While reading arguments against same sex marriage...

[maquiscat]

For the same reason you can't build a car with two engines and no transmission, or two transmissions and no engine.

It takes a man and a woman to make a marriage. You cannot make a marriage any other way. You need one of each.?

False comparison. You are correct of course that a car needs both an engine and a transmission. It also needs a fuel tank and fuel pump and generator, etc. If you want to compare marriage to a car then you just successfully argued for polygamy. Congratulations!

 

[maquiscat]

Marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. Calling anything else a “marriage” is just a lie, nothing more.

Marriage is a word that is used in more than just the joining of a couple. "The music was a wonderful marriage of Jazz and Rap." You attempt to limit the use of the word hold no water. History has shown repeatedly that there are many types of marriage throughout the world. This includes the incest marriages of the royal and noble families throughout history that the church recognized and never excommunicated those families for. Same sex marriages are historical fact and ghost marriages are historical fact.

 

[joG]

Those wouldn't go away without the government recognizing marriage. They would become more complicated and less clear. The entire point of most of those laws and regulations is to make things easier and more efficient so that the courts are not tied up with stuff that is easily taken care of with laws or regulations to cover the vast majority of these issues.

Spouses are part of the hierarchy for legal kinships, and they are at the top. Barring some legal contract to the contrary that was made up after a couple got married, the spouse has legal say of things such as medical decisions and after-life decisions (burial, cremation). For an unmarried person, the person with that legal say is going to be a parent or next down the line in legal kin (sibling, grandparent, aunt/uncle, etc.). This also means that the spouse has a legal responsibility to pay for final expenses.

Splitting up property in the case of a separation for all those people would be a nightmare for the courts because they would have to decide when the relationship was truly established. With marriage, you take the date of marriage. Visitation in many hospitals is limited to legal family only when it is serious, but without marriage, there is no legal kinship, no matter how many contracts or legal documents they have written up between them. And the military uses legal kinship, immediate family to determine who to allow as being claimed a "dependent", which includes being covered by medical and dental insurance, and even a life insurance policy, not to mention an ID card to give base access. By just allowing people to choose whoever they want to be their dependent based on them just saying so, it easily can lead to security issues along with a lot of extra money being spent by the government.

There are so many more things as well.

Most of that would no longer be a government affair. I understand the fear of a new way to do things, but ....

 

[joG]

And marriage in one simple contract takes care of them. Getting rid of marriage will jsu tcomplicate everyones life.

Why? You want an easy contract, you buy it. You want a bash, invite a thousand dancers. You are into religion? Take Westminster for the oath. Where is the problem?

 

[Ocean007]

All your posting shows, is that unsurprisingly, you are unable to come anywhere close to understanding what marriage is really about. Men and women were created as we were for an intelligent reason, neither complete without the other. Marriage is the holy union that takes these two incomplete parts, and makes a complete and wonderful whole. It is not, and will never be possible to accomplish this in a “same sex marriage”, nor do I expect that someone who is homosexual will ever be able to understand why this is so important.

BELIEF, not fact, and it's nonsense as well. It is up to EACH person, gay or straight, to decide for herself/himself what marriage is about. And not all individuals or couples, gay or straight, want the "consequences and responsibilities of procreation," no matter what faith-based moralists claim.

 

[Quag]

Why? You want an easy contract, you buy it. You want a bash, invite a thousand dancers. You are into religion? Take Westminster for the oath. Where is the problem?

There is no problem you seem to think there is one with marriage and cant explain why

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't think you understand. Yes it is possible to accomplish this with same sex marriage. It very much takes two incomplete parts and makes a whole.

You are making the same lame argument. Your Argument is that marriage is about sex. I pity you, more so I feel bad for your wife.

Bottom line, if marriage wasn't strictly about inserting a penis into a vagina there could be no argument against same sex marriage.

So sad that those that talked about protecting marriage have reduced it to vaginas and penises.

I think critical thought hit gold here. And there isn't anything you can say against same sex marriage, and for traditional marriage without making it an argument about penises and vaginas.

It is no surprise that you can only view or describe the essential differences between men and women in such base terms; nor that you are completely unable to truly grasp why men and women are different, or why each needs the other. There is much, much more to it than just the fact that that's how our parts fit together. God created us this way for a purpose, giving each sex certain mental and spiritual traits that the other lacks, so that one cannot ever fulfill one's potential without a proper mate to provide the missing pieces. And you'll never get that from someone who has only the same pieces that you already have.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Most of that would no longer be a government affair. I understand the fear of a new way to do things, but ....

Just one example.

I get married, my wife is then my legal dependent. The military recognized that new family relationship and therefore she was (a) my next of kind for legal purposes, (b) the government recognized that dependency status and provided for her to transfer with me to different assignments, (c) as my legal spouse the government sponsored her on overseas assignments providing for her entry and stay in foreign countries, and (d) as my spouse she was able to use the military health care system.


All things that cannot be recreated using a "contract" other that marriage because it's not the agreement between the two people that is the factor, it is the recognition

Why? You want an easy contract, you buy it. You want a bash, invite a thousand dancers. You are into religion? Take Westminster for the oath. Where is the problem?

No you are deflecting from the manner that Civil Marriage was entered into (the "event"***) and the impact of the long term legal status that event creates.



*** BTW - people can already make any type of "event" they want to perform the ceremony from a Clerk at the courthouse to extravagant weddings costing a million dollars to having a thousand dancers to - well - anything they want. The ceremony though is separate from the legal status created when the certificate of marriage is executed and the status established.



>>>>

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I would argue that reducing marriage as a spiritual union of a penis and vagina is a "sick mockery." You are entitled to your opinions on marriage but know that you are now attacking families.

What attacks and degrades families and marriage is putting forth a sick mockery thereof, and demanding that this sick mockery be recognized and treated as being equal to the real thing.

 

[joG]

Just one example.

I get married, my wife is then my legal dependent.

Legal dependent? Not really. Contractual dependent maybe, or equal.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Marriage is a word that is used in more than just the joining of a couple. "The music was a wonderful marriage of Jazz and Rap." You attempt to limit the use of the word hold no water.

It's well worth noting that these figurative uses of the word “marriage” always refer to the joining of different things, to create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. You wouldn't find “marriage” being used in this manner to describe two instances of the same thing being put together, because to do so wouldn't go along with the literal meaning of marriage which describes the joining of a man and a woman who are two very different people.

History has shown repeatedly that there are many types of marriage throughout the world. This includes the incest marriages of the royal and noble families throughout history that the church recognized and never excommunicated those families for. Same sex marriages are historical fact and ghost marriages are historical fact.

Is it your point to suggest that because I speak out against one kind of sick mockery, that I somehow approve of other sick mockeries?

 

[roguenuke]

It's well worth noting that these figurative uses of the word “marriage” always refer to the joining of different things, to create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. You wouldn't find “marriage” being used in this manner to describe two instances of the same thing being put together, because to do so wouldn't go along with the literal meaning of marriage which describes the joining of a man and a woman who are two very different people.

Is it your point to suggest that because I speak out against one kind of sick mockery, that I somehow approve of other sick mockeries?

Every individual person is different than anyone else.

But your definition of marriage is subjective. You are free to have it for your personal life and even consider it when judging others, but you are not free to force others (using laws) to live under your personal definition of a word.

 

[CLAX1911]

It is no surprise that you can only view or describe the essential differences between men and women in such base terms; nor that you are completely unable to truly grasp why men and women are different, or why each needs the other. There is much, much more to it than just the fact that that's how our parts fit together. God created us this way for a purpose, giving each sex certain mental and spiritual traits that the other lacks, so that one cannot ever fulfill one's potential without a proper mate to provide the missing pieces. And you'll never get that from someone who has only the same pieces that you already have.

So once again you confirm that marriage is simply about genitals to you?

Or are you saying that only a woman can complete a man? That is obviously wrong. If your god created the system that so clearly doesn't work out seems your god is rather puny and imperfect. Because I have found the piece that I didn't have in another person of the same sex. He has certain mental and spiritual traits that I lack and vise versa, I have found the proper mate to fulfill my potential.

You say I can't have because all marriage is to you is a vagina and penis interlocking. This is the only argument you make. You have essentially said the only thing about your spouse that makes her proper for you is the hole on the front of her.

You can reference your puny false god all you want, it's nit going to change the fact that your argumentis strictly about interlocking crotches being the fundamental purpose of marriage.

 

[CLAX1911]

Every individual person is different than anyone else.

But your definition of marriage is subjective. You are free to have it for your personal life and even consider it when judging others, but you are not free to force others (using laws) to live under your personal definition of a word.

He is making the argument that marriage is only about having both sets of genitalia. As much as he says he isn't that is the only argument he can deliver.

 

[CLAX1911]

It's well worth noting that these figurative uses of the word “marriage” always refer to the joining of different things, to create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. You wouldn't find “marriage” being used in this manner to describe two instances of the same thing being put together, because to do so wouldn't go along with the literal meaning of marriage which describes the joining of a man and a woman who are two very different people.

Once again you are confirming the only valuable part of marriage is sex. My spouse and I most definitely aren't the same just because we are both men. So it wouldn't be putting two of the same thing together unless I am only valued in a massage based on my genitalia. He is my opposite in many ways, he inspires me, I motivate him, that is just how it works. We complement each other, we are each other's missing piece as you put it. But you don't think that is possible because we don't have opposing genitals. Marriage to you is strictly about the crotch, you confirm this in every post you make.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Legal dependent? Not really. Contractual dependent maybe, or equal.

No, legal dependent. That is the terminology used by the government in recognition of the legal status of the spouse in the military. He status is dependent upon my status.


There is no creation of a "contractual" dependent in the military. You can get a Civil Marriage establishing the highest order next-of-kin (i.e. spouse) or, if you adopt a child, you can establish a legal family relationship in the next order of priority (that being #1 Spouse, #2 Children, #3 Parent, #4 Sibling, etc.).


Those entities cannot be created with a simple contract.



>>>>

 

[joG]

No, legal dependent. That is the terminology used by the government in recognition of the legal status of the spouse in the military. He status is dependent upon my status.


There is no creation of a "contractual" dependent in the military. You can get a Civil Marriage establishing the highest order next-of-kin (i.e. spouse) or, if you adopt a child, you can establish a legal family relationship in the next order of priority (that being #1 Spouse, #2 Children, #3 Parent, #4 Sibling, etc.).

Those entities cannot be created with a simple contract.

>>>>

But it would no longer be a "legal dependent" if matrimony were no longer state run but private.

 

[Deuce]

What attacks and degrades families and marriage is putting forth a sick mockery thereof, and demanding that this sick mockery be recognized and treated as being equal to the real thing.

All subjective, irrelevant to the law. Your personal belief isn't good enough to deny freedom to other people, because this is America.

 

[joG]

He is making the argument that marriage is only about having both sets of genitalia. As much as he says he isn't that is the only argument he can deliver.

I guess matrimony allows for girls. But of course you would not like the cultural and historic implications.

 

[Quag]

But it would no longer be a "legal dependent" if matrimony were no longer state run but private.

You still havent answered me on why the state should no longer sanction marriage.
What advantage does that provide society?

 

[CriticalThought]

What attacks and degrades families and marriage is putting forth a sick mockery thereof, and demanding that this sick mockery be recognized and treated as being equal to the real thing.

And how exactly does recognition of same sex marriage attack and degrade families? The only person I see doing that is you, with calling any family outside the norm a "sick mockery". Your animus is showing.

 

[joG]

You still havent answered me on why the state should no longer sanction marriage.
What advantage does that provide society?

Why should it, is more the question. Governments should only make laws and take action, where it makes sense. I do not see it here.

 

[CLAX1911]

I guess matrimony allows for girls. But of course you would not like the cultural and historic implications.

Think about what you are going to say before you type it. This is unintelligible garbage.

 

[joG]

Think about what you are going to say before you type it. This is unintelligible garbage.

Or alternatively you fail to see the truth hidden in the linguistics. That would not surprise me.

 

[CriticalThought]

It is no surprise that you can only view or describe the essential differences between men and women in such base terms; nor that you are completely unable to truly grasp why men and women are different, or why each needs the other. There is much, much more to it than just the fact that that's how our parts fit together. God created us this way for a purpose, giving each sex certain mental and spiritual traits that the other lacks, so that one cannot ever fulfill one's potential without a proper mate to provide the missing pieces. And you'll never get that from someone who has only the same pieces that you already have.

Please provide a list of all the specific emotional and spiritual traits that a woman possesses that you and I do not. If you are so certain they exist then it should be easy for you to name them off.