. I didn’t hear this “get the government out of the ‘marriage business'” stuff until after the GLBT movement started pushing to redefine marriage.

Basically, among those who disagree with redefining marriage, there seem to be two sides:

(1) those who don’t want marriage redefined on a whim, because marriage is what it is — a one man-one woman union and
(2) those who say ‘I’m against redefining it, but since we’re on the subject of government sponsored marriage, I say get rid of government sponsored marriage altogether’.

I guess my question is do you think there would be this movement to eliminate government sponsored marriage altogether without the GLBT movement to redefine marriage?

Personally, I don’t see the problem with the government promoting marriage. It is in the best interest of a society to have stable families. The government benefits handed out for married couples basically gives further incentive to people — other than the main incentive that it just makes common sense to raise kids within a stable family — to have stable families.

What ruins this is the government getting into the business of giving benefits, and thus incentive, to single motherhood. The government basically rewards irresponsible behavior.

I assume that by calling it semantics you mean a distinction without a difference.

I beg to differ.

Marriage is exactly what its proponents call it, a binding vow before, and to, God to live for each other in the fashion He has instructed.

A domestic partnership is a legal agreement whereby you are entering into what is essentially a beneficial business arrangement. God need not be present.

Maybe I’ve had too much pasta and its dulling my senses ( :p ), but I fail to see how claiming it’s semantics would negate my previous argument anyway. Semantics is simply the study of language, meanings and contexts. What I engaged in is definitely semantics, but there is nothing inherently wrong with that.

Mike,

I know you’re not trying to, or least I hope you’re not trying to, claim that all single moms are irresponsible. Many aren’t. Mine wasn’t, and myself and my siblings were far better off growing up in that single parent household then we ever would have been under the extremely abusive but outwardly ‘upstanding and Christian’ man she was married to.

I agree with you on this “What ruins this is the government getting into the business of giving benefits.” Once again, Government taints everything it touches, and the extent of it’s damage seems directly related to the size of the issue it’s ‘handling’.

And the argument still stands, we shouldn’t be promoting things just because it’s in the county’s best interest. Imagine if you will……………

“Personally, I don’t see the problem with the government promoting marriage Catholicism. It is in the best interest of a society to have stable families. The government benefits handed out for married Catholic couples basically gives further incentive to people — other than the main incentive that it just makes common sense to raise kids within a stable family — to have stable families.”

I get what your saying Mike, but I believe it’s the wrong way to go about things.

I know you’re not trying to, or least I hope you’re not trying to, claim that all single moms are irresponsible. Many aren’t. Mine wasn’t, and myself and my siblings were far better off growing up in that single parent household then we ever would have been under the extremely abusive but outwardly ‘upstanding and Christian’ man she was married to. ========== No, I absolutely was not trying to claim that. I’m referring to the mostly young women who choose to have sex before they are ready to have children and then are left with single-motherhood, because the guy they chose to sleep with abandoned them. Yeah, the guy is a d0cheb@g for leaving her high and dry, but she would not be in that situation were it not for her irresponsible decision to have sex with him in the first place. With the government handouts for single mothers now, though, women don’t have to be as concerned with a guy doing that anymore, since they can be ‘taken care of’ by Daddy government. Also, this allows any d0ucheb@g guys to feel less bad about leaving the single mom, because Daddy government is there for them. Now, the situation you describe is completely different. I’m not talking about a family that dissolves due to abuse or whatnot. But also, while of course a family is better off without an abusive parent, that same family would be better off with two good parents. In other words, if ranking the ideal situations: (1) Two good parents – mother and father (2) One good parent (mother or father) (3) One good parent, one abusive (4) Two abusive parents Obviously, if faced with situation (3), you’d rather have situation (2). My point is that situation (1) is always the ideal and should always be held up as the ideal. I still remember when growing up, the neighbor kids from across the street were Arab and their mother came with them to our area in Chicago to escape their abusive father. She did a great job with them, as best she could under the circumstances… Read more »

“That said, I don’t think taking things away from children is the answer to that problem.” ========== And that’s the problem right there. You framed it as “taking things away from children”. And the nanny-state trap works to a tee. We’re not “taking things away from children”, we’re taking money away from taxpayers and giving it to single parents. The money is not theirs. The money belongs to the taxpayer. By framing it as “taking things away from the children”, you make it sound like the children were entitled to get this money. That from the time a child is born of a single parent, they have money coming to them from Joe Taxpayer. That is a huge problem right there. Entitlement. “Perhaps enhancing requirements or adding limits so that aid isn’t an incentive, but a last resort for single parents of both sexes?” Ideally, this would be nice, but since when are requirements ever enforced? Just look at the S-CHIP program. Good in intent, but massively abused. (ie, the latest idea by the Democrats back in 2007-2008 was to consider anyone up to 26 years of age to be a “child” covered by S-CHIP, which is absolutely ridiculous). One requirement might be that a mother getting handouts would have to either have (1) lost the father due to death or (2) divorced due to abuse? Again, though, it would come down to enforcing these limits/restrictions. Honestly, I don’t know the answer. I just know that if you take government out of the “marriage industry”, you better take government out of the welfare industry too. Because if there are no longer incentives for marriage/civil unions, then there certainly better not be incentives for people just having babies so they can get government handouts. That said, if you’re suggesting the government get out of the “marriage business”, shouldn’t it also get out of the civil union business as well? Considering civil unions grant the same benefits as marriage, what’s the difference then? So are you in favor of abolishing “government marriage” as well as civil unions and having no government benefits… Read more »

Ultimately, government programs are put in place in order to ensure that children do not go without due to a parent’s lack of provision. So, it is taking away from children, or rather withholding.

I agree wholly that it’s entirely too easy to obtain benefits, without a doubt. I busted my ass to put myself through college and earn 2 degrees while raising my kids without ever receiving any assistance, yet my 3-year-old SUV is worth half of what the welfare crowd drives.

Which brings us to an entirely different issue, but which does illustrate your point: The predominance of obtaining benefits on the basis of single parenthood while both parents live together, they just aren’t married.

And that is why I believe benefits should be only temporary and have many more stipulations, namely drug testing.

But the definition I just provided you said only a social contract, with OR without religious connotations. Would the domestic partnerships of which you speak not also fall under that umbrella?