Stage set for possible showdown on gay marriage - Page 21

shinerbock · #**301** 07-17-2006, 09:55 PM

The fact is, you can use that as an argument, but like most arguments in this debate, they are weak.

kddani · #**302** 07-17-2006, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kstar

If in court decisions they can cite the Declaration as precident, why can't I?

Because they use it as dicta, not controlling law.

Kevin · #**303** 07-17-2006, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kddani

Because they use it as dicta, not controlling law.

10 points for Griffindor.

DST_philoso4 · #**304** 08-08-2006, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ktsnake

I can't wait until some of these couples start to visit some red states and assert their rights under the full faith and credit clause. Watching all of our politicians posture will be pure entertainment.

I've been thinking this for a LONNNNNNNNNNNG TIME!!!! If they can DRIVE in your state [which is also a license], they can reveive marital benefits in your state!!!

MysticCat · #**305** 08-09-2006, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdsuchelle

Why should the government restrict the right to marry two people who are in love?

Why should the government restrict the right to marry of three people who are in love?

RACooper · #**306** 08-09-2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat81

Why should the government restrict the right to marry of three people who are in love?

Same reasons that the Romans did (from which ultimately most of our laws derive)... because of the profound legal problems that ultimately result when a 2 person partnership is involved ~ ie. inheritance, support, and other legal commitments...

shinerbock · #**307** 08-09-2006, 05:35 PM

Yeah, so financial things are enough, but lack of reproductive capability isn't?

RACooper · #**308** 08-09-2006, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Yeah, so financial things are enough, but lack of reproductive capability isn't?

Again... why with the stupid arguement about "they can't have children"? Seriously, I can't understand why people consistently fall back on that one... other than to suppose that they can't come up with anything more substantial or intelligent.

Yes the legal ramifications of a polygamous marriage are substantial enough to prohibit or seroiusly legislate them... as they have been in Western society for thousands of years - and let me cut you off before you make a similar arguement being the case for same-sex marriage, because it simply isn't true if you look into the same-sex legal unions as recognized under Roman, Athenian, Spartan, Eygptian, Celtic or Norse legal practices or traditions.

For example if you look at Early Irish legal codes you can see how heavily legislated and restricted polygamous marriage was: ie. only nobles of significant wealth to ensure the finicial support of all spouses in the event of death or divorce... in fact the marriage codes take up the vast majority (more than say theft, murder, war, rape, assault, and slavery combined) of legal writing in order to minimize the impact of polygamous marriages on the greater society; same-sex unions are in actuality a footnote in the standard marriage code.

shinerbock · #**309** 08-09-2006, 06:04 PM

A stupid argument? Its simply unnatural for a couple not to have the ability to produce children. You can make excuses all you want, but thats the way it is. Marriage=male and female. Also, Marriage=usually provides ability to produce children. But you're right, that wasnt the way it was intended to be or anything, I'm sure thats just a random coincidence.

Drolefille · #**310** 08-09-2006, 06:14 PM

But if you're going to use fertility as a standard you have to use it universally. Go back far enough in the right regions and you didn't get married until the woman was pregnant. Because if she wasn't fertile she wasn't worth marrying.

If fertility is standard we should return to this model.. as well as prohibiting infertile men or women for marrying. And those who have had hysterectomies etc shall also be prohibited from marrying. And old people....

shinerbock · #**311** 08-09-2006, 06:24 PM

Not really, because infertile people are the exception, not the rule. Often, infertile people don't even know this until after they are married. The point is, homosexual marriage doesnt produce children. Ever. I'm not saying they shouldnt be allowed to marry because they can't produce children, I'm saying they shouldnt be allowed to marry because they don't fit the definition, which is man and woman. I'm using the reproductive example to say that homosexual relationships are unnatural.

RACooper · #**312** 08-09-2006, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

A stupid argument? Its simply unnatural for a couple not to have the ability to produce children. You can make excuses all you want, but thats the way it is. Marriage=male and female. Also, Marriage=usually provides ability to produce children. But you're right, that wasnt the way it was intended to be or anything, I'm sure thats just a random coincidence.

Well golly gee... so I guess we should stamp-out all those other pesky "unnatural" marriages - the infertile or sterile due to disease, age, or injury say... "sorry Grandpa but you can't be legal married anymore because you and Grandma can't produce kids anymore" -or how about- "You served your country proud soldier; tough break with that wound though... I'm sure your sweetheart will understand".

As for natural... well what is natural? Strickly speaking from a biological or evolutionary perspective the only major benifit providied by the institution of marriage is the long-term nurturing of young... a benifit also produced by communal raising systems. Other arguements would state that marriage is actually detrimental to the "natural" evolution of the species...

The marriage assumptions that you seem to be working on are the product of the practices of early Western non-Christian societies in mitigating internal strife over sexual partners; a system that then had Classical and finally Christian mores (sometimes conflicting) added on.

The major problem you seem to have is, in that using the arguement that "this is the way it has always been" it is a false arguement... just as arguing that the primary reason for marriage has always been the production of offspring ~ something that also doesn't bear up under historic research - historical marriage was about social contracts more than offspring.

shinerbock · #**313** 08-09-2006, 11:57 PM

"thats the way it is" is as valid an argument as there is regarding this issue. Which ones support your side? "Because its unfair!" "Because they love each other!"

Marriage, by definition, is male and female. Its a simple matter. It takes one of each. Homosexual couples obviously don't fit the bill.

Jimmy Choo · #**314** 08-10-2006, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RACooper

historical marriage was about social contracts more than offspring.

I was wondering how long it would be before someone brought up this point! We talk about about how marriage is a wonderful, sacred thing between a man and a women who are in love, etc. Let's not forget, marriages used to be arranged or they were business transactions.

RACooper · #**315** 08-10-2006, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

"thats the way it is" is as valid an argument as there is regarding this issue. Which ones support your side? "Because its unfair!" "Because they love each other!"

Marriage, by definition, is male and female. Its a simple matter. It takes one of each. Homosexual couples obviously don't fit the bill.

Actually the definition of marriage has been altered to become "male and female"... the original root was much more complicated and derived from the Indo-European term for a young sexual partner ('meri' being female, 'meryo' being male with no distinction to the sex of the "senior" partner in the contract) - the actual root word that the modern word is taken from is the Latin maritus which denotes a non-bachelor adult male - again no distinction for his sexual preference or relationship.