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.
Calling it marriage would confuse its basic principal as homosexuals can not produce bloodlines between their couplings. Not sometimes, not in special situations and not by choice, but EVER due to its physical impossibility.
This is why civil unions exist. It allows a proper identification to such a relationship establishing legal qualifications and rights to shared property and responsibility without confusing the classification through assumptions of their established coupling.
There is no sense in redefining it as it only confuses the issue. If you want to call it marriage, by all means, idiomatic dialogue happens daily through social discourse and its legal identification for specific clarification is established through legal documents to avoid such confusion.
While I may disagree with homosexual activity personally, this issue should be about intelligent discourse and classification because it is important and relevant to such legal reference. You want the same rights, strengthen civil unions as needed to obtain such. If you want to redefine words for emotional factors, I have no sympathy regardless of your sexual preference.
First of all, what's absurd is your contention that homosexuals cannot produce bloodlines. Homosexuals have children of their own all the time. And if you even think about arguing that they can only do so with either the sperm or egg of a donor, I'll be very quick to ask you to defend the "bloodlines" argument when it's heterosexual couples who have to resort to the same procedures in order to have children.
Secondly, if you have to go back to the time of Kings and Feudalism to define what marriage originally was, in order to defend its definition, then I contend that it is you who is causing confusion, by wanting to create two different phrases for what in modern times is viewed as the commitment and union between people who want to pledge their fidelity "until death".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
I understood that, though this does not change my question to you. Look at the laws as such. Notice that though it accepted a form of polygamy, it also specifically focused on that of progeny which is the core aspect to why marriage existed in the first place. That is, the establishment of bloodlines and producing offspring to carry on the line. The laws that were added to such over time specifically dealt with the transfer of property and rights obtained through those bloodlines. It is a consistent theme throughout history.
This is about definitions of words, changing them to suit emotional demands is... for lack of a better word... absurd.
If you understood that the sole intent of my post was to disabuse someone of the notion that marriage is a creation of the Christian G-d, then why quote my post and ask a "yeah, but. . . " question that's unrelated to the point? That makes it a separate point, not one that "counters" mine.
And I believe I provided an answer above. We are not suggesting "redefining" a word. Marriage, as it is currently understood and practiced in our modern day society, is the union of two people who want to commit themselves to a lifetime together. Everybody who hears "they're married", knows exactly what that means, regardless who the parties to the marriage are. "They're civilly-unioned" makes you go, HUH???
Personally, I think that if all of that energy would have been spent in making civil unions comparable to that of marriage, there would have been less opposition and this issue would have likely already been resolved.
In many states, that was and is still the case. They were trying to pass civil union laws. Banning civil unions by constitutional amendment, however, makes it impossible to achieve those goals. Virginia and Michigan went as far as banning private contracts between same-sex couples.
What I find interesting is that many who are against same-sex marriage are now berating gays for pushing too hard for marriage, and telling them that they should be pushing for civil unions. I bet that the majority of those people had no problem voting for constitutional amendments in their states banning civil unions. They're either hypocrites, or they failed to take five seconds to read the ballot when they voted and didn't realize what they were doing.
Equal rights? I think that's stretching it. How about we let men and women go into whatever restroom they want to. That would be your kind of "equal rights"
I think we've pushed the concept of "equal rights" way beyond the intent of the thinking of our founders. The Declaration of Independece states the "self-evident" truth, that "... all Men are created equal, that they endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
I, for 1, consider the ability to marry the person one loves and wants to spend the rest of their life with to be included under that phase - "the pursuit of happiness"
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
The Bill of Rights, in no way can be construed to mean marriage (as only between a man and a woman) is discriminatory. It has been our historical belief, as a people, that the sanctuary of marriage, was as God established it, and no other meaning applied. It has been Man that has corrupted marriage. God's view is unchanged.
And, since this Christian believes that marriage was 'invented' by man and not a 'decree from God', then who should or should not be allowed to marry is strictly up to mankind to determine. Besides, 'historical beliefs' have been proven wrong many times throughout man's history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
That Obama would pursue this is no surprise. He is corrupt in every way. He doesn't understand what America is about, and he doesn't understand the Constitution, believing it to be "flawed" (from his own lips). It is his intent (as he stated many times during the campaign) to "fundamentally change America".
Sorry, Mister Obama; we don't want what you are selling. What you are selling is "snake oil". America doesn't need "fundamentally change[ing]", and you do not have the Constitutional authority to change it.
Actually, I have thought this country needed some 'fundamental changes' for long before Mr. Obama came onto the political scene.
Homosexuals as a functioning productive portion of society was never considered as such because it is an action between people. Historically, marriage was a joining of bloodlines, establishing both physical and legal right to all that line provides. Kings used this to establish family lines with other kingdoms, state officials did as such and common families joined blood lines for the same purpose. Marriage in terms of its legal recognition only expanded upon that core fact and recognized the rights of those formed through those unions.
Calling it marriage would confuse its basic principal as homosexuals can not produce bloodlines between their couplings. Not sometimes, not in special situations and not by choice, but EVER due to its physical impossibility.
This is why civil unions exist. It allows a proper identification to such a relationship establishing legal qualifications and rights to shared property and responsibility without confusing the classification through assumptions of their established coupling.
There is no sense in redefining it as it only confuses the issue. If you want to call it marriage, by all means, idiomatic dialogue happens daily through social discourse and its legal identification for specific clarification is established through legal documents to avoid such confusion.
While I may disagree with homosexual activity personally, this issue should be about intelligent discourse and classification because it is important and relevant to such legal reference. You want the same rights, strengthen civil unions as needed to obtain such. If you want to redefine words for emotional factors, I have no sympathy regardless of your sexual preference.
Firstly, marriage is a government institution in this Nation, and has been since our Colonial Era, thanks to various laws passed through the English g'ment. One cannot get married in this country without first aquiring a marriage lciense from the state. One cannot get married unless the cerimony is conducted by a licensed Marriage Officiant, which includes clergy who have fullfilled the requirments to recieve their licensing, clergy who can have that license yanked for various infraction and who then cannot conduct legally binding marriage cerimonies.
No religion, nor religion itself, owns the title to the term or practice of marriage. Religion is only responsible for religious WEDDING CERIMONIES conducted for those citizens who wish to include their religion, and their State Licensed Marriage Officiant clergyman, in their marriage cerimony.
Secondly, marriage has NO single definition, never has, never will. Marriage is a fluid concept, changing over cultures and eras, INCLUDING same-gendered marriages. Indeed, until a mere few decades ago, marriage was listed as "between one man and one woman, OF THE SAME RACE". So please, spare us the "definition of marriage". Since no relgiion owns the title of ownership, religions can only decide what constitutes marriage within their own sphere of power, ie parishioners.
Lastly, civil unions do not, and cannot not, approach the well over thousand plus rights and privlages my wife and I recieved the moment the Justice said "you may kiss the bride". BTW, no mention of anyone's god was made in that cerimony, and we are considered legally, and socially, married. Also, Civil Unions, thanks to the DOMA Act, are not recognized state to state. A couple laboring under a civil union who leave their state, for vacationing for example, automatically LOOSE each, every, and all "privlages" they enjoyed at home. Sound fair does it?
Civil Union are are merely a distraction, the worst kind of "Seperate but Equal" nonsence intended purely to urge people to cease the fight for Equality of Marriage.
Religion does not own marriage, never has, never will.
The Constitution means a lot to me - and I have the scars to prove it.
Well you may be a different case than nonsenseguy. But he just stated Republican policy concerning gay marriage is based on religious bias and lies which fly in the face of the constitution. You may appreciate the constitution more than he does, but following those principals you are in fact shrugging the constitution.
Calling it marriage would confuse its basic principal as homosexuals can not produce bloodlines between their couplings. Not sometimes, not in special situations and not by choice, but EVER due to its physical impossibility.
That's not a good reason to stop same-sex couples from being able to marry. There is nothing in the marriage laws for opposite-sex couples that says procreation is required or even encouraged.
First of all, what's absurd is your contention that homosexuals cannot produce bloodlines. Homosexuals have children of their own all the time. And if you even think about arguing that they can only do so with either the sperm or egg of a donor, I'll be very quick to ask you to defend the "bloodlines" argument when it's heterosexual couples who have to resort to the same procedures in order to have children.
Don't be obtuse, homosexual relationships do not produce bloodlines. Let me clarfify for you since you obvioulsy are being dense to avoid this point.
A bloodline is created when two supporting parents produce one. This is established with a MAN and a WOMAN coupling to create offspring. The bloodline is BETWEEN that MAN and WOMAN specifically to which creates such. You can play the idiot and and try to slide around the issue, but the fact remains that two men coupling produces NOTHING. Two women coupling produces NOTHING. Seriously, are you trying to be stupid or just devious with this response?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61
Secondly, if you have to go back to the time of Kings and Feudalism to define what marriage originally was, in order to defend its definition, then I contend that it is you who is causing confusion, by wanting to create two different phrases for what in modern times is viewed as the commitment and union between people who want to pledge their fidelity "until death". If you understood that the sole intent of my post was to disabuse someone of the notion that marriage is a creation of the Christian G-d, then why quote my post and ask a "yeah, but. . . " question that's unrelated to the point? That makes it a separate point, not one that "counters" mine.
You are ignorant, please educate yourself. bloodlines were used to establish rights to the heir hood. It was also used to establish ties between nations. There is the old saying "blood is thicker than water". Homosexuals do not create such bloodlines, its a fact unless one is stupid enough to attempt to slide around the issue proclaiming the irrelevant. Get on track.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill61
And I believe I provided an answer above. We are not suggesting "redefining" a word. Marriage, as it is currently understood and practiced in our modern day society, is the union of two people who want to commit themselves to a lifetime together. Everybody who hears "they're married", knows exactly what that means, regardless who the parties to the marriage are. "They're civilly-unioned" makes you go, HUH???
You provided a subjective manipulation in order to push an emotional position. Look, you are not ready for this, you aren't using logic but emotions to discuss this. You are relying on how you feel to assess the situation rather than what is factual and logical.
I am not interested in your feelings, in your opinion, or your emotions. They are irrelevant. You are attempting to redefine something based on these factors. For society to appeal to such is for society to degrade itself into that of the intellectually fallible and emotionally absurd.
Homosexuals as a functioning productive portion of society was never considered as such because it is an action between people. Historically, marriage was a joining of bloodlines, establishing both physical and legal right to all that line provides. Kings used this to establish family lines with other kingdoms, state officials did as such and common families joined blood lines for the same purpose. Marriage in terms of its legal recognition only expanded upon that core fact and recognized the rights of those formed through those unions.
Calling it marriage would confuse its basic principal as homosexuals can not produce bloodlines between their couplings. Not sometimes, not in special situations and not by choice, but EVER due to its physical impossibility.
This is why civil unions exist. It allows a proper identification to such a relationship establishing legal qualifications and rights to shared property and responsibility without confusing the classification through assumptions of their established coupling.
There is no sense in redefining it as it only confuses the issue. If you want to call it marriage, by all means, idiomatic dialogue happens daily through social discourse and its legal identification for specific clarification is established through legal documents to avoid such confusion.
While I may disagree with homosexual activity personally, this issue should be about intelligent discourse and classification because it is important and relevant to such legal reference. You want the same rights, strengthen civil unions as needed to obtain such. If you want to redefine words for emotional factors, I have no sympathy regardless of your sexual preference.
So let's have some intelligent discourse.
Therefore, by your argument: Heterosexual couples that do not produce children should be demoted to "Civil Unions" and stripped of any advantage that "Marriage" legally bestows upon people who actually extend the bloodline.
This is an interesting argument on your part. It puts government right in the heart of a union of two people. I don't think that's a Conservative value, do you?
This is an interesting argument on your part. It puts government right in the heart of a union of two people. I don't think that's a Conservative value, do you?
I sure don't think it is. The argument that procreation should be a requirement for marriage essentially would put the government in a position of regulating birth rates. Perhaps a statist like Pat Buchanan would be in favor of that, but most Americans (whatever their political persuasion) would not.
My understanding is that about 25% of married (opposite-sex) couples do not have children. Should we revoke their marriage licenses for not doing their patriotic duty of increasing the American population?
^ I agree. In fact, given the sorry state of the environment and the colossal inequities of wealth, perhaps we should reward couples who do not procreate.
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.
