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 has always been 1 man, 1 woman. The primary reason for it was for procreation and to raise children. It benefits society to have stable family units within marriage.
There has not been a compelling argument given for changing that.
And there's another lie, throughout much of human history as it relates to marriage, polygamy...one man and as many wives and live-in wh--es--wait. "Concubines"....but then a again, concubine is a PC term for wh-re, isn't it? So the preferred form of marriage was one man and as many wives and wh-res as he could afford.
And there's another lie, throughout much of human history as it relates to marriage, polygamy...one man and as many wives and live-in wh--es--wait. "Concubines"....but then a again, concubine is a PC term for wh-re, isn't it? So the preferred form of marriage was one man and as many wives and wh-res as he could afford.
yes--a man would have multiple wives...but the wives were not married to each other. It was not polyamory. It was polygamy. It was still 1 man, and 1 wife.....many times.
There does come a point at which you make the entire group look silly though. What other type of sexual activity would queeerrs of the Q have that fell outside of heterosexual or homosexual ?
Q is essentially an umbrella term for anything that doesn't fit neatly under either the hetero- or homosexual category.
I am of two minds on this one. On one hand, the distinctions serve as a way to ensure that different sexual orientations are adequately represented. But, on the other hand, I can't help but feel like "too many" labels undermines the concept of sexual fluidity, because it regressively attempts to categorize each and every variation. IDK, I'm straight so maybe I just don't quite get it, but I'm down with adopting whichever terms are deemed most respectful by the people they represent.
The definition of marriage hasn't changed. Marriage is still a couple joining together as one in loving commitment.
Actually the definition of marriage HAS changed . DOMA defined it as one man and one woman , and Cornell U Law School defined it the same . So, apologies to Viz and Jeff for when I erroneously claimed marriage hasn't been redefined .
So, marriage has been redefined to include SSM . Why was it necessary to redefine it? Because the old definition discriminated against a group of people who desires to marry their SS partners, and there was no compelling reason for banning SSM and limiting it to OSM .
And SCOTUS had every right to rule on marriage . They actually either had to decide to deny SSM everywhere , or allow it everywhere , due to the 14th amendment .And what Viz and Jeff may not realize is that states cannot prohibit marriage without a valid and compelling reason. And with SSM it was found that there was no compelling reason to justify the prohibition of it . Which eventually led to the right having to be extended to gays in all states .
So THAT'S what the problem was! The gays destroyed marriage...
So, we realized the only hope for heterosexual marriage in America is to pass
new laws against gay marriage....
THIS is the funniest run I have ever heard...sell this to a prof stand up comedian!
Or become a writer.
My 5 rep points are not enough for you!
but then a again, concubine is a PC term for wh-re, isn't it?
Well they were wh-res exclusively for the pleasure of the king, in exchange for room and board and a relatively cushy life for the day ... and, I would be unsurprised to discover, some monetary largesse for her father.
So ... not exactly equivalent. Depending on the exact customs involved, if you were to take a queen, strip her of her public responsibilities and potential rights to succession and degree of freedom and a certain amount of autonomous power and authority ... you would have a concubine. Because in those days what were women for other than sex or pomp and circumstance. Take away the pomp and its symbolism and all that's left is sex.
And they did not have the legal right to make that change to the law.
So then marriage for love isn't really the deal, is it?
Yet, no one has given a reasonable counter argument yet. Both men and women have always been able to marry with the exact same rules.
You have yet to explain why this change was necessary.
According to the Supreme Courts in many countries laws prohibiting same sex marrige are unconstiitonal. So I would say that in those court's opinion, including the one in your country, they do have the legal right to marry and now the law reflects that. Did you not read the court's opinion? Can you override the
Supreme Court? Do you know more about the law and constitition than they do?
No idea where that comes from. I did say that telling men they could only marry women means they either could not marry or they could not marry someone they were sexually attracted to. Why do you want people to be unhappy? Why do you want
You have been given full answers to your third question so many times now it is not funny. Why do you wish for people to be discrminated against? Why do you refuse to understand that some people are attracted to people of the same gender rather than the opposite one? Why do you wish for these people to be treated as less of a person than you are? Why do you wish to have your religious views forced upon others?
The former law did not take into account that some adults are attracted to only people of the same gender and some adults are attracted to people of both genders. Seeing as sex between people of the same gender was not illegal but any long term relationships were not legally binding upon institutions and even not recognized by some familiy members. Therefore those attracted to the same gender were not afforded the same rights to marry persons that hetersexuals were not matter how much you play your silly and useless word game. Everyone has the same right to walk up steps so ramps for people in wheelchairs were not needed?
I get it, trying to keep LBGT people with less rights and mocking those who stand up for the rights of those people makes you feel smug and rightous about yourself. But laws are passed for the good of people and society not for you to be a uncaring mean sprited person. Why should you have special rights to prevent others from enjoying equal rights?
All your questions have been answered to my satisfaction seeing as those same questions have been anwered by multiple posters and you refuse to do anything but ask the same ones over and over and make you smug remark about what you see as no discrimination. Just because you do not see it does not mean it is not there.
They didn't legislate, they said that same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. If something can not be banned it is legal.
The compelling argument is that the bans were in violation of the constitution.
Did you have civics in high school? This is pretty basic knowledge.
It's clear from his many posts on this subject Viz does not understand our three branches of government. The SCOTUS does not legislate. It cannot legislate. It has no power to legislate.
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.
