- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 37,338
- Reaction score
- 10,639
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
But not in law.The word "marriage" is highly subjective to the English language.
But not in law.The word "marriage" is highly subjective to the English language.
Straw...again. The denial of basic human rights, the right to choose who you want to marry, is not constitutional.
I have not seen that support. Can you provide actual polls or research and not just anecdotal evidence?
That is epic bull**** but, since you said it I will go with it? so who did go with marriage? 11th century governments?
The truth is marriage has been a spiritual bond/religious bond for the last 10,000 years..
Marriage ritualistic artifacts have been found that are over 10,000 years old -- and none of these rituals have anything to do with government(s), and everything to do with the spiritual/religious.
Governments had NOTHING to do with any of these "unions" unless they were to "unify" families for political or wealth reasons.
7. State or church?
Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.
You were trying to say that the right denied a homosexual is a long from a right denied to a Black. It is not, since in this CASE, they both involve the most basic of human rights.....the right to marry.I was talking about the treatment of blacks before the civil rights movement versus gays not getting a marriage license. So what the judge cited in his ruling isn't relevant to the context of my post that you quoted.
We are talking about the right to marriage, the most basic of human rights. If you cannot see how that underlies ANY civil right, I don't know what else to say other than you have lost all perspective of the context of the debate.Oh. That's nice.
I'm pro-gay marriage.
I'm talking about the treatment of blacks.
And as I said before, here is where we differ. I see the treatment of blacks until the civil rights movement as horrible. I don't see not getting a marriage certificate as "horrible". I also don't see married people as being "first class citizens" in order to get the notion of gays being "second class citizens", but that's just my opinion.
The reason I'm for gay marriage is that I'm just not against it, to be honest. Maybe if I thought this was truly a tragedy that gay couples don't get that peice of paper, I'd be more active in my support of it. I know a lot of people who never married, but were very happy.
I just think people should be able to marry who they want and that's that.
You still haven't said how legalizing SSM will make the prejudices against gays go away, or them being able to get jobs and houses they are not getting today.
Lursa said:And the civil rights movement wasnt about changing prejudice...it was about giving *people*...blacks...equal rights, making sure they were no longer treated like 2nd class citizens and had *equal protection under the law.*
Just like this step in SSM is one piece of recognizing the same for gays.
You were trying to say that the right denied a homosexual is a long from a right denied to a Black. It is not, since in this CASE, they both involve the most basic of human rights.....the right to marry.
I'm sure, then, that you agree Christianity has no specific authority to claim the word "marriage."
Side note/fun fact:
The terrible, activist judge in PA that overturned the ban was endorsed by none other than social conservative hero Rick Santorum!
I never said it would but I did answer you:
Santorum endorsed him because he was a good and smart legislator. Santorum surprisingly enough isn't a one issue person.
I found a couple of stories/blogs. I dont know about finding actual polls or research but I will continue to try.
Prop 8: Let’s Get Rid of Marriage Instead! | Women's Media Center
A Gay-Marriage Solution: End Marriage? - TIME
There is a difference in some places. Plus, not everyone wants the federal recognition. Others do. There is a reason that some opposite sex couples would prefer to have a civil union vice just getting married when the state allows them to. (What their reasoning is, I don't know. But they wouldn't exist at all for opposite sex couples if they didn't want something other than marriage.)
Civil union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But not in law.
But apparently, you cannot logically explain how your "opinion" that a human right (marriage) is different from a civil right (interracial marriage) is different from a "gay" right (gay marriage).Thank you for sharing your opinion. Mine is different.
And those show a couple of legal scholars and a single blogger who are suggesting it. That is not major support. That is simply a couple of people who support it. I recognize that a few people support this. But I believe the majority of this is really one of two situations. One; those who are against same sex marriage but recognize that it will legal soon so they are desperate to maintain their claim to the word. Two; those who do not like confrontations and are looking to appease everyone, and this is their proposal of doing it. The problem is that this will become a non-issue once same sex marriage is completely legal everywhere. Most won't even notice it after a couple years. Sure, some will still grumble about it, just as some now grumble about interracial marriages or about sodomy laws being struck down.
But apparently, you cannot logically explain how your "opinion" that a human right (marriage) is different from a civil right (interracial marriage) is different from a "gay" right (gay marriage).
Um, no, not in civil law. Show how it is of a whim and not objectively described here:Yes, even in law!
And his judicial reasoning in this case is excellent. I already posted the opinion, but here it is again for those interested:
http://www.aclupa.org/files/8714/0061/1059/WHITEWOOD_OPINION.pdf
Stop. Stop right there.
Explain to me how your marriage, my marriage, or anyone else's marriage has been "redefined."
I'm going after you because you claimed, believed, that these examples of (civil) rights (involving marriage) were "a long way away from each other".Oh well.
I'm pro-gay marriage. You may want to go after someone else.
Societies have a claim to marriage. What part of that did you not understand?
13 Facts on the History of Marriage | LiveScience
And heck, in this country the state plays a much bigger role in marriage than the church. In fact, the state has held a much bigger role in marriage in the US since the 19th Century.
Marriage, a History | Psychology Today
How marriage has changed over centuries - The Week
The Origin of Marriage (And the Evolution of Divorce) | Dollars and Sex | Big Think
And according to half the population in this country you don't own the definition to marriage for sure. The traditional one has been around for thousands of years.
I'm going after you because you claimed, believed, that these examples of (civil) rights (involving marriage) were "a long way away from each other".
Um, no, not in civil law. Show how it is of a whim and not objectively described here:
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf