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.
I find it pretty obnoxious when people use these very isolated and short-lived incidences over the last several thousand years(and none being in Christian countries) as some sort of basis for a general acceptance of the practice. It simply isn't true.
You took that out of context, I didn't present the statement as a basis for anything. I was merely replying to a poster who said it is a fact that no nation in the history of humankind legally recognized homosexual marriage prior to 2001. S/he didn't confine that sweeping mis-generalization to Christian countries.
IMO, the Supreme Court should sanction civil unions for them which includes the above rights but it should be a different status than a traditional marriage.
Back of the bus, separate by equal. Gothcha.
The SC can't just wave a magic wand and sanction civil unions. They can only respond to the two questions being asked of them.
The SC can't just wave a magic wand and sanction civil unions. They can only respond to the two questions being asked of them.
Here are my questions. Is marriage a "right" or is it a privilege? Aren't rights supposed to be "inalienable"? And, does the equal-protection clause, which is part of the 14th amendment, ratified all the way back in 1868, guarantee a right/privilege for same-sex marriage? Why?
Sorry, but I disagree. There has always been a tie to whatever "belief" that particular culture established whether identified as a religion or something else and to my knowledge has always been between a man and woman. Even the multi-wife marriages of both Middle East and a few scattered cultures over the centuries were always "between man and woman." The history I have studied have always explained multi-wife situations as being based on continuing of birth rate in order to not die out. Back in history the death rate of babies was extremely high.
I repeat that I do not believe government should be involved...especially at the Supreme Court area of Constitutionality. This has nothing to do with our Constitution's description of equal rights. I believe that is a ridiculous position and blame all the $-hungry lawyers/attorneys that have screwed up most of our laws by their garbage interference with "plain-spoken English" which is the language of our fantastic U.S. Constitution. Government offices issue marriage licenses only to raise money...IMHO to spend foolishly.
If other than a man and woman wish to live together, the call it Civil Union or whatever...it is IMHO not a marriage.
*ALL* legal marriages in the US are civil unions, and always have been. We know this because it is the government that issues the marriage certificate.
The church part has always been optional.
This effort to distinguish semantically is pretty silly. Civil union and marriage have both always referred to the same legal entity.
If you personally want to make that distinction, no one will stop you, but it is a distinction without a legal difference.
Here are my questions. Is marriage a "right" or is it a privilege? Aren't rights supposed to be "inalienable"? And, does the equal-protection clause, which is part of the 14th amendment, ratified all the way back in 1868, guarantee a right/privilege for same-sex marriage? Why?
Marriage is a "fundamental right" according to several supreme court decisions.
The supreme court has found that the 14th EPC applies to marriage in Loving V Virginia. If the EPC applies to marriage ans race why would it no apply to marriage and sex? Looking at the questions before the court "Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?" it would appear that they could rule based on sex not sexual orientation.
Here are my questions. Is marriage a "right" or is it a privilege? Aren't rights supposed to be "inalienable"? And, does the equal-protection clause, which is part of the 14th amendment, ratified all the way back in 1868, guarantee a right/privilege for same-sex marriage? Why?
Who cares what people thought back in 1868? I think we've evolved a bit since then.
Step 1. Churches that don’t recognize gay “marriage” lose their tax exempt staus.
Step 2. The government fines out of existence and closes these churches because they are “just another business” and “discriminating” against gays by not holding gay “wedding” ceremonies is reason enough to close down these “businesses” (churches).
Step 3: Churches that don't recognize sodomite "marriage" are officially identified as "hate groups" by the DoJ.
Step 4: Congregates of those churches are summarily fired from federal civil service and administratively discharged from the military (active membership in a hate group is incompatible with federal service).
Step 5: The administration publishes a rule demanding that government contractors do not employ members of "hate groups." They are then fired from all companies with government contracts or subcontracts.
Next comes banning the Bible as “hate speech”, then monitoring church sermons and arrest and jail for any Pastors who dare preach against homosexuality. It’s already happened in countries where gay marriage is recognized.
Step 1. Churches that don’t recognize gay “marriage” lose their tax exempt staus.
Step 2. The government fines out of existence and closes these churches because they are “just another business” and “discriminating” against gays by not holding gay “wedding” ceremonies is reason enough to close down these “businesses” (churches).
Step 3: Churches that don't recognize sodomite "marriage" are officially identified as "hate groups" by the DoJ.
Step 4: Congregates of those churches are summarily fired from federal civil service and administratively discharged from the military (active membership in a hate group is incompatible with federal service).
Step 5: The administration publishes a rule demanding that government contractors do not employ members of "hate groups." They are then fired from all companies with government contracts or subcontracts.
Next comes banning the Bible as “hate speech”, then monitoring church sermons and arrest and jail for any Pastors who dare preach against homosexuality. It’s already happened in countries where gay marriage is recognized.
Did I miss anything?
Reality?
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.
