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.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,684,299 times
Reputation: 10256
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by netbrad
Such as? As far as I know, the Constitution applies to homosexuals just like everyone else.
Marriage is a privilege granted by the state, not a right. The state has an interest in promoting marriages that produce children. Marriage has been defined since the dawn of human civilization as between man and woman. Once you change the definition of marriage you destroy a societal foundation.
Call it a civil union and be done with it.
You mean getting married is like driving a car? Why isn't there a test? You know, for fertility?
I think that, if you knew history, you wouldn't say that. The Supreme Court has ruled differently.
I remember when blacks could not marry whites in some states. It was called mixing of the races. Strangely enough, both races could marry Asians. Soldiers from both races brought back Japanese wives after WWII.
You mean getting married is like driving a car? Why isn't there a test? You know, for fertility?
I think that, if you knew history, you wouldn't say that. The Supreme Court has ruled differently.
I remember when blacks could not marry whites in some states. It was called mixing of the races. Strangely enough, both races could marry Asians. Soldiers from both races brought back Japanese wives after WWII.
Mixed race marriages were still between a man and a woman.
That is a single judges opinion about interracial marriage between opposite sex couples, not about homosexual marriage.
Actually, no. It's the majority opinion of the Supreme Court's opinion and by stating marriage is a civil right - that applies to marriage write large. You'll also note several other citations there? Those are other cases in which the Court found marriage to be a civil right. The next logical step from the Warren Court's ruling in Loving is marriage equality for LGBT couples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by netbrad
I meant the state had an interest (historically speaking) in ensuring marriage produced children, not making the production of children a requirement.
And yet, again, there's never been fertility tests attached to the issuance of a marriage license nor some implicit or explicit promise for a couple to reproduce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by netbrad
That still doesn't change the fact that marriage has always been defined as between a man and woman throughout human history.
You use that word "always." I don't think it means what you think it means. Take some time to do some research and you'll find marriage hasn't always been defined as between a man and woman throughout human history. That's a definition, but not the definition. Research the Zuni berdache We'wha, who was married to a man. The Igbo Ifeyinwa Olinke who had nine wives of her own in addition to her husband. Same sex marriage rights existed in the Roman Republic, ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and other cultures. I think if you sat down and did some research you'd find yourself surprised at just how much is out there on same-sex relationships and marriages in human history.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,684,299 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by netbrad
Mixed race marriages were still between a man and a woman.
So what, there were laws banning marriages between blacks & whites. That was shot down by the Supreme Court, so not just one man. There were also known instances where homosexuals were pushed into heterosexual marriages & then were caught in homosexual extra-marital relations.
People who are gay are born that way. They should marry whoever they want, as long as both are consenting adults.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,951,955 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by garnetpalmetto
Actually, no. It's the majority opinion of the Supreme Court's opinion and by stating marriage is a civil right - that applies to marriage write large. You'll also note several other citations there? Those are other cases in which the Court found marriage to be a civil right. The next logical step from the Warren Court's ruling in Loving is marriage equality for LGBT couples.
Exactly correct. Per the SCOTUS, marriage is a fundamental civil right.
Actually, no. It's the majority opinion of the Supreme Court's opinion and by stating marriage is a civil right - that applies to marriage write large. You'll also note several other citations there? Those are other cases in which the Court found marriage to be a civil right. The next logical step from the Warren Court's ruling in Loving is marriage equality for LGBT couples.
And yet, again, there's never been fertility tests attached to the issuance of a marriage license nor some implicit or explicit promise for a couple to reproduce.
You use that word "always." I don't think it means what you think it means. Take some time to do some research and you'll find marriage hasn't always been defined as between a man and woman throughout human history. That's a definition, but not the definition. Research the Zuni berdache We'wha, who was married to a man. The Igbo Ifeyinwa Olinke who had nine wives of her own in addition to her husband. Same sex marriage rights existed in the Roman Republic, ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and other cultures. I think if you sat down and did some research you'd find yourself surprised at just how much is out there on same-sex relationships and marriages in human history.
So less than five examples throughout human history are being used as justification to redefine marriage? Such marriages were outliers, not the norm for the time. Same-sex marriages in the Roman empire did not carry any legal weight. That still does not change the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and woman.
I know you folks think I am unable to think for myself and I only parrot talking points, but if I can make an effort to read Huffpo you can make an effort to read Heritage:
Exactly correct. Per the SCOTUS, marriage is a fundamental civil right.
When applied to interracial marriages, the full quote is below:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Such as? As far as I know, the Constitution applies to homosexuals just like everyone else.
Marriage is a privilege granted by the state, not a right. The state has an interest in promoting marriages that produce children. Marriage has been defined since the dawn of human civilization as between man and woman. Once you change the definition of marriage you destroy a societal foundation.
Call it a civil union and be done with it.
That is absolutely a falsehood. Marriage has been defined MANY ways since the "dawn of human civilization."
Equality under the law IS a right. There is no reason that homosexuals should not have equality under the law.
That is really the problem. "Marriage" as we are discussing it here, is not a religious sacrament. It is a proceeding that requires a license from a governmental body that is supposed to keep religion out of its workings.
If you want all people to get certificates for civil unions (regardless of sexual orientation) that will allow them all the rights and benefits currently extended to heterosexual spouses, I am fine with that.
Then, the literal definition of marriage can be confined to various and sundry religious ceremonies. Some religions have no issue with homosexuality. Others do.
Let the religions sort out who they will and will not marry in their own places of worship.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
So less than five examples throughout human history are being used as justification to redefine marriage? Such marriages were outliers, not the norm for the time. Same-sex marriages in the Roman empire did not carry any legal weight. That still does not change the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and woman.
I know you folks think I am unable to think for myself and I only parrot talking points, but if I can make an effort to read Huffpo you can make an effort to read Heritage:
Ignore the politics and read the argument. If you don't want to do that, skip to the bibliography.
Here's the thing... I didn't ask you to read anything and I don't intend to read anything else about it because I don't care whether people are all wounded over the idea of two women or two men becoming legally wed because I care more about those people's rights. (on edit: I just read it and I find it ridiculous)
We may be redefining "marriage" as it currently exists WHEN we begin allowing homosexuals to marry in NC, but we will not be redefining anyone's relationships. People who are heterosexual and married will not have their relationships minimized by extending that same right to others.
I am a heterosexual woman. I am married. I know that my own marriage will not be affected in the least by allowing homosexuals to get married. People who are so freaked out over this are extremely narrow minded.
My husband and I (I did mention that we are heterosexuals, right?) have no children between us. I have 3 children from a previous marriage. My husband is a wonderful stepfather, but I feel confident that if I were a lesbian and married a woman instead, she would have had to be a good stepmother to my kids, because I wouldn't have married someone who was not good with kids.
I don't get it. Homosexual couples cannot produce without assistance. But... they can produce. And adopt. As can infertile heterosexual couples and they still get to marry if they choose. Why hold homosexual couples to an antiquated standard of marriage when the rest of us are not held to the same?
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Such as? As far as I know, the Constitution applies to homosexuals just like everyone else.
Marriage is a privilege granted by the state, not a right. The state has an interest in promoting marriages that produce children. Marriage has been defined since the dawn of human civilization as between man and woman. Once you change the definition of marriage you destroy a societal foundation.
Call it a civil union and be done with it.
And when an opposite sex married couple doesn't produce children we call it......????
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.
