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.
IF the majority weren't so danged busy trying to deny them even that right.
Marriage is a contract. Therefore it is a right under the right to contract.
However, what that contract does is germane to the question.
If you examine the legislative history in America, and of marriage laws worldwide, you will find that marriage is for joining property rights of the adults for the benefit of progeny.
Since homosexual couples do not gene splice progeny, it is a nullity to contract marriage that is for the purpose of endowing progeny. It would make far more sense to contract a partnership with rights endowing the survivor.
Under the common law, the kin of the deceased spouse had a superior claim to the property of the deceased if no children issued from the marriage.
(Reference the common law rights of curtesy, dower, and coverture)
In short, the bonds of matrimony were to legally join two people, for life, and their property, for the benefit of that which no man could put asunder - the children of that marriage.
And a licensed marriage was for a union where one or both parties were not capable of a common law marriage. (Since 1935, and national socialism, enumerated participants lack common law standing.)
Frankly, if more people knew the law, they'd shy away from any government entanglements with respect to their personal arrangements.
Some people enjoy being around others who aren't exactly like them. It's the same reason why a lot of people enjoy taking vacations to faraway places. It's fun and stimulating to experience a different culture sometimes.
I surround myself with good people, no matter what race they are, what I dont do is try to make friends with Black people just cause they are black and I wanna learn from them, the same goes with gays,Hispanics,Asians,Whites or whatever.
What does the definition of a word have to do with rights? If we do not hold to a proper understanding, then there is no purpose to civility.
Marriage as is defined is that between a man and woman and was significant to a purpose and reason. Its later additions to manage such arrangements are not "redefining" marriage, simply acknowledging its responsibilities. Marriage has changed many times over history and each change is simply a means of bringing it up to date with the terms of that societies functions. Naturally, it would be a vehicle to legally define right and responsibility between them.
The problem with homosexual couples is that the were never considered for such at any level of relevance. That is, they did not create lines, they were simply civil contracts of agreement between two people.
The issue should simply be insuring that this contract receives the appropriate level of acknowledgment to that which is consistent with the purpose of its agreement.
Changing the definition of marriage to suit a civil adaption invalidates the core meaning of marriage, making it simply a civil contract which suggests it can be nullified through legal means. Blood right can not be nullified as such, it is a physical contract itself as is noted through historical reference. It serves no purpose other than to confuse in changing its meaning.
Which brings us to the main issue of your point. You have no right to demand a word be changed to your comfort. You do have a right to have your agreement between partners recognized legally and this should be the focus and is the only "right" that is being violated when it is refused.
Please read Felix Frankfurter cover to cover and your discernment of meaning to words will expand exponentially. Word play such as yours is bright without a lamp. Good luck.
you should move to Dubai or anywhere in the Middle East, seriously you should.
and cause the majority of the country dont wanna see two girly gay men together, what gays do behind doors is not my business but just be gay and be happy you found someone gay to be with you, isnt that enough?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV
It might be - IF the majority weren't so danged busy trying to deny them even that right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
Marriage is a contract. Therefore it is a right under the right to contract.
However, what that contract does is germane to the question.
If you examine the legislative history in America, and of marriage laws worldwide, you will find that marriage is for joining property rights of the adults for the benefit of progeny.
Since homosexual couples do not gene splice progeny, it is a nullity to contract marriage that is for the purpose of endowing progeny. It would make far more sense to contract a partnership with rights endowing the survivor.
Under the common law, the kin of the deceased spouse had a superior claim to the property of the deceased if no children issued from the marriage.
(Reference the common law rights of curtesy, dower, and coverture)
In short, the bonds of matrimony were to legally join two people, for life, and their property, for the benefit of that which no man could put asunder - the children of that marriage.
And a licensed marriage was for a union where one or both parties were not capable of a common law marriage. (Since 1935, and national socialism, enumerated participants lack common law standing.)
Frankly, if more people knew the law, they'd shy away from any government entanglements with respect to their personal arrangements.
Wow! Could you have missed my point by any larger margin? I really don't think you could. The other poster was saying gays should just be happy they have found someone with whom to live their life. My point was that many of them would be very happy to do that IF SO MANY PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY WEREN'T TRYING TO DENY THEM EVEN THAT RIGHT.
Please read Felix Frankfurter cover to cover and your discernment of meaning to words will expand exponentially. Word play such as yours is bright without a lamp. Good luck.
All you have been doing in this thread is insulting and using condescending claims of authority without providing evidence to its claim.
/shrug
edit: removed comment, I am not going to get drawn into what is an obvious attempt to derail the issue.
It is the difference between words and meanings. While words mean different things to different people your assertions are using words.
I happen to believe that you are bright but without intellectual substance. While you may suggest my viewpoint is an attack, it is relative to the discussion here, in that it relates the pure and notable ideals to the use of language, a skill and performance marker that may be your weakness judging from the other comments to you in this discussion thread. Those comments are designed to get your attention and accordingly, for you, I suggest the work of Frankfurter as an individual who merges very well the two goals e.g concise communication and cognitive meaning within in. Your disposal towards it is suggested.
It is the difference between words and meanings. While words mean different things to different people your assertions are using words.
I happen to believe that you are bright but without intellectual substance. While you may suggest my viewpoint is an attack, it is relative to the discussion here, in that it relates the pure and notable ideals to the use of language, a skill and performance marker that may be your weakness judging from the other comments to you in this discussion thread. Those comments are designed to get your attention and accordingly, for you, I suggest the work of Frankfurter as an individual who merges very well the two goals e.g concise communication and cognitive meaning within in. Your disposal towards it is suggested.
State your case then.
You are making the claim that your suggested reading will "illuminate" some truth to me, yet you make no effort to support your position. I am simply to run off with your reading list and divine your arguments position based on what I read.
Would you please clearly state the debate issue once again for my benefit?
The issue I was arguing is that marriage in its definition is defined not only historically in is application, yet also in the very language to which defines it using the examples I gave through basic definitions and understanding of the words that are used to describe it. More specifically, that its core purpose is that of joining bloodlines to establish right between the joining parties and the progeny that is a result of. This is its core definition and the legal adaptions to it are simply processes of acknowledgment throughout history as societies became more civilized and advanced in their legal structures.
I stated that to change such (by encompassing that which does not meet its core definition) would create yet one more confusing idiom to the language. That common social usage while it is often able to convey understanding in its misuse, is not appropriate for legal declaration or purpose.
Civil Union is a better declaration of the agreement between homosexuals as it properly describes its capability and purpose.
Would there be a difference therefore in kind or by defintion if the marriage was made between a man and a woman who were not able to produce children either by reason of fertility on either partners part or choice not to have progeny?
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.
