of course, i support legalizing same-sex marriage. and if you were me, you would also support an absolute ban on opposite-sex marriage. it's fucking unnatural.

Comments

[rik little]

The federal incentives a Title IVD Social Security Act and Violence Against Woman Act grants. Every State in the Union and most divorces where children are involved also involve these acts and this Federal money. Every state balances their budgets on this money. The real government intrusion comes thru the Judiciary. Lawyers, Judges and all the Expert witnesses (Forensic pychologists, Guardian Ad Litems, counselors and many city, county and state agencies which suck the federal tit. It is a giant Divorce Industry. Read 'TAKEN INTO CUSTODY' by Dr. Stephen Baskerville or google his articles for math and statistics. The government has actively thru these acts and other laws made it attractive and profitable for a woman to seek divorce. Most Divorces are pursued by women and why not. They get the kids, child support far beyond any kid raising costs, alimony and no incentive whatsoever to honor their sworn marriage vows. The Federal government is defacto making itself the fathers of our children and the statistics of negative futures of kids growing up without their real father is costing every taxpayer. It will destroy this country in a generation. The divorce industry is criminal racketeering.

[Henry]

Lamya, now I understand what you concern is, and I share it, of course. But whether marriage is controlled by the government or not seems to be beside the point. If marriage were a private institution, a government could still tell you that you cannot marry someone of a different race, religion, etc. Governments impose restrictions on all sorts of private conduct, after all, such as the possession and sale of drugs. And some governmental restrictions on private conduct are desirable, such as laws that prohibit people from selling defective products.

[Lamya]

Henry, thanks for the explanation. I did not mean population control when i said controling populations, i guess my wording was wrong, but i meant that governments can controle people more when marriage is a legal matter that is more related to government than to society itself. So yeah it's nice people can split property when they divorce, etc, but this may be the most important issue in the States. I want to refer to the marriage institution in other parts of the world (i am not only referring to "communist" regimes here) where government's control of marriage is not only for property and child care purposes, but where the government tells you who you can and can't marry and can soemtimes throw you in jail if you want to marry someone of a different relgion/caste/ethnicity, etc.

[Henry]

Marriages do not fail because of no-fault divorce. Marriages that have already failed are allowed to end because of no-fault divorce. And sometimes that benefits the children. The question is whether the government or the people involved should decide what is best for them and for their children. The government gets no benefit from additional litigation, and I don't know what you mean by "Federal incentives." The reason that the law was changed to allow no-fault divorce was that that was what people wanted, and religion's influence on government was no longer strong enough to prevent them from getting it.

[rik little]

Considering that most marriages FAIL, thanks to NO Fault divorce which is the government encouraging failed marriage to feed their Divorce Industry. They have no cares about children. Only cares about making litigation and collecting Federal incentives in the process.

[Henry]

Lamya, marriage is a political institution (in addition to, rather than "before") a religious or social thing. But its political purpose is not to control populations; what government, apart from China's, cares about controlling populations? (Marriage once served to limit sexual intercourse, which admittedly is related.) Its political purpose is to enable the government to regulate legal matters such as the distribution of property (when couples break up or when one or both dies) and the custody and support of children, and it is desirable that government regulate these things.

[Lamya]

marriage has always been a political institution before being a religious or social thing.
If marriage was a religious ritual, a simple vow kneeling by your bed would do. same goes for the assumption that it is a social practice; the couple could just announce the marriage in a party or something and that's it. but for many people, who do not seek approval neither from God nor from the society, marriage is a political institution in which you are seeking the government's approval to breed. Marriage is one of the most basic things that governments use to control populations. I am all for gay marriage, but why doesn't anyone, straight or gay, demand that marriage becomes a non-legal thing so we can all stop arguing about legalizing or illegalizing any type of it?

[rik little]

'Marriage' is the thing that has changed MOST in America since the 1970s. It used to be a 'contract' before god/death do us part/for better or for worse/etc/etc./etc. NOW, it is a GOVERNMENT INDUSTRY and thanks to N.O.W. it has broken down the American Family so much that the whole country is now in peril. (WHO DO YOU WANT ANSWERING THE PHONE AT 3AM???)I love the gay marriage controversy because it zeros in on peoples prejudice and hate but the real story is with ANY marriage or child bearing relationship and how the lawyers and judges have carved out a 'Divorce Industry'which is so Nazi like that it seems amazing to me that the media have not even recognized it. We are living in a Police State. Every concerned American must read TAKEN INTO CUSTODY, a book by Dr. Stephen Baskerville to see how the FAMILY (and marriage), the basic building block of our society, has been coopted for profit by Nazi Lawyers and Judges and all their hangers on. Whenever I see a so called 'journalist' write about 'gay marriage', I think, "What a stupid asshole". "You are SO CLOSE, but you sidestep the whole story with your HOMO tales". WAKE UP BEFORE THE FINAL SOLUTION!!!!!! (California is going into the water soon)

[Henry]

Are you sure that you want to use "unnatural" as an argument for banning _anything_? It's the other side that does that.