Let's Revoke The Rights and Protections Awarded to Heterosexual Married Couples

reply to post by The X


I'm a heterosexual woman, there is nothing for me personally to be spiteful about. I just want the Constitution that I am bound to by birth and by choice to actually mean something. I want liberty to be a driving force behind this country again.

reply to post by zonetripper2065

I don't see anyone being maliciously discriminated against. They don't meet the current criteria so they aren't eligible, plain and simple to a reasonable adult with a non biased non entitled mind.

The criteria allowing for the exclusion of someone from eligibility is discrimination.

If tax breaks for being married and having dependent is taken away, it wouldn't bother me in the least. At this stage of my life, I call the tax break for being married petty cash.

While the benefit remains to some, it is discrimination.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Marriage licensing must be abolished entirely if we are serious about equal protections for human rights.

I don't support this at all - - - so there is no point in us discussing anything.

I do not support state rights for citizens - - - because all citizens should have the same rights under Federal law.

I do support state rights for things that only pertain to individual states - - such as climate - terrain - roads - local weather related issues - business needs - agriculture - - etc.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ConspiracyBuff

 

Excuse you. Marriage is not a religious institution and certainly not a Christian institution. Marriage has existed almost as long as we have, it is a legal contract... one which began rather misogynist (my daughter for your land etc...). Different religions around the world adopted marriage into their beliefs that does not mean they own it, no one does.

ETA and also as I said in my OP if this nation is going to insist that marriage is in fact a religious institution than my title is extremely justified as the federal government is very specifically bound to not make any laws respecting religion therefor has zero business granting a damn thing to married couples. In fact that very blatantly violates the US Constitution.

edit on 7-9-2012 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

Correction:

Marriage is a religious and cultural formality that emerged historically worldwide.

There are many practical and survival related reasons for this practice emerging. It is considered a necessary aspect of our social dynamics.

Please review marriage wiki and take note of the historical origins and varied practices throughout the world.

The insinuation that marriage is an "institution" is misleading, and I agree with your sentiments there. However it is indeed almost always pervaded by highly religious and cultural notions or traditions.

As a result of the religious-cultural connotations globally, it is indeed best interpreted as a personal religious matter in terms of law and human rights. Through this interpretation issues are greatly simplified and the realization that government has no place in it at all becomes obvious and apparent.

Originally posted by Kali74
In the interest of equality and respect to religious beliefs, I think we should level the playing field. If in 'the Land of the Free' we cannot meet consensus to federally recognize Gay Marriage or Same Sex Unions then we should strike the balance with NO federally recognized marriages or unions. That is fair, right?

Er.. No. When the number of gay couples equal the number of straight couples then that would be fair. ( or give both groups equal rights and protections at that point)

What you have is a minority wanting to have the same rights and protections as the democratically recognized majority. You can't have that. This isn't about Freedom. Gays do have their freedom. This is about the way this countries peoples has it's say in government. It's a democracy - the majority of the people have the say. A minority cannot demand what the majority is not winning to give them. If you don't like it, you need to force this country to have a different system of government. A minority isn't going to do that.

In some cases it can sort of be done if the minority is unfairly getting oppressed and persecuted, like the black minority. But look around. Gays are more accepted in this society now than they have ever been in the past. Gone are the days when people would jump out of the back of a pickup truck and catch a gay walking down the street and beat them with a baseball bat. Your minority doesn't have any good reasons to have special rights and protections. It's simply something you guys want so you can have more power for your group. It's unnecessary.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Are all FAR more important topics than gay marriage. Don't try and argue they aren't.

You are not gay.

You have Equality.

reply to post by tamusan


If a single male can get buy with it out two MEN can get by better.
Do they really want the problems. Like who is awarded everything if they get a divorce?

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

What you have is a minority wanting to have the same rights and protections as the democratically recognized majority. You can't have that.

Yes you can.

America is not a democracy - - it is a Republic that guarantees protection and equality for minorities.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by The X

 

I'm a heterosexual woman, there is nothing for me personally to be spiteful about. I just want the Constitution that I am bound to by birth and by choice to actually mean something. I want liberty to be a driving force behind this country again.

Blah-blah-blah....

I don't buy it...you have a personal agenda here. If you were a real "Libertarian"...you would not try to take freedom away from someone else...you are a hypocrite...cleverly disguising yourself....you are the very nature of what is broken in this country..."If I cannot have it my way, I will break it"....sounds like a spoiled brat child...

Go ahead, pretend to be for freedom but what you are is for force feeding something on others...that is not freedom child...that smells of fascism....

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Are all FAR more important topics than gay marriage. Don't try and argue they aren't.

You are not gay.

You have Equality.

I'm a happilly married GAY man.
Try again.

~Tenth

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Marriage licensing must be abolished entirely if we are serious about equal protections for human rights.

I don't support this at all - - - so there is no point in us discussing anything.

I do not support state rights for citizens - - - because all citizens should have the same rights under Federal law.

I do support state rights for things that only pertain to individual states - - such as climate - terrain - roads - local weather related issues - business needs - agriculture - - etc.

I am afraid you do not understand what human rights are.

The state doesn't support them. It either protects them or tramples them.

If you are in favor of marriage licenses for "everyone", you are discriminating against single parents and single people entirely. It makes marriage necessary for most people to improve their finances.

It is also highly illogical and irrational to make such a contradictory statement like that.
"Marriage licenses for everyone" - but it cannot possibly be for everyone because some people are single or prefer to date rather than make long term commitments.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Marriage is a religious and cultural formality that emerged historically worldwide.

The Real History of Marriage: onespiritproject.com...

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Marriage licensing must be abolished entirely if we are serious about equal protections for human rights.

I don't support this at all - - - so there is no point in us discussing anything.

I do not support state rights for citizens - - - because all citizens should have the same rights under Federal law.

I do support state rights for things that only pertain to individual states - - such as climate - terrain - roads - local weather related issues - business needs - agriculture - - etc.

I am afraid you do not understand what human rights are.

You mean I don't agree with you what you have decided human rights are.

reply to post by Misoir


Ah, I see.

" I'm right, your wrong and no ammount of logic or information is going to change my mind"

OR better know as:

"Neener Neener Neener"

Really?

Well Misoir. You are opinionated, and you have the right to your own opinions, but until you can prove your own facts, they are just opinions.

Your morality is up for interpretation, just like your religious texts are.

Nice talking to you as always .

~Tenth

Originally posted by tamusan
reply to post by watchesfromwall

 

Unfortunately, this plan of revocation, if implemented, will take the U.S. (if that is where you're from) down a path of severe negative social and economic consequences as almost the bulk of children reside with heterosexual married/divorced couples. In many other instances, we see the problems faced by kids in unmarried single homes.

Some (many) children have been neglected, since the dawn of time, and religious marriage has only had a limited effect to change this.

I agree, and in some cases of religion, it may have made it worse.

I don't need religion or the government to tell me that I have to take care of my children and woman. I do it because I know it is the right thing to do.

My wife knows I love her. She doesn't need marriage to prove this. The proof was shown by how I feed, clothe and shelter her, by my own free will.

I don't need religion or government to tell me how to take care of my children or husband either.

However, I am referring to government tax categories, and deductions--as well as health insurance categories,and benefits--and even child care categories, and benefits when discussing this issue and the OP's call to revoke rights/protections.

Overall, I agree theoretically, but if it was implemented immediately, there would be a lot of needless suffering on top of a sketchy ecomony with many unemployed.

One Q: How is your woman your wife if you aren't married?

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by freemarketsocialist

 

Consent between two parties and asking a government for permission to do something are two very different things.

But you can argue semantics all you want.

I was actually agreeing with you, so your reply is a bit puzzling.

~Tenth

But I may have consent to euthanize an individual. That does not make it right. Consent and desire to not equal a 'right'.

Laws make a society.

Asking the government is asking the people. If the people are against euphanasia then euphenasia is wrong. There is no 'right'. People do not have 'rights'.

A minority cannot force its opinion on a population just because it believes its argument to be morally and ethically superior. We all decide morals and ethics together. There is no formula.

reply to post by muzzleflash


That's why I think the system should be changed, if we are to keep any entitlements of this kind. Make it simple. If someone has a dependent, then they should get the tax break.

As far as the dependent pay. I never did like that idea. I don't think anyone should be paid differently because they have dependents. However, it is in effect in the military.

Sorry to ask ,but what is "Heterosexual"?

No joke here.

Is like a bee with many flowers?

A serious question.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Are all FAR more important topics than gay marriage. Don't try and argue they aren't.

You are not gay.

You have Equality.

I'm a happilly married GAY man with 4 kids.

Try again.

~Tenth

I still don't agree with you.

I graduated high school the year the Civil Rights Act was signed - - - so I experienced that human inequality.

As a female of the 50s - - I experienced gender discrimination.

As a child of a disabled parent - - I experienced hatred and prejudice.

Federal Human Equality - - - - is my importance. When we acquire that - - - then we can move forward.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

What you have is a minority wanting to have the same rights and protections as the democratically recognized majority. You can't have that.

Yes you can.

America is not a democracy - - it is a Republic that guarantees protection and equality for minorities.

That's not the same as the rights and protections the Op is talking about, or at least not to my understanding. Yes, I agree we are a republic and they already do have protections and equality - they just don't have some of the privileges the majority has deemed for themselves. That is determined by a democracy. We say we are a republic, but we use a democratic system to arrive at these things. The collective will of the majority stands.

I'll give you another example. The lower class and the middle class do not have the same privileges the upper class have. The majority of the upper class has deemed these things appropriate for themselves. Do the lower and middle class like this? Heck no, but they don't have a say in the matter. Not until the lower and middle class are equal with the upper class will they have that say. It's the same in this case.