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.
So, you're saying that because someone wants some legal rights and privileges, they should be give them?
Or, are you saying that emotional bonding between people is the business of the state?
I married because I made a formal commitment to the woman I married. Whether any legal rights came with that was mostly irrelevant. It also almost didn't happen, because the county failed to record my marriage and we didn't even find out until 23 years later. We managed to find where it broke down and after all these years, we were finally legally married a couple at all.
again, why do heteros need to marry? Maybe answer the question this time.
It is a right. Rights do have limits, like the extent of the rights garunteed in the consitution have an entire branch of he law named after it. I don't see the problem with two consenting adults getting married, and it is not need to scream about slipperly slopes of "weird" marriages like ghosts and horses.
Just like people used to think it wasn't a right for people of different colors to marry.
It is a right. Rights do have limits, like the extent of the rights garunteed in the consitution have an entire branch of he law named after it. I don't see the problem with two consenting adults getting married, and it is not need to scream about slipperly slopes of "weird" marriages like ghosts and horses.
Just like people used to think it wasn't a right for people of different colors to marry.
You obviously didn't read the first post.
When you have a rebuttal to my reasoning, then post it. Until then, I am correct, you are wrong.
When your reasoning is based wholly on a false premise, little rebuttal is actually needed. Your meandering and occasionally not wholly fleshed out vignette aside, the upshot of your statement is that marriage isn't a right because the state has a say in who gets married and who doesn't. That argument fails on two tests.
First, the government does have a say in who gets to partake in certain rights when there's a compelling interest in restricting the practice of those rights. Let's, for instance, take the right to bear arms. There are several categories of people who legally aren't allowed to enjoy the right to bear arms including convicted felons, fugitives, people adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, etc. Naturally, one can see the compelling interest in the restriction of the right to bear arms - but it's still a right to be enjoyed by all, assuming they don't fall on the wrong side of the state interest line. Similarly, voting is a right, yet again, there are compelling state interests in play that restricts who can enjoy the right to vote. Just because the law says those under 18 cannot vote doesn't mean that voting isn't a right. Thus your argument fails once.
Second, it fails on the face that marriage is a right. Multiple times the Supreme Court of the United States, the final arbiter of what is or isn't Constitutional, has ruled marriage to be a fundamental civil right, including in Loving v. Virginia, which the photo EmeraldCityWanderer posted referenced. Thus your argument fails twice.
Now then, is there a compelling interest in restricting who can practice marriage? In some cases, yes - once again, age is one. The government feels that those too closely related shouldn't enjoy the rights of marriage for the public health rationale. But what is the compelling interest in barring same sex marriage? I personally see none and repeatedly in courts advocates of same-sex marriage bans have been unable to voice what that interest is.
But to answer your point, as mistaken as it may be, marriage is a right and the restriction of a right by a state government or federal government doesn't mean that something suddenly isn't a right.
The religious marrage and the goverment marrage get confused as the same thing. Jews have 2 marrages theres a religious one and a goverment one. It is possible to only do the goverment one. The same with devorce, you can be legally goverment devorced but still married by jewish law.
I see no problem with gays getting a goverment marrage but it should be up to the religious organization if they want to do a religious marrage.
So my conservative answer is that a goverment has a right to define what a goverment marrage is but should never mandate that any religious person be required to marry any couple for any reason.
For any of the many reasons why straight people get married:
Show of legal commitment. Economic reasons. Protection of property. To have legal status to make health decisions for one another and not have family members interfere. To create a home together. To start a family together "in wed lock." Because they're in love. To "make it official."
Gays, like straights, have a multitude of reasons why they choose to marry... or choose to NOT marry.
Those who sleep with dozens of women, even after getting married, tend to be 'liberal' with the gay marriage thing, because they want to forget about moral standards.
Families are collapsing, and gay marriage is just the last straw.
What is love? If you think about it carefully, you will find it is defined by culture.
A man and four women can fall in "love", but such a love is not recognized in the US.
You argue two men can fall in "love", but such a love is not recognized by the majority of the US.
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.
