Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Marriage is a legal status that provides protective rights to spouses. People often confuse this with a spiritual matrimony that is granted by a church.
The legal status of marriage should be allowed without regard to race, religion, or gender.
Matrimony within a church should be dictated and controlled by each individual church. A church should not be required to perform any ceremony against their doctrine.
That's my two cents.
Are there states that require churches to perform ceremonies against their doctrine?
I know people who have been turned away by Catholic churches when they were marrying outside their faith. And I've heard of this happening at other churches.
They can get it by becoming a married person. I was once single. I subsequently chose to become married. And I was able to marry the sort of person to which I am attracted -- ie, a person of the opposite sex. So it should be for all.
By your logic, government jobs including serving the military violate the Fourteenth Amendment because someone with such a job gets various benefits while someone without such a job does not.
Needless to say, your idea that the government cannot offer any options which, when taken, give varying benefits because this violates the Fourteenth Amendment is, shall we say, a novel one.
the point is why should a married (hetro, or same sex) person or couple (usually only 2) get a MONETARY BENEFIT that two single persons living and loving together cant
why should the government give any breaks or benefits to a certain group????
this is not just about marriage...it is the GOVERNMENT UNFAIRLY giving breaks and perks and benefits to certain groups and not to all..... ACLEAR VIOLATION OF THE 14TH
Marriage is a legal status that provides protective rights to spouses. People often confuse this with a spiritual matrimony that is granted by a church.
The legal status of marriage should be allowed without regard to race, religion, or gender.
Matrimony within a church should be dictated and controlled by each individual church. A church should not be required to perform any ceremony against their doctrine.
Marriage is a legal status that provides protective rights to spouses. People often confuse this with a spiritual matrimony that is granted by a church.
The legal status of marriage should be allowed without regard to race, religion, or gender.
Matrimony within a church should be dictated and controlled by each individual church. A church should not be required to perform any ceremony against their doctrine.
That's my two cents.
They aren't. The Free Exercise clause prohibits the government (short of human sacrifice or some public safety issue) from dictating to religions how they conduct their business within the bounds of the law. That's already the case.
the point is why should a married (hetro, or same sex) person or couple (usually only 2) get a MONETARY BENEFIT that two single persons living and loving together cant
why should the government give any breaks or benefits to a certain group????
this is not just about marriage...it is the GOVERNMENT UNFAIRLY giving breaks and perks and benefits to certain groups and not to all..... ACLEAR VIOLATION OF THE 14TH
No, the government is giving people an option. Just like with the example I gave you, which you naturally ignored because it applies to your weird ideas but proves those weird ideas utterly unworkable.
Every policy enacted, every road built, every law passed affects some people differently than others. And marriage laws are equal for heterosexuals - the fact that some chose not to enjoy the benefits of those marriage laws doesn't change the equality of providing them.
But it's clear that nothing is going to dissuade you from your novel, solitary "interpretation" of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I have made such arguments in this very thread, one even discusses some of those points right above your response. I have discussed this issue countless times on this board, to the point where those arguing your position can only respond with attacks and fallacious mention.
You only believe you are correct because you are entrenched emotionally in your position and so therefore illogically dismiss all that does not allow you to easily knock them down.
No, you haven't made such arguments in this very thread. What you have presented is your interpretation on the status of marriage, the meaning thereof, and how you believe it should be applied. Your stance, however, is deeply flawed... and the flaw is evident in your own words:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
They are different, the reason?
Marriage is a union that was designed to accommodate the result of heterosexual unions. They produced bloodlines, family trees. With such came blood-right and birth-right. Families related in such also gained such through this. It merged lines and created new houses, joined countries, clans, etc...
Society in its civil laws merely recognized this process to function with in their legal systems.
Civil unions carry no component of birth-right or blood-right. They can never obtain such due to their limitations. Civil unions serve the purpose of recognizing the agreements between two people to establish similar contractual representation similar to that of marriage. They are different from their core though and serve specific purposes due to their makeup.
Is one better? To attempt to assess such is absurd, they are completely different and the judge attempting to claim one is superior shows the flaw in his logic. That is, for him to claim one is superior, he must see them as the same, when they are not. They result in "similar" end goals, but can not achieve the same process and reasoning due to their initial foundation. That is, they are completely different and follow different paths to achieve similar results. They can not be compared because they serve different functions.
Saying a homosexual couple can be married confuses the meaning of marriage. Marriage then loses its definition and purpose. Blood right, blood lines and the function of such unions get confused with those who have no ability to apply such. The result is bloodlines mean nothing in their formation of union and attempting to specify these differences is lost in the demand for a definition encompass them all.
What does a homosexual family tree look like? There is no tree. They do not produce anything between each other. There is no need to specify blood-right conditions as there is no joining of lines creating such.
This is a legal issue. If people wish to use idioms to define themselves, fine, they can do as such, but in the legal realms, we do not use slang, or vague words to encompass issues as they create conflicts, abuses, misunderstandings and the like. This is why they are different and why when it is recognized, it is done so based on their legal meaning.
Marriage is not a joining to create nothing. Love means nothing in legal sense and sexual act itself means nothing without a producing agent.
That last line is an excellent summation of your stance, and an excellent example of the fundamental flaw in your argument.
Your argument might hold water, might be rational, if it were not based on the idea that marriage "is not a joining to create nothing," and that the "sexual act itself means nothing without a producing agent." Because, you see, in this country marriage and procreation are not legally bound, are not inherently tied to each other.
Your argument would only hold water if heterosexual couples who were not producing offspring were also not permitted to marry under the law.
But as my own heterosexual marriage is just one of millions of examples of unions wherein there is no continuation of blood line, no function of blood right... and as legal and valid and federally recognized as any other marriage which DOES produce offspring... your argument falls completely apart.
Our marriage system already contains within it the legal foundation and basis for non-offspring-producing unions. It has contained such provision within it literally from the first inception of this nation. Never in our history have our marital laws required offspring. We have never had a time in our history where a non-producing marriage was summarily negated by initiation of the state inserting itself into a union and declaring it null and void due to lack of offspring. Our laws simply are not written, have never been written to require offspring as part of the requirement for legal definition and standing of a marriage.
So no, you have not presented a rational argument... you've attempted a rather transparent smoke & mirrors ploy... but as I doubt there is a single human being in this country who does NOT know at least one or more married couples who do not have offspring together, who will never HAVE offspring together... the smoke quickly dissipates, and the mirrors quickly reveal the flaw.
Your issue here is not applicable to your claim. It is not an issue of such and one must be ignorant or devious in their application to argue such.
Then you live in a box and do not expose yourself to the rational arguments that exist. That or you choose to ignore them because they damage your position.
I have made such arguments in this very thread, one even discusses some of those points right above your response. I have discussed this issue countless times on this board, to the point where those arguing your position can only respond with attacks and fallacious mention.
You only believe you are correct because you are entrenched emotionally in your position and so therefore illogically dismiss all that does not allow you to easily knock them down.
Maybe, maybe not. Your problem is that you take a very risky road right now. Someone made a comment that gays were gaining some support (or at least people stopped wanting to fight it) in the states. That is, in California alone, the vote went from around 60-70% against it down to 50-60% on the second vote. Over time, it is possible that such could be struck down and allowed.
Now, the issue goes before the courts. This judges ruling is irrelevant, legally his decision is flawed and those who argue the details of the cases understand and know this. The result if this does go to the supreme court could be a big win, or it could be a big loss. The point is, once it reaches there and if you lose. Its game over, your done. So I would be careful to be so arrogant in your claims, you may have a different demeanor come that time when it isn't simply a ruling by a judge in bias making decisions using poorly constructed conclusions.
Nope, simply narccistic to the point that is often illogical. Homosexuals want acceptance, they could have more easily reached the same level of rights through civil unions, but it doesn't turn as many heads. The face of homosexuals (not all homosexuals, just those representing this action) are that of attention whores who lack the restraint and process of reasoning to discuss an issue past attacking.
you speak as if your OPINION is fact.. you have every right to think of homosexuality in any way you like, but your personal feelings are not factual, or anything that can hold up in a court of law to support a case against gays..
in other words.. you can't deny them... "just because I feel this way"
any you speak of people having contempt for the gay community more now.. I actually think it's the opposite, but I'm probably of a different generation than you.. I don't know... regardless, gays are very much use to having contempt towards us.. we can handle it.. and don't care about what you think or what you might do.. we will continue to live our lives and seek equal representation under the law for our relationships by the same government we pay taxes to as well thank you very much.. you or 200 million other people will not stop us
My opinion may be my disagreement with homosexuality.
The definition of marriage is not an opinion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
good post
