Page 23 of 69 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 690

Thread: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

  1. #221
    Androgyne
    Dr_Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Last Seen
    12-16-15 @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,349
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
    It is a rare instance; do you think we should make laws for every possible biological situation? They can still procreate with new techniques using the sperm or eggs from the female.



    It is rarer than the norm. But your absurd argument to the contrary suggests that there are couples who may choose to not have a child; that doesn’t negate the FACT that they can change their mind or that they cannot procreate.
    It may be rarer than the norm, but by your standards these people shouldn't be allowed to marry. After all, you assert that the gay community is a teeny tiny minority, just as the people who choose not to have a child or are incapable of conceiving.

    The gay community is a teeny tiny minority; and you continue to avoid my question; why is it they are not content with Civil Unions, why does it HAVE to redefine marriage, a term we have understood and accepted for over 2000 years?
    I didn't avoid your question at all. I just don't see a reason why they have to have civil unions and not marriage. It is still discrimination then. You also haven't answered my question of who defined those tenets of marriage. The tradition of marriage hasn't changed for over 2,000 years only because in recent decades society has progressed to the point where people don't have as much to fear about coming out. Before this time people had many misconceptions about homosexuality and sex in general. These things have progressed, so I don't see why these tenets of marriage shouldn't progress as well. You ask why, I ask why not?

  2. #222
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    I'm equating discrimination with discrimination.
    Marriage is not discrimination. It is a ceremony between a man and a woman to create a binding contract in the eyes of God to procreate and have children.

    Now I ask you the same question everyone else is desperately avoiding; why is it gays are not content with Civil Unions, why do they HAVE to redefine marriage, a term we have understood and accepted for over 2000 years?

    Carry on; your desperate attempts to suggest otherwise are noted.

  3. #223
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,305

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Why can't gays understand that we're trying to spare them the misery?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  4. #224
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Marriage is not discrimination. It is a ceremony between a man and a woman to create a binding contract in the eyes of God to procreate and have children.
    Denying it to one group of people IS discrimination.

    Now I ask you the same question everyone else is desperately avoiding; why is it gays are not content with Civil Unions, why do they HAVE to redefine marriage, a term we have understood and accepted for over 2000 years?
    Why should they be content with being discriminated against? With "separate but equal"? Not to mention the fact that civil unions don't give the same legal privileges.

    Why weren't blacks happy not being allowed to marry whites? Why weren't women happy not being allowed to vote?

    I agree that marriage SHOULD be a religious ceremony ONLY. I don't think the state should be involved at all. No rights or priviileges should be granted to anyone, it should just be a religious thing.

    However, that's NOT the way it is. It's not a religious ceremony, it's a legal contract that CAN be celebrated with a religious ceremony but certainly does not have to be. And as it is now, what the anti-gay marriage folks are doing is legalizing discrimination in the name of religion for something that is a legal contract.

  5. #225
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
    Quote:Originally Posted by Truth Detector
    It is a rare instance; do you think we should make laws for every possible biological situation? They can still procreate with new techniques using the sperm or eggs from the female.


    It is rarer than the norm. But your absurd argument to the contrary suggests that there are couples who may choose to not have a child; that doesn’t negate the FACT that they can change their mind or that they cannot procreate.

    Quote Originally Posted by dclxvinoise View Post
    It may be rarer than the norm, but by your standards these people shouldn't be allowed to marry.
    How is that? Now you are attempting to divine a meaning I never stated?

    My Statement:

    The purpose of marriage between a man and a woman is to provide a contract that binds them in a solemn promise before God for life to procreate and create and raise children as a FAMILY. Gays cannot procreate, it is a LIFE style. Only a MAN and a WOMAN can.

    How is that suggesting that a man and a woman who may choose not to have children don’t meet this requirement? Are you suggesting that they won’t?

    Quote Originally Posted by dclxvinoise View Post
    I didn't avoid your question at all. I just don't see a reason why they have to have civil unions and not marriage. It is still discrimination then.
    Well there you go; you think we should all abide by YOUR opinion. But that doesn’t make a compelling argument. There is nothing discriminating about marriage. It is no more discriminating than a small minority attempting to re-define it.


    Quote Originally Posted by dclxvinoise View Post
    You also haven't answered my question of who defined those tenets of marriage. The tradition of marriage hasn't changed for over 2,000 years only because in recent decades society has progressed to the point where people don't have as much to fear about coming out. Before this time people had many misconceptions about homosexuality and sex in general. These things have progressed, so I don't see why these tenets of marriage shouldn't progress as well. You ask why, I ask why not?
    Now you are asking me to educate you in your feigned ignorance?

    A Divine Institution.

    The Bible presents marriage as a divine institution. If marriage were of human origin, then human beings would have a right to decide the kind of marital relationships to choose. Marriage, however, began with God. It was established by God at the beginning of human history when He "created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). As the Creator of marriage, God has the right to tell us which principles should govern our marital relationships.

    If God had left us no instructions about marriage after establishing it, then marriage could be regulated according to personal whims. But He has not left us in the dark. In His revelation contained in the pages of the Bible, God has revealed His will regarding the nature and function of marriage. As Christians who choose to live in accordance with God’s will, we must study and respect those Biblical principles governing marriage, divorce, and remarriage. In some instances, the laws of a state regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage ignore or even violate the teachings of the Bible. In such cases, as Christians, "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).


    The Institution of Marriage

    Another great essay on the topic:

    Definitions
    These perspectives share a concern to define marriage, whether as a means to trace the evolutionary development of its different types or as a prelude to the identification of its distinctive functions in society. Many attempts have been made to identify the essential nature of marriage and to list its purposes, a project often as revealing of the observer's assumptions as of the observed practices. Across cultures, the ceremonial and social phenomena conventionally defined as marriage assume myriad forms and serve varied purposes, yet marriage is usually defined as the formal ideological recognition of a sexual relationship between one man and one woman (monogamy) ; among one man and two or more women (polygamy: polygyny) ; or among one woman and two or more men (polygamy: polyandry). Because sexual intercourse is approved in this relationship, the children of a marriage usually possess a status superior to children born beyond its boundaries.

    In an argument against such essentialism, the anthropologist Edmund Leach rejected universal definitions and instead approached marriage as a ‘bundle of rights’. Among the classes of rights allocated by institutions ‘commonly classed as marriage’, Leach noted that in different societies ‘marriage’ may serve:

    (i) to establish the legal father of a woman's children;
    (ii) to establish the legal mother of a man's children;
    (iii) to give the husband a monopoly in the wife's sexuality;
    (iv) to give the wife a monopoly in the husband's sexuality;
    (v) to give the husband partial or monopolistic rights to the wife's domestic or other labour services;
    (vi) to give the wife partial or monopolistic rights to the husband's labour services;
    (vii) to give the husband rights over the property of his wife;
    (viii) to give the wife rights over the property of her husband;
    (ix) to establish a joint fund of property, a partnership, for the benefit of the children of the marriage; and
    (x) to establish a socially significant ‘relationship of affinity’ between the husband and his wife's brothers.

    Leach's essay, and the debate it provoked in the late 1950s, had a seminal influence on approaches to marriage as an ethnographic problem, as a culturally specific set of beliefs, practices, and institutions. Because marriage did not establish all of these types of rights in any known society, Leach concluded that the ‘institutions commonly described as marriage do not all have the same legal and social concomitants’ and that the meaning of marriage in any society could emerge only from detailed investigation of its ethnographic context. At the same time, Leach's essay typified an approach that has focused on how marriage may structure relationships between individuals and among groups, and has stressed the interrelationship of principles of descent, rules of residence, and issues of power over property
    .

    marriage: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com

    I will give you and others the last word; I have made my argument.

  6. #226
    Student Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Seen
    07-08-09 @ 03:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    224

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    The Bible presents marriage as a divine institution. If marriage were of human origin, then human beings would have a right to decide the kind of marital relationships to choose. Marriage, however, began with God.
    So again... only Jewish, Christian, and Islamic marriages are valid?
    The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. -- Dr. Albert Bartlett

  7. #227
    Sage
    jfuh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Pacific Rim
    Last Seen
    01-20-12 @ 09:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    16,631

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Marriage is not discrimination. It is a ceremony between a man and a woman to create a binding contract in the eyes of God to procreate and have children.
    Is that what happens at city halls? A contract before god?

  8. #228
    Sage
    jfuh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Pacific Rim
    Last Seen
    01-20-12 @ 09:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    16,631

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Heretic View Post
    So again... only Jewish, Christian, and Islamic marriages are valid?
    Quick learner Didn't you know that, all marriages were invalid until the bible came along.
    Forget that this is a secular nation built on the principle of freedom and that marriage is a state issue not a religious issue.

  9. #229
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    asking for legal experts to clear this up...
    Just what is the distinctionn in the eyes of the law between marraige and civil union?
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  10. #230
    Androgyne
    Dr_Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Last Seen
    12-16-15 @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,349
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post

    How is that? Now you are attempting to divine a meaning I never stated?

    My Statement:

    The purpose of marriage between a man and a woman is to provide a contract that binds them in a solemn promise before God for life to procreate and create and raise children as a FAMILY. Gays cannot procreate, it is a LIFE style. Only a MAN and a WOMAN can.

    How is that suggesting that a man and a woman who may choose not to have children don’t meet this requirement? Are you suggesting that they won’t?
    Because one of the reasons you give that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry is because they can't procreate and your tenets of marriage imply that marriage is for the purpose of procreating.

    Well there you go; you think we should all abide by YOUR opinion. But that doesn’t make a compelling argument. There is nothing discriminating about marriage. It is no more discriminating than a small minority attempting to re-define it.
    What is there to abide by? I'm simply saying that it should be an option that people are allowed to choose. How would you have to abide by anything? How would it affect you?

    Now you are asking me to educate you in your feigned ignorance?

    A Divine Institution.

    The Bible presents marriage as a divine institution. If marriage were of human origin, then human beings would have a right to decide the kind of marital relationships to choose. Marriage, however, began with God. It was established by God at the beginning of human history when He "created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). As the Creator of marriage, God has the right to tell us which principles should govern our marital relationships.

    If God had left us no instructions about marriage after establishing it, then marriage could be regulated according to personal whims. But He has not left us in the dark. In His revelation contained in the pages of the Bible, God has revealed His will regarding the nature and function of marriage. As Christians who choose to live in accordance with God’s will, we must study and respect those Biblical principles governing marriage, divorce, and remarriage. In some instances, the laws of a state regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage ignore or even violate the teachings of the Bible. In such cases, as Christians, "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).


    The Institution of Marriage

    Another great essay on the topic:

    Definitions
    These perspectives share a concern to define marriage, whether as a means to trace the evolutionary development of its different types or as a prelude to the identification of its distinctive functions in society. Many attempts have been made to identify the essential nature of marriage and to list its purposes, a project often as revealing of the observer's assumptions as of the observed practices. Across cultures, the ceremonial and social phenomena conventionally defined as marriage assume myriad forms and serve varied purposes, yet marriage is usually defined as the formal ideological recognition of a sexual relationship between one man and one woman (monogamy) ; among one man and two or more women (polygamy: polygyny) ; or among one woman and two or more men (polygamy: polyandry). Because sexual intercourse is approved in this relationship, the children of a marriage usually possess a status superior to children born beyond its boundaries.

    In an argument against such essentialism, the anthropologist Edmund Leach rejected universal definitions and instead approached marriage as a ‘bundle of rights’. Among the classes of rights allocated by institutions ‘commonly classed as marriage’, Leach noted that in different societies ‘marriage’ may serve:

    (i) to establish the legal father of a woman's children;
    (ii) to establish the legal mother of a man's children;
    (iii) to give the husband a monopoly in the wife's sexuality;
    (iv) to give the wife a monopoly in the husband's sexuality;
    (v) to give the husband partial or monopolistic rights to the wife's domestic or other labour services;
    (vi) to give the wife partial or monopolistic rights to the husband's labour services;
    (vii) to give the husband rights over the property of his wife;
    (viii) to give the wife rights over the property of her husband;
    (ix) to establish a joint fund of property, a partnership, for the benefit of the children of the marriage; and
    (x) to establish a socially significant ‘relationship of affinity’ between the husband and his wife's brothers.

    Leach's essay, and the debate it provoked in the late 1950s, had a seminal influence on approaches to marriage as an ethnographic problem, as a culturally specific set of beliefs, practices, and institutions. Because marriage did not establish all of these types of rights in any known society, Leach concluded that the ‘institutions commonly described as marriage do not all have the same legal and social concomitants’ and that the meaning of marriage in any society could emerge only from detailed investigation of its ethnographic context. At the same time, Leach's essay typified an approach that has focused on how marriage may structure relationships between individuals and among groups, and has stressed the interrelationship of principles of descent, rules of residence, and issues of power over property
    .

    marriage: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com

    I will give you and others the last word; I have made my argument.
    Considering that marriage isn't limited to Christianity, I see no reason for the Bible's ideals of marriage to be the ultimate ideals of marriage for everyone. Again, other religions perform marriages too. Should their views just be tossed aside? I personally didn't even get married in a church, but in a courthouse. Does that mean my marriage isn't good enough because it doesn't follow the tenets of the Bible exactly? As rivrrat already stated, marriage isn't limited to religion either, but it is also a legal contract. Why should one religion get to define tenets of marriage and who should or shouldn't be allowed to get married?

Page 23 of 69 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •