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.
Society? No. It's the SCOTUS' responsibility when they hear a case to take these things into consideration.
If (some say when) same sex marriage is allowed, why do you feel that it'll ruin the institution of marriage? I mean it wasn't a religious concept for thousands of years and it's not like religious places will *have* to perform the ceremony if they don't want to. Marriage is a secular ceremony that a judge may perform as it is within their power to do so.
There's nothing uncharted about marriage equality. Homosexuals are being denied certain rights and being discriminated against. We are now addressing these issues and correcting them, for better or for worse.
Why not push for civil unions with all of the benefits? Why is this not good enough, assuming you are able to get the tax breaks, benefits, etc?
This wouldn't be a case of separate and unequal, if you received all of the same benefits, and tax breaks as married couples under the law.
Gays are like the atheists in this country. A small minority that wishes to push its will upon all of society. That's why civil unions will never be "enough" for gays.
They have to be obscene about their demands. Civil unions with benefits aren't good enough. It won't stop until athiests have removed God from every public place, and gays are able to marry in every state.
Personally, the thought of two guys together trying to perform some kind of procreation act is utterly repulsive. Females together? Not good either.
Next, it'll be, "We all live together polyamourously, all five of us and three kids, and we deserve to be married."
After that, what's next? Marrying one's pet? After all, it's love, isn't it? And it's a "family."
They have to be obscene about their demands. Civil unions with benefits aren't good enough. It won't stop until athiests have removed God from every public place, and gays are able to marry in every state.
From every public place. I suppose you've never heard of "separation of church and state?"
People want the Biblical definition of marriage, but they only seem to want the Genesis 2:24 version.
We don't make rapists marry their victims, or soldiers marry prisoners of war...we made a choice.
For some reason, folks no longer are aware of the tree and only see the forest.
Remember, a contract for marriage was for joining property rights to endow progeny. Marriage was not for love. People in love do not need a lifelong contract keeping them and their property together.
All those forms listed in the chart are made clear when you perceive they are solutions to the question: who gets the family property.
Or how such forms resolved property right issues.
And let us dispel the myth that wives were chattels to be "owned". If they could own property (i.e., dowery) to merge with the husband's property, they were obviously not chattels. But as dependents upon their husbands they were to be OBEDIENT (GASP - shudder - moan) to their husband.
(Some might equate obedience to slavery)
Since only legitimate children inherit from the father, a concubine's child could not inherit. (All children can inherit from their mothers)
Slaves had no property rights as they were chattels, so their children were property of the owner.
Multiple wives were no problem as long as the husband was rich enough to support them all and endow their children. Marrying prisoners was one way to offset the conquest - since the next generation born of the union would still have half the blood right to be there.
As to the husband "acquiring" the wife's property, it was also known as coverture. Since the definition for absolute ownership requires a single owner, the most likely candidate to support and defend the family property is the husband. However, women, especially rich nobles, could refuse to merge their own property and signified this by not taking the family name of the husband. Thus we see the hyphenated names of nobility. Even the Queen of England kept her family name (Windsor) and did not take the name of her husband (Mountbatten).
As to the requirement that rapists marry their victims, that was a solution to several issues - the possible illegitimate child and the support of the mother. The rapist was getting a "life sentence" to support the mother and child.
But the ultimate beneficiary of the marriage is the offspring of that marriage.
That is the one thread that links all forms of marriage across the planet.
If there are no offspring, there is no beneficiary of the marriage (joined) property.
Gays are like the atheists in this country. A small minority that wishes to push its will upon all of society. That's why civil unions will never be "enough" for gays.
They have to be obscene about their demands. Civil unions with benefits aren't good enough. It won't stop until athiests have removed God from every public place, and gays are able to marry in every state.
Just wait until YOU are the victim of inequality, and then we'll see how quietly you accept second-class citizen status. Unless you are a person of great weakness, you will be just as "pushy" about demanding your equality.
Quote:
Personally, the thought of two guys together trying to perform some kind of procreation act is utterly repulsive. Females together? Not good either.
So don't think about it.
And I'm pretty sure they aren't going for procreation, just as many straight couples aren't aiming for that when they have sex. For the record, I don't want to think about that old (straight) couple next door having sex either, but so far it hasn't been an issue for me. Do you often think of sex when you meet married couples? If so, I think you should see somebody about that.
Quote:
Next, it'll be, "We all live together polyamourously, all five of us and three kids, and we deserve to be married."
After that, what's next? Marrying one's pet? After all, it's love, isn't it? And it's a "family."
best,
toodie
Ah, the old "next they'll want to marry their dog!!" argument... the year 1960 called, they want their stupid strawman fallacy back.
But the ultimate beneficiary of the marriage is the offspring of that marriage.
That is the one thread that links all forms of marriage across the planet.
If there are no offspring, there is no beneficiary of the marriage (joined) property.
So, how do you feel about infertile straight couples marrying? What about couples who don't want children?
Why am I beginning to feel like a broken record? Oh yeah, because there isn't a single "argument" here that hasn't already been addressed & refuted a zillion times over. I wish the anti-gays would get some new material already!
Dr. Xiridou ?? I don't know what study you are referring to, and neither do you.
In “The Male Couple,” published in 1984, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison report that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting anywhere from one to 37 years, all couples with relationships more than five years had incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity.
“Fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior but rather by their emotional commitment to each other,” the authors said. “Ninety-five percent of the couples have an arrangement whereby the partners may have sexual activity with others.”
A study of 156 men (among millions) published almost 30 years ago? Gotta do better than that, LOL. I'd also like to see his study in detail, and the primary sources would be nice too.
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.
