What do children have to do with the gov't defining marriage?
toldailytopic: The Sanctity of Marriage.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
What do children have to do with the gov't defining marriage?
>>>What do children have to do with the gov't defining marriage?
The federal government is defined in the US Constitution. It must do what it says and *nothing more*. The rest is left to the several States.
The States have always created marriage laws in order to protect the interests of children.
The issue presents itself thus: are the laws that the States have made legal? Tax breaks for heterosexual unions but not for homosexual couples?
The thing to do is to look at the biology, the Constitution, history, morality, etc, and determine what constitutes the interest of the law. Thus, it has no compelling interest in "affirming the happy couple" just so they can have "equal thrills" with heteros. Lo siento.
The federal government is defined in the US Constitution. It must do what it says and *nothing more*. The rest is left to the several States.
The States have always created marriage laws in order to protect the interests of children.
The issue presents itself thus: are the laws that the States have made legal? Tax breaks for heterosexual unions but not for homosexual couples?
The thing to do is to look at the biology, the Constitution, history, morality, etc, and determine what constitutes the interest of the law. Thus, it has no compelling interest in "affirming the happy couple" just so they can have "equal thrills" with heteros. Lo siento.
Marriage legitimatizes family ties, it builds family. Marriage is a union before God and society, bringing a man and woman together. Marriage is an institution with rules, it is not an up for grabs ploy to manipulate. A good healthy society upholds its values; it does not allow them to be degraded into meaninglessness.
WizardofOz
New member
Wolf - marriage has nothing necessarily to do with having children. Zero.
Infertility has been mentioned. The conscious choice not to have children by a married couple is another example.
My grandfather died and my grandmother remarried. She wasn't going to have children in her 60s.
It's an obviously fallacious point to make.
Infertility has been mentioned. The conscious choice not to have children by a married couple is another example.
My grandfather died and my grandmother remarried. She wasn't going to have children in her 60s.
It's an obviously fallacious point to make.
Society can value relationships and marriage without the gov't defining it.
I agree, in most cases; I think the past barriers on 'race' were wrong. It is a different matter when two men or two women want to get married. I have nothing against civil unions and they would accomplish the same legal rights. No one in the past ever thought that homosexuals would want to get married, it was never considered. To my way of thinking, marriage is always about a legal way to bring loved one into the same family, not a license to cohabitate. I also thing marriage is a sacred institution ordained by God. It makes it a mockery to allow two of the same sex to marry.
I think we need laws when something that does not need such laws becomes out of bounds, with what is assumed to be the social normative standard.
It's much more than a contract. Its institution dates back to Adam & Eve.
Marriage is an allegory of Christ's love for the Church.
The husband is to love the wife as Christ loves the Church (believer).
A husband sacrifices for his wife, even to the point of giving his life. This isn't just TV drama, it happens in real life scenarios.
Marriage calls us to do things which are un-natural; to act benevolently, to restrain our desires, and harness our tendency towards selfishness.
Marriage also creates the most stable environment in which to foster the spiritual and physical welfare of children.
In a tradidional two-parent household, children experience the duality of God's personality; authority, justice and power from the father; and mercy, kindness, and love from mom. Together these attributes express God's character more completely than in a single parent household.
I know... I can hear the boneheads coming up with a myriad of exceptions, but I'm talking in "generalities" here; the way marriage is supposed to work.
Marriage fails to the extent in which we fail to reflect God.
All this to simply say that God's purpose in marriage, is to reveal himself to us in the realities of the relationship.
How rude. Where are your social graces? You’re so judgemental.
toldailytopic: The Sanctity of Marriage. |
Well here goes from a very happily married man,
and the nod of his very happily married wife.
Psalmist and Mrs Psalmist
and the nod of his very happily married wife.
Psalmist and Mrs Psalmist
The sanctity of marriage is for, and is between a man and a woman as God intended.
Our marriage is blessed and if I had it to do over, would I . . . YES . . . . . . to the same person. It is almost 47 years and we are still working on it together, to continue to have and to hold until one of lays the other back in the arms of the Lord when death has parted us.
- I believe there is a sanctity, sacredness, to marriage. Because God saw man's loneliness, and said it was not good for man to be alone, Eve was created to be Adams companion, thus I believe that God created marriage to be sacred, it is God created, it is meant for love and to be loved, companionship, nurturing; to bring and take responsibility for each other, though I believe the man has the greater part of the marriage responsibility, as a husband is his wife's covering. That marriage is meant to "Complete" each other and not "Compete" with each other, marriage is physical, spiritual, mental, as the two shall become one flesh. It also promotes social well being.
- The sanctity of marriage is more than a piece of paper, or ceremony. Because marriage should not be entered into thoughtlessly, or irreverently. In a marriage I believe that the vows that are exchanged are no stronger and of resolve than each intends them to be; and that if the avowed obligations be neglected and or violated, they cannot escape the keenest misery, as well as the darkest guilt and sorrow.
- I believe the that through the sanctity of marriage, that love, honor, and respect for each other grows greater and greater as the years roll by. That believing and realizing the sanctity of marriage it is to cherish each other every day, in sickness and health, whether rich or poor, to remain faithful and to pledge of faithfulness in all things, especially in the sickness and health issues; and through the difficulties as well, the disagreements, job changes, major moves, having children.
- A Christian marriage is more sanctified, blessed, than those that are not Christian marriages.
- For the Christian husband and wife the sanctity or the sacredness in a marriage . . . It is a marriage where love is patient and kind;
does not envy; does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears, believes, hopes, and endures all things. Their love should be unfailing.
- That a Christian husband and wife are to be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is. They give thanks always for all things together, submit to one another in the fear of God. And show forth the fruit of the Spirit of love, joy, peace, long-suffering (patience), kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.
Our marriage is blessed and if I had it to do over, would I . . . YES . . . . . . to the same person. It is almost 47 years and we are still working on it together, to continue to have and to hold until one of lays the other back in the arms of the Lord when death has parted us.
Cracked
New member
Good post.
zippy2006
New member
I think you make an interesting and overlooked point. At the same time I am unsure whether the government is most concerned with morality as has been pointed out...
It is surely true that marriage itself is very vital to the well-being of children. Once this is understood, it does become an issue and it is tied to marriage in certain ways. A piece in the puzzle.
nicholsmom
New member
I'd be for this except for the undue legal burden it places on men in attaching children to the father. The legal mother is a cinch, but, absent a marriage license, the father would have to file special paperwork to legally attach the child.
nicholsmom
New member
What a naive perspective. Why do you suppose that politicians are always giving bills titles that reflect the precise opposite of what the bill does ("Partial-birth Abortion Ban" which is a treatise on how to legally murder children in the womb in late-term pregnancies, eg). The fact is, words mean things; changing the meaning of words changes the public concept of that word - "gay" for example.
I agree, and they do.
Erm... your point???
Right. I agree, and the only sort of "economic practicality" would be to expedite the legal attachment of children to their fathers.
BTW, the government doesn't outlaw any kind of marriage. The governments of the several states set certain limits on marriage pertaining to procreation: you can marry anyone you like as long as that person:
1) is not already married (complicates legal attachment of children)
2) is not related to you by blood (up to 2nd cousins - genetics)
3) is a legal adult human being (legally responsible for progeny)
4) is of the opposite gender (can procreate with you)
Some states have other restrictions, but that last one was not added by the founders of the states because they thought that that one would be a no-brainer - the definition of "marriage" precluded the possibility of anything else. But go changing a word, and all sorts of possibilities crop up to muddy the law.
nicholsmom
New member
I don't know which "we" you mean here, but I can tell you that all of the affronts to the sanctity of marriage are equally affronts. They savage the institution - give it a bad name and do harm to the perception of society of an institution that is intended to be a safe haven - a place of security in which to rear children and demonstrate the love relationship between our Savior and His bride (the church).
That the name of marriage is brutalized by sick individuals in no way damages the fact that marriage - as instituted by God - is sacred and therefore sanctified. So no, these examples you've given are not examples of the sanctity of marriage; they are examples of the attacks of sinful man upon a sacred institution.
nicholsmom
New member
Some of them would be easy - couples where the woman is too old to conceive and homosexual couples, for example. And some have already been ferreted out - blood relations, for genetic reasons. Others would be much less practical, requiring medical information to which the state has no right.
To what benefit to the state? It is added expense - finding these and expunging them would take many man-hours - to no benefit. What would be the point?
What benefits? There have been only tax penalties to such a couple. The only real benefit of a marriage licence is the attachment of children to their father. All the rest is easily handled with a small amount of legal paperwork.
- Status