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.
Wants the government to keep its big nose out of our intimate sexual relationships unless, in the state's opinion, one couple's sexual relationship is sufficiently like another couple's that an association, wanted or not, should be created between the two by legally changing the meaning of a word while overturning the expressed will of the people with respect to the word's permissible use as well as centuries of religious precedent, and this, with no affirmative constitutional authority to do so.
Other than that, the state needs to stay out of our bedrooms.
47 previous posts and this is the first good answer.
Then why do we legally connect many benefits, rights and obligations to "marriage" and not to "parentship"? I understand your point but I think that under these circumstances, married couples without children should not be treated the same as married couples WITH children.
Following this approach, I would say that marriage is not necessary anymore and the law should just distinguish if a (heterosexual) couple has children or not?
"Marriage" is a conception much like "prayer." Both predate the year 2016.
Both have ancient origins. That's what I was speaking about with the origins of marriage.
In context of the Christian adoption of matrimony it promoted monogamy based upon the words of Jesus in the Bible when asked by a Jew about Jews having multiple wives. Jesus acknowledge the practice tolerated by Jews (actually, this was the standard for most human history among most peoples of the world, it was Christian missionaries that spread monogamy around) but condmended it. His answer was metaphysical (the wife and man become one by God) and in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches marriage is metaphysical, sacramental.
Catholicism defines a sacrament as an outward sign that reveals a greater invisible truth. sacraments generally make use of the material world, providing a symbolic message that the material world is good and can be used for holy purposes. Examples of this biblically are drawn scenes of Jesus spitting in the dirt, rubbing the material world (dirt in this case) on the eyes of a blind man to give him sight, if I recall correctly. Or the faith of a woman who touches the rob of Jesus and receive a healing.
So, among the 7 sacraments of the Church marriage is one of them. The Eastern Orthodox have a far more romantic and rich tradition in the matrimonial ceremony carried out through the liturgy. The bride and groom both wear crowns when going through the liturgical celebration.
It might surprise some people--including most Catholics because decades ago clergy and nuns conspired to not teach lay Catholics the Catholic faith in hopes of destroying the Catholic Church from within. Ergo, the forewarning by the Queen of Heaven that clergy are leadingmany lay Catholics to eternal damnation in hell, and indeed mass numbers have already been condemn to eternal damnation in hell. Catholics damned to hell. Not Protestants or Orthodox or Jews or Muslims. But as I was saying, it may surprise some, but Catholicism teaches that marriage is made by the bride and groom, not by the priest or Obama or the Supreme Court or anyone or institution on earth. Only the bride and groom through their vows, intent, covenant with God form a marriage. Marriage again being metaphysical in this sense.
A covenant can be thought of as something akin to a greatest form of vow, a vow so important it is like a contract with God Almighty. In terms of marriage that covenant can not be sealed until the bride and groom have sex, literally.
The Catholic Church provides witness to the marriage, or through its legal system called canon law provides annulment. An annulment says a marriage never existed. A 40 year-old man can not marry a 7 year-old girl in Catholicism. A woman can not be forced into marriage. One party can not deceive another about their intent to be open to producing children. All those things and such deception are grounds for annulment, meaning a marriage never existed from the beginning.
I only bring that up because that history and context plays a part in how we got to viewing marriage today in the West, where it is engrained in the minds of liberal Catholics and atheists that somehow only a "real" marriage involves not less than and not more than 2 people.
But the reality is that throughout most of human history marriage involved--was not limited to--just 2 spouses.
So, it is from Christians that pro-gay marriage people derive their holier than thou principal of monogamy.
The first attack on Christian marriage--which may have led centuries later to gay marriage--might have been the Protestant rejection of marriage as a sacrament and merely a contractual agreement.
Later civil marriage would develop, and while I'm not sure, I have heard that originally the Catholic Church opposed civil marriage. In other words, Catholicism thought marriage, like prayer and the liturgy, were the domain of religion, of the Church.
But as I stated earlier, Christianity adopted marriage because marriage as an institution predated Christianity. And from what I have read marriage (predations Christianity) was formed (speculated by scholars I guess) to give rights to children, the right to have providers by those that created them (their parents), and especially to protect inheritance rights of children deemed "legitimate." So called "bastard" children did not gain such inheritance rights, even if as in the Antebellum New Orleans practice of taking mixed-race mistresses, the father still set his "bastard" children up pretty well in life.
It's my own speculation that tribal people and people of early civilizations also established marriage as a way to protect their daughters. Rather than young men having sex with many women, impregnating however many they did, and then never having to take responsibility for any of them.
Morally and religiously, I'm opposed to same sex marriage. However, I don't think that constitutionally, the government can stop them at all, so I think they should be legal.
Yes, we no longer have slavery or Jim Crow, how horrible that we have advanced toward the spirit which our nation was founded on that all men are created with certain inalienable rights and the chief amongst those is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The US Constitution still protects and gives the right of enslavement and forced labor.
You can look that up yourself. The US Constitution outlaws enslavment and enforced labor for anyone except those convicted of a crime (basically felony level crime).
And in fact there are US companies that use prison labor (what do they get, .25 cents an hour or something?).
This video says $1 to $6 an hour but having known people in prison some only get less than a $1 an hour. And the unlike the video suggests the work was voluntary. But on a more positive note in minimum security prisons in Wisconsin the state working with private businesses often hooks young thuggish inmates up with $20 an hour jobs on work release programs. They pay some rent back to the state prison but save the rest. So, as one guy prisoner with day passes out told me, such inmates leave prison with several thousand dollars, sometimes $10,000 and the whole time in prison they are talking about how they're going to use the money to buy drugs to sell when they get out and then quit their job.
A joint creation of Republicans and Democrats controlling the lives of inner-city Americans by the Republicans supporting jobs moving out the city, and the Democrats being given monarchal, paternal reign, to create "programs" by which most in the inner-city have to go through to get a job. A decent paying one at least. Therefore, your life itself depends on you kissing the ring of your paternal master, who akin to the former Chicago Machine givith life through jobs and take-ith life away by controlling if you get or keep a job.
No one is making it illegal for heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual, bisexual, or non-binary people in the US to have sex without being married. Actually, virgins are ridiculed in the United States.
It is really only the Libertarians who subscribe to "negative freedom" and thereby don't tell people how to think or how to seek happiness (with the restriction being they don't initiate violence).
However, both the Democrats and Republicans subscribe to "positive freedom" and thereby feel it their holy duty to preach to people how to think and how to seek happiness (ergo, the Democrat: support homosexual marriage, but only monogamous homosexual marriage, because 3 men married to each other can't be happy and 3 men married to each other would have negative effects on society).
Same sex marriage just isn't one of those issues that gets my interest piqued.
But I see it as one facet of an much large, overarching principle:
Either America truly is about expanding rights or it's about picking and choosing minority groups to discriminate against.[/color]
America is about picking and choosing minority groups to discriminate against. Easy answer.
Or are you aware sociology is a predominately feminist, liberal, field of study? Almost everyone involved in that profession is a liberal. Look it up yourself.
Sociology has its own professional jargon. A "group" are people that either know each other hanging out or have associations with one another. A "category" are those that share similar traits but don't know each other.
Sociology itself, a past text book of mine, blatantly gave drug addicts as an example of a "category," within the list of other categories it gave such as: black people, homosexuals, women, Republicans, Muslims etc.
So, given there is a multi-billion dollar war (the US has already spent more than a trillion dollars on the War on Drugs) on drugs, arresting drug addicts, giving them misdemeanor and felony records, giving the right of urine tests in jobs to discriminate against people that smoke marijuana, cocaine, or heroine... I would say it is evident the America is all about picking and choosing minorities to discriminate against.
Prince had millions, the former mayor of Toronto was fat, dressed in a business suit, and was not poor, just like not all gay people and transsexuals have HIV. Although, gay males have a higher rate of HIV infection than IV heroin addicts, and almost all male-to-female transsexuals become HIV infected (largely because almost all of them are prostitutes). So, before you pull up the image of some impoverished, skinny crackhead in Brazilian slum, just remember the statistics for social pathologies among transsexuals (be they in Brazil, Thailand, or the USA) could conjure up similar negative stereotypes, except that it is not politically correct to do that for transsexuals.
I don't really care one way or another. I don't have a problem with the states passing laws allowing gays to get married. Somehow the SCOTUS found something in the Constitution that they think somehow makes this a basic right. I don't buy that. I have the same stance with abortion also. I have no problem with it being allowed. But calling it a constitutional right is utter nonsense.
I do not support homosexual marriage but I'm fine with a legal contract that allows these couples to share benefits, etc. I also do not believe same sex couples should be allowed to adopt children.
It would just be awesome if we never have to hear about this ever again.
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.