- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Sure it does.
Not at all.
Sure it does.
That's where the bear will hit the buckwheat. Right there. What will be debated in court is the state's interest. It does have an interest in endorsing only heterosexual marriages. It's not doing it arbitrarily. The only remaining question going forward is whether the argument of the state's interest is compelling or not and whether the supreme court will eventually reverse itself on it's recent decision and reasoning that the definition of marriage is the domain of the state and not to be overridden by the federal government without an important state interest in doing so.
If it was as cut and dried as you would like to think it is, homosexual marriage would already be the law of the land. It will be an uphill battle instead of the done deal you pretend it is.
I would call this the weakest and most infantile argument against SSM
marriange, as a legal institution, necessitates involvment of the state, at every level.
Thank God.....prop H8 was a horrible initiative funded in large part by the Mormons with the largest propoganda display in the history of the state that was full of lies and deceit. Its a great day for California.
You evidently don't have a clue about God or the Bible.
Not really... though it depends on how one identifies WHY someone gets married. Problem is that the "why" is rarely addressed.
Nowadays, people tend to get married because the person they want to marry is the person that they love. In THIS case, the argument that Papa bull makes is a complete failure. Unfortunately, the law doesn't recognize the "why". This is why the equality argument tend to hit a lot of snags. It's dishonest, but logical.
Funny part is it wouldn't have passed if a Senator by the name of Obama wasn't running for President. When 60% of the African-American community supported Prop 8.. it's gonna pass.
Actually...I don't think that played much of a part at all. Obama actually ran robocalls here asking people to vote against prop8. Voters were more swayed by the Mormon lies that they plastered the airwaves with.
Love might be why you would get married but it's not the reason the state sanctions it. Love your sister if you want, (in ways that are taboo or otherwise) but you can't marry her and you're not going to make a good case that you should because the interests of the state aren't about whether you love your spouse or not, but whether you are an appropriate biological pairing.
The state sanctions marriage for many reasons, but definitely not just for procreation.
That's right, but you can't divorce that primary purpose from the reasoning of marriage without actually redefining it's purpose by disposing of the cornerstone.
That's right, but you can't divorce that primary purpose from the reasoning of marriage without actually redefining it's purpose by disposing of the cornerstone.
It is not considered important in laws that deny marriage to only those opposite sex couples who can procreate if they are first cousins and want to marry. It is not considered important when it comes to lack of limitations on age of marriage, at least for women. It is not considered important when it comes to procreation that occurs outside of marriage.
Legally, marriage has already been divorced from procreation, whether you want to recognize this fact or not.
The primary purpose of the marriage contract is to deal with property and next of kin issues.
You keep repeating that. And it's still not any more true than it was the first time you said it.
Who is "divorcing" it? How does SSM change procreation?That's right, but you can't divorce that primary purpose from the reasoning of marriage without actually redefining it's purpose by disposing of the cornerstone.
We'll find out if and when homosexuals successfully get a case in front of the supreme court challenging the actual definition of marriage in states. The PURPOSE of marriage will be hashed out at that time, as well as whether or not the state that sanctions marriage has the right to define it. Don't hold your breath, though, because that's not happening tomorrow.
It has already been "hashed out" a number of times over the last few years, and it has failed in many of those cases. It will continue to fail using procreation ability as a defense of restrictions on marriage due to sex/gender because it simply is not applied equally. And in fact, if laws were ever pushed to limit marriage to only procreative couples, including opposite sex couples, such laws would be struck down as well because they simply do not have any standing in law because the purpose of marriage is not legally procreation.
OK. Well, good luck with that. If you want to have a same-sex marriage, there are about a dozen states you can move to that agree with you and will let you do it.
So what is the purpose then?
Since you're struggling to understand what "state sanctioned marriage" means, let's start out with a basic definitions.
Sanction: noun. approval - approbation - endorsement - authorization
State Sanctioned marriage is for the purpose of approving a pairing and confirming that it makes biological sense. That's why important restrictions to marriage have historically included things like incest, fatal venereal diseases, blood types that are incompatible for producing children and, of course, same sex partners. Marriage is official approval and endorsement of a pairing that is not biologically illogical.
Since you're struggling to understand what "state sanctioned marriage" means, let's start out with a basic definitions.
Sanction: noun. approval - approbation - endorsement - authorization
State Sanctioned marriage is for the purpose of approving a pairing and confirming that it makes biological sense. That's why important restrictions to marriage have historically included things like incest, fatal venereal diseases, blood types that are incompatible for producing children and, of course, same sex partners. Marriage is official approval and endorsement of a pairing that is not biologically illogical.
I don't want to be in a same sex marriage, since I'm already in an opposite sex marriage and I'm heterosexual.
But those who do want to be in a same sex marriage should not be forced to move to a different state and stay there just because some do not want to understand that restrictions against same sex marriage do not further any legitimate state interest and therefore are unconstitutional. And there are those in same sex marriages or who soon may be who have no real choice where they live because of their job and obligations.