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.
Anyone that is intellectually honest will admit that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Now whether or not you agree with it is totally different. But to ignorant this is disingenuous.
This is my question to you. When has this NOT been the definition of marriage? I can go back hundreds of years and provide vast amounts of evidence about hetero marriage. Can you do the same as it relates to gay marriage? If so, please provide proof, artifacts, etc. Perhaps I’m missing where this was a highly practiced ceremony that you are now being denied.
Same-sex marriage was quite common in Rome, Greece, China, Egypt, etc., and is now completely accepted in at least a dozen countries around the world. Marriage is not defined as one man, one woman in the Netherlands, Denmark, Argentina, Canada, etc.
Has same-sex marriage ever been as common as one man one woman? No, why would it be, gays are a minority and always have been. And until recently they've haven't been able to be open enough without being executed to really push for equal rights.
But one man one woman also isn't the most common marriage type historically, polygamy is. And polygamy is still quite prevalent in the parts of the world that oppose same-sex marriage.
Quote:
If the Supreme Court has decided as you claim, where is the uproar that they haven't stuck to their decision? Why isn’t gay marriage federally mandated?
Because the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction on this issue. It has to work its way through the federal court system and the Supreme Court has to grant certiorari to hear the case. The SCOTUS gets about 8000 requests for Cert a year - they take 1% of them.
Life just isn't fair? I'm sure you'll feel the same way when your rights are taken away...
There you go again. You asked a question and got an answer that you obviously don’t like and really don’t want to hear. Nothing has been “taken away” from you as you’ve never had it in the first place. I make no apology just because I happen to fit into the predominant societal heterosexual norm and you do not. As I said before, life is unfair and we can’t always get what we want. Nobody does. It really is most unfortunate that we all cannot live happily ever after.
Hey ChocLat, I'm not concerned about the mixing of races, I just oppose giving non-whites the same rights as Caucasians. How does that make you feel? After all, white supremacy is a long-established tradition passed down by our forefathers which should be respected.
One problem. The Constitution states that all men are created equal. Any deviation from that definition is where the problem starts.
I won't even go into the "founding" of the US. Suffice it to say that I don't agree that this nation is a "white" country. I seem to recall something in the history books about Native Americans, but perhaps I'm mistaken.
And the whole point of rights being delineated in our Constitution is that there are some things about life that "the majority" should not "call the shots." Yes, society should set some limits for marriage - age requirements, number of spouses allowed (one), that both spouses be human, that both be capable of making the decision - but that they be different genders is not one of them.
Same-sex marriage was quite common in Rome, Greece, China, Egypt, etc., and is now completely accepted in at least a dozen countries around the world. Marriage is not defined as one man, one woman in the Netherlands, Denmark, Argentina, Canada, etc.
It is not enough to just make these statements. Where is your proof? Artifacts? Scholarly articles? Anything?
Has same-sex marriage ever been as common as one man one woman? No, why would it be, gays are a minority and always have been. And until recently they've haven't been able to be open enough without being executed to really push for equal rights.
Blacks/Latinos/Asians are a minority in the US as well, yet marriages between these groups are a common occurrence. Your premise doesn't work.
But one man one woman also isn't the most common marriage type historically, polygamy is. And polygamy is still quite prevalent in the parts of the world that oppose same-sex marriage.
I didn't say one man/one woman. I said man and woman. Having more than one wife doesn't change the core foundation of marriage.
Because the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction on this issue. It has to work its way through the federal court system and the Supreme Court has to grant certiorari to hear the case. The SCOTUS gets about 8000 requests for Cert a year - they take 1% of them.
Let's just abolish the legality of Marriage altogether, keep a religious ceremony and EVERY couple gets a contractual Civil Union?
That way, man/man, female/female, male/female have all the same legal rights. Marriage would be delegated as a term for churches to perform, has no legal bearing on anything (you do not get any legal rights from that) and that couple doesn't get a legal Civil union, all they would have is a religious ceremony that says they are "together". other than its just window dressing.
If couples want to have their legal rights recognized, everyone can go down to City hall and get a civil union certificate/license and sign a contract.
I'm not the one you were replying to, but I will reply to one of your statements (questions).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChocLot
I was going to move on from this topic (it's going nowhere fast), but I will answer your questions. Marriage-bond between man and woman.
Civil union-bond between same-sex couples. Afforded same rights as married couples.
How is that offensive?
I guess you can't see the offensiveness of it because you simply refuse to look at it from the perspective of that same-sex couple. Most same sex couples I know get married for the same reasons the opposite sex couples I know do - they are in love and want all the legal protections of marriage for themselves and their partners. So let me ask you - if they are to be afforded the same rights and protections that marriage grants, why are you so insistent that it not be called marriage? How does the fact that my friends Joe and John (or Mia and Mary) can legally say they are married detract from the fact that you and your spouse can say the same thing? (Oh! And you did say earlier that my son and his wife should call their marriage a civil union instead - what the heck is that about unless you think all "marriages" should be performed in/by a church or other religious institution.)
Let's just abolish the legality of Marriage altogether, keep a religious ceremony and EVERY couple gets a contractual Civil Union?
That way, man/man, female/female, male/female have all the same legal rights. Marriage would be delegated as a term for churches to perform, has no legal bearing on anything (you do not get any legal rights from that) and that couple doesn't get a legal Civil union, all they would have is a religious ceremony that says they are "together". other than its just window dressing.
If couples want to have their legal rights recognized, everyone can go down to City hall and get a civil union certificate/license and sign a contract.
Do you realize what you've just stated? Your take:
Civil unions=anyone can do it. They get full rights, under the law
Marriage- religious ceremony. No rights unless you agree to do it civilly.
So, you are advocating to deny rights based on the way someone chooses to form a union. How interesting! That's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying full rights for all, whether it be by civil union or marriage. The way you form your bond should have no effect on the rights you are afforded.
Yes, society should set some limits for marriage... but that they be different genders is not one of them.
In your opinion. I believe that marriage is between a man/woman exclusively. Unfortunately for you so does a significant portion of society, not just in the US, but everywhere worldwide. On the other hand, if society really wanted same sex marriage, we would have it everywhere by now and then you would be happy with the majority calling the shots because you would get your way.
No, courts would stay out of the "marriage" business....leave that institution to the church. Folks seeking a union outside of the church can form civil unions, whether gay or straight. Full rights for all.
Since marriage has not historically been a religious institution, and is not religious in nature in the United States, why does the church get the right to marry?
You are aware that Martin Luther and most Protestants completely opposed marriage and Christianity being combined, because it was deemed a worldly thing right?
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.
