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.
Homosexual marriage is like training wheels for fish.
You can do it, but for what reason?
...
From antiquity, the joining of property rights via marriage was for the benefit of progeny.
(Do some research into pre-Socialist law before 1933 - specifically the rights of dower and curtesy.)
The marriage compact was a joining of the parents' property for the benefit of the next generation.
The sole difference between a legitimate child and an illegitimate child was the right to the father's property and support. In either case, the child had a right to the mother's property and support.
That underlying reason for marriage was bypassed with the start of national socialism (via FICA) and the beginning of non-custodial child support. (Since participation in FICA is not compulsory, such obligations are not involuntary servitude. You do know you volunteered, right?).
Until homosexuals gene splice progeny, a marriage contract is absurd and useless.
And if you need a license (government permission) to wed, it's not a right.
(No license required for common law marriages. But you must have legal standing under the common law to make such a marriage - not be a participant in national socialism.)
.........
CURTESY - The estate to which by common law a man is entitled, on the death of his wife, in the lands or tenements of which she was seised in possession in fee-simple or in tail during her coverture, provided they have had lawful issue born alive which might have been capable of inheriting the estate.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 383
Translation from legalese:
On the death of the wife, if there were children born of the marriage, the widower could keep her property, and endow their children on his death.
BUT, if there were no children of the marriage, HER blood kin had a legitimate claim on HER property.
Restating, the purpose of a marriage is to JOIN PROPERTY of the parents for the benefit of children.
If no children came from the marriage, the JOINING can be dissolved.
...
COMMON LAW MARRIAGE - One not solemnized in the ordinary way (i.e. ceremonial) but created by an agreement to marry, followed by cohabitation. A consummated agreement to marry between persons legally capable of making marriage contract, per verba de praesenti, followed by cohabitation...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P.277
People who are LEGALLY CAPABLE can contract a common law marriage.
Since marriage is a joining of property rights, one may assume that both parties have the right to absolutely own.
Those who are legally incapable need government permission (license).
(That is to say, people who do not have property rights - such as slaves, socialists, progressives, collectivists, etc.)
Are you STILL using an outdated 6th edition of Black's Law Dictionary from 25 years ago?
Try the most recent 9th edition
Black'sLawDictionary:
marriage, n. (Bc) 1. The legal union of a couple as spouses. - The essentials of a valid marriage are (1) parties legally capable of contracting to marry, (2) mutual consent or agreement, and (3) an actual contracting in the form prescribed by law. Marriage has important consequences in many areas of the law, such as torts, criminal law, evidence, debtor-creditor relations, property, and contracts.
-Black’s LawDictionary Ninth Edition 2009 Pg 1059
Unless there is a requirement to have children to obtain a civil marriage license (which there is not) your whole argument is irrelevant.
To say children are the primary purpose of having a family opens up bigotry towards infertile couples and re-married elderly couples as well. Think about it, if having kids is the purpose for marriage, women over 50 cannot have kids anymore. For nine years my parents were infertile, then my brother was conceived. Do we really want the government to control who cannot conceive? Couldn't these couples and even gay and lesbian couples be able to adopt kids?
Don't you just "love" how these people try to assign a purpose to everyone else's marriage? What would any of these clowns know about the motives behind each and every couple who decides to get married?
Oh, but of course everyone who marries only does so in order to have kids. Yeah, the ONLY reason.
They only say this in a desperate, and dare I say idiotic, attempt at finding a secular reason why same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed. Religious reasons have been squashed so thoroughly that anyone bringing them up now would be a laughing stock. So in order to save face with people who aren't theocratic fascists, they have to scramble for some OTHER reason why same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed.
Thus, because same-sex couples don't produce children, that, for some inexplicable and bizarre reason, is grounds for banning same-sex marriages. I guess, in some sick and twisted way, that argument actually makes sense to them.
They can't win this fight - and I think they know it. Yet that won't stop their increasingly desperate and laughable arguments from being spewed all over forums across the internet.
And if you need a license (government permission) to wed, it's not a right.
Bzzzt! Wrong, thanks for playing.
A marriage license is like voter registration. It is a bureaucratic safeguard. Because of the various governmental benefits married couples receive, marriage licenses exist simply to ensure there isn't any funny business going on - like someone being in multiple marriages to collect several inheritances or Social Security checks.
The fact is that marriage is a de facto right for two reasons:
The first reason is that the government will never deny a marriage license to any couple acting on good faith. You don't have to meet eligibility requirements to obtain a marriage license as long as both parties are above the age of consent and who are not currently married to a third party.
Secondly, and more importantly, the government cannot and has never revoked a marriage license as a form of punitive action.
For instance, we all know driving is a privilege because the state will revoke your drivers license for a plethora of reasons, some of which aren't even related to driving.
A privilege is something the government can revoke, but can anyone give me a case when the government revoked a marriage license as a punitive action that didn't involve one of the parties lying on the document itself? Even under the most egregious of circumstances, from adultery to physical abuse, the government has not revoked a marriage license.
Therefore, by all standards that really matter, the government does, in fact, regard marriage as a right.
It's stupid because it is essentially saying that if we allow same-sex marriages, we must then legalize every other type of marriage.
Your WRONG, your reasoning is "essentially stupid" simply because you're attempting to recreate the argument by making assumptions that were never inferred in the first place. Not a single word was said about "legalizing every other type of marriage"...the question was crystal clear without any presumptions, assumptions, cute anecdotes or any rehearsed sentiments.
Quote:
But why does this avalanche of marriages begin with same-sex marriage?
Who said anything about any avalanches? That was your assumption. The primary reason why you are wrong, is simply because you are answering a separate question that was never proposed in the first place. The question is NOT whether or not an "avalanche of other marriages will follow; gay marriage is HERE, most Americans have accepted that, several states of the past year have accepted that, the number of gay marriages are INCREASING. We're past that point--the NEW question is whether or NOT polygamous and incestuous marriages have a legal right to follow in the footsteps of being constitutionally protected.
Quote:
Wouldn't it be more logical to blame it all on straight one man/one woman marriages?
Of course NOT. That logic fails easily based on the fact that one man/one woman marriages were never banned. The right for them to be legally recognized never had to be overturned. Gay marriages in the past were NOT legally recognized, but today in many states they are--the VERY same logic can be applied to incestuous and polygamous marriages today. While they may not be legally recognized in most states--who's to say that they won't or shouldn't be based on the same logic to "un-ban" and legally recognize gay marriages?
Quote:
If it wasn't for straight men and women demanding the right to marry, then the homosexuals wouldn't be demanding their right to marry
And if it weren't for gay couples fighting to be federally and locally recognized after being banned, then incestuous and polygamous relationships would not have the legal precedent to follow in their footsteps.
Quote:
So you cannot arbitrarily say that straight one-man/one-woman marriages are okay, then slam the door on all other forms of marriages by using the argument that, if they want x then they'll want y and then they'll want z.
LOL Yes you can! You can't "arbitrarily" make that statement without providing a sound, logical and salient argument for the double standard. NOPE it doesn't work that way. I'm going to call you out on it and challenge you to back your reasoning up.
Quote:
Nope. If you really think that same-sex marriage should be banned because of what allowing it would lead to, t
Nope you've been clear sailing on this assumption from the jump. No one ever said anything about an "avalanche"...the question was quite clear....should the Democratic Party and all of it's pro-gay marriage supporters uplift incestuous and polygamous marriages just as they have with gay marriages. Why or why not?
Try not to focus on the intent of what you think the question is asking, and just answer the damn question. How about trying that? To Urban's credit, he/she ATLEAST stuck to that and answere it. He did NOT try to derail the question to make a point because he couldn't answer it honestly, unlike what you have been attempting to do here.
Quote:
hen you would have to ban all forms of marriage - since it was straight one-man/one-woman marriages that led to the desire of having same-sex marriages
Nope. Ialready covered this earlier.
Quote:
If you honestly think your argument about incest really holds any merit, then I'm going to become a divorce lawyer - because I think it will become a very lucrative business very soon.
How can you become a divorce lawyer if you can't even argue your own case correctly?
Maybe you wouldn't be unclear if you actually read and paid attention to things that have been posted on this forum 100X. And, as a prolific anti-gay thread poster, I am 100% sure the distinction has been explained to you in the past:
The marriage contract's rights, duties and responsibilities do not and likely can never be expanded to more combinations than 1+1 person. Otherwise, for example, a man could marry a village of women from Mexico and bring them all over to the USA as spouses. Also, a man could marry all key witnesses to a case so that they could invoke the marital privilege.
If the polygamists can figure out how to make it work, then the issue of polygamous marriage can be revisited. Until then, the opposition to same is not based on any sort of appeal to religion, or any other such nonsense you people reach to use to prohibit SSM.
And incest? Who cares. Let them marry as long as it's truly consensual (which is rare in incestuous relationships).
Yeah, a concise statement on why one and not the other was what I was looking for. I still haven't seen one and you obviously don't have one because you're throwing out crap about one guy marrying a village of women and the question being answered on other threads. This question never gets answered because there is no way to answer the question that doesn't expose the lie.
Here's the dirty little secret...advocates of same-sex marriage don't really give two ****s about marriage. They want to use the power of the state to force an idea down people's throats that they have already rejected. The idea is that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. Of course anyone with the intellectual capacity of a tree squirrel understands that homosexuality is just a perversion of heterosexuality and that sex between a man and a woman is the only sexual practice nature intended as only heterosexuality fulfills the purpose of sex which is procreation. There is no reason to limit marriage to one member of each sex except to follow nature's plan. There is no reason to find a problem with a brother and sister who want to marry that doesn't present itself when two brothers or two sisters want to marry unless one is hoping to avoid ****ing with nature's design. The number of individuals who may join a marriage, their sex and sexual orientation are irrelevant once nature's model of one man and one woman is abandoned, but all this becomes a problem when one attempts to define marriage to include same-sex unions but disallow every other perversion.
You want to define a sexual relationship based on the participants sexuality and sex and then turn around and say marriage has nothing to do with sex or sexuality and what if it did?
You must have missed where I said polygamy and polyandry marriage should be legal as well. Though there would need to be a specific laws and regulations for marriage with multiple people.
I am happy to see that you have conceded the point that there is no definition of marriage that includes same-sex marriage that does not also allowing every other perversion of marriage.
The next question becomes why would we want to do that?
Because he isn't real, just like Santa isn't real....sorry if I ruined that illusion for you.
But how do you know that? Do you know something else the rest of us don't? Do you know everything about the universe making you qualified to make such a claim? No, you don't.
I never said i support incest or incest marriage, I said it has ZERO effect on my marriage. So why are you against same sex marriage? Does it have any effect on your marriage?
Well seeing my wife and I only plan on having one child, that won't be an issue, but I would hope my wife an I would do a good enough job to not raise our children to be inbred morons.
That same-sex marriage has zero effect of other people's marriages is one of your arguments in favor of same-sex marriage.
Aren't your arguments against incestuous marriage the same objections thinking people use to object to same-sex marriage?
"I never said i support incest or incest marriage, I said it has ZERO effect on my marriage"
Then why do you oppose it?
By your own standards, you're a bigot.
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.
