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.
Marriage has primarily been between a man and a woman, but not always. If you research same sex marriage in history you would see that same sex unions have existed in numerous areas of the world over time, including the Americas. It is not new and religions do not have a monopoly on marriage. If government did not control marriage and its rights, there would be chaos with different churches and religions competing on who's marriage has validity. If you knew anything about the history of marriage as you confess, you would know that in European history various churches have monopolized marriage and its associated rights, denying marriage to those of other religions unless they had it in their church. Marriage evolves, women are not chattel any longer, they are equals in marriage. Nor is interracial marriage a problem for the government, for that is what civil marriage is, but any religion can refuse to perform or recognize an interracial marriage or a second marriage. Civil marriage should not be governed by any specific religion.
There has never been a nation in the history of humankind that has legally recognized homosexual "marriage" before the Netherlands did it in 2001.
This is news to me, please cite some recent statistics that counter the numerous polls showing that support for SSM is increasing.
Besides, although I certainly think that the Supreme Court should show a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind", in the end, they are not bound by what is popular.
What? They are bound by what is popular? Um no, they are bound by the Constitution.
The "homosexual terrorist?". What about the right wing religious extremist republican christian muslim terrorists who KILL LGBT people pretty much daily? When is the last time a gay person blew up a marathon, a church, an irs building, or a tower? When did a gay person rob a store, or rape a woman - as I write this several are being raped by straight conservatives.
Hold on there buckaroo! Rapes occur regardless of party affiliation. Are you just mad because it is mostly conservatives that oppose gay marriage? Let's be honest here.
No, the states where people do not support it and don't want to deal with lawsuits against bakeries forcing people to bake wedding cakes for them, would not have to deal with those things.
Same sex weddings are legal anywhere in the U.S.
Anyone can have a wedding ceremony: people who already married to each other do it all the time, sometimes calling it a renewal of vows. People have weddings for their pets.
There has never been a nation in the history of humankind that has legally recognized homosexual "marriage" before the Netherlands did it in 2001.
Fact.
Laws recognizing or governing marriage were rare throughout most of history, so the comparatively recent lack of legal recognition provides poor justification for continuing the practice.
There are examples of same sex marriages throughout history.
Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository: A History of Same sex Marriage by William N. Eskridge Jr. provides a peer-reviewed, annotated, scholarly review of the topic.
Same sex weddings are legal anywhere in the U.S.
Anyone can have a wedding ceremony: people who already married to each other do it all the time, sometimes calling it a renewal of vows. People have weddings for their pets.
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.
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.
Holding on to those tiny scraps of heterosexual privilege any way you can, eh?
SCOTUS will most likely legalize it even if the majority of Americans are against it. It's basically inevitable at this point.
I'm about 99% sure that the SCOTUS will come out in a 5-4 decision granting same-sex marriage across the country. But that doesn't mean I agree with the decision, or believe that such a decision is the right course for America.
I believe that they should simply declare it is a state issue. I think that is by-far the "safest" approach. But I know that they won't. And sadly, the Republicans/Conservatives will just cower and accept it, like they do in every court decision which is obviously an overstepping of Court authority.
The Republicans, for as much as they like to spout off about supporting the military, and being a Mr. Tough guy; Are the biggest cowards when it comes to the actions of their own government. At least radical liberals have the balls to question and confront authority. Conservatives might as well tattoo "obey" on their foreheads. That is the only word they understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by biscuitmom
Laws recognizing or governing marriage were rare throughout most of history, so the comparatively recent lack of legal recognition provides poor justification for continuing the practice.
There are examples of same sex marriages throughout history.
Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository: A History of Same sex Marriage by William N. Eskridge Jr. provides a peer-reviewed, annotated, scholarly review of the topic.
Look, there are isolated incidences whereby there was allowed forms of same-sex relationships. In almost all cases, these relationships were not "legal" for the broad population. But were merely restricted to a small number of privileged people(usually members of the royalty/nobility). And only in very specific circumstances. In no society on Earth, and through all-time, has there been a general right or recognition of anything close to "same-sex marriage". And that even includes pre-civilization "primitive tribes", which were observed during the period of colonization and the enlightenment.
And these practices, even when they were allowed, were almost always very short-lived. And generally disdained by the vast majority of even those contemporary populations. Which is exactly why they were only limited to privileged classes, and were so short-lived.
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.
Like I always say give 'em what they want, they need their S.O. benefits.
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.
