[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[bomberfox]

"presumption of paternity" - Google Search

That was Texas statute. Kansas
23-2208
Colorado
https://casetext.com/statute/colora...act/section-19-4-105-presumption-of-paternity
Arizona
SS 25-814. Presumption of paternity | WomensLaw.org
Alabama
The presumption of paternity (and the rebuttal thereof) | Birmingham Family Lawyer
"Nowadays, the presumption of paternity has been codified into statutory form by all the states."
Montana
https://courts.mt.gov/Forms/paternity

Cant do all 50 for you and I'll stand behind thethebirminghamdivorceattorney statement above until someone wants to present any contradictory evidence. From BC ROMAN LAW
Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")....

Same then as it is now. Maternity, Latin root MATER, MOTHER

Roman law is not the basis for US law interpretation but it makes you look smurt to copypasta.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Marriage is a religious thing

Homosexual marriage is just another way to soil the definition of marriage and put crap in the head of younger generations

How does it 'soil' anything? Hetero marriage isn't affected in the least by SSM.

 

[dixon01767]

It doesnt soil definitions because words and definitions change all the time. Words have uses, not intrinsic and non malleable definitions. Marriage has always changed throughout history.

The man and woman characteristic was the same from the dawn of civilization through the 20th century.

 

[Carjosse]

The man and woman characteristic was the same from the dawn of civilization through the 20th century.

Minus everything from the dawn of time till the rise of Christianity and it continued in other parts of the world. Have you never looked at Roman or Greek history?

 

[dixon01767]

Roman law is not the basis for US law interpretation but it makes you look smurt to copypasta.

The 5 links provided were to current law. Revealing your choice to ignore them. Especially since you were the one insisting upon evidence.

 

[dixon01767]

Minus everything from the dawn of time till the rise of Christianity and it continued in other parts of the world. Have you never looked at Roman or Greek history?

Your ignorance of religious and world history is showing. The Jewish limitation of marriage to men and women preceeded Christianity's by thousands of years. Ancient mesopotamias by thousands more.

Here is Roman Law

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")....

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[138] Furthermore, according to Susan Treggiari, "matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."[139]
Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia

 

[bomberfox]

The 5 links provided were to current law. Revealing your choice to ignore them. Especially since you were the one insisting upon evidence.

Current law in certain states regarding a very specific case that does not apply to all marriages. Since childless couples and now same sex couples can marry, your point is assinine.

 

[Carjosse]

Your ignorance of religious and world history is showing. The Jewish limitation of marriage to men and women preceeded Christianity's by thousands of years. Ancient mesopotamias by thousands more.

Here is Roman Law

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")....

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[138] Furthermore, according to Susan Treggiari, "matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."[139]
Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia

At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex unions; and in fact, thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors are held to have been bisexual or exclusively homosexual. The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions.

From here.

If you were wealthy and rich you could.

Even then the roman marriage and marriage today are very different concepts.

 

[dixon01767]

Current law in certain states regarding a very specific case that does not apply to all marriages. Since childless couples and now same sex couples can marry, your point is assinine.

Revealing, you insist upon evidence for my point, and then when I provide it, you switch to claiming my point is assinine.

 

[dixon01767]

From here.

If you were wealthy and rich you could.

Even then the roman marriage and marriage today are very different concepts.

Nope, the man and woman charachteristic was consistent from the dawn of civilization through the 20th century. The existence of homosexuals or bisexuals in ancient history doesnt contradict anything Ive said about marriage.

 

[bomberfox]

Revealing, you insist upon evidence for my point, and then when I provide it, you switch to claiming my point is assinine.

Your original point was completely assinine. Same sex marriage is legal now. Im glad for it.

 

[bomberfox]

Nope, the man and woman charachteristic was consistent from the dawn of civilization through the 20th century. The existence of homosexuals or bisexuals in ancient history doesnt contradict anything Ive said about marriage.

Polygamy and multiple partners was very common in history. Yes it does when you are making a “since the dawn of civilization claim. Now to play final fantasy 9 on my phone while flying

 

[TheEconomist]

Marriage is a religious thing. Homosexual marriage is just another way to soil the definition of marriage and put crap in the head of younger generations

A distinction between a moral and a legal view of marriage is useful here. From the point of view of defining marriage as a specific type of relationship, assigning value to it and defining its purpose, we might agree that this problem of definition is a private issue. If you have a preferred set of scripture which defines in your view what should be called marriage, or point to tradition in some culture at some point in time to define it, it is indeed your choice. I doubt that anyone has a right to force you to adopt a different view from the one you hold.

However, the problem is not specifically marriage as you think about it, but marriage as a contract whose enforcement falls on the duties of the government. It so happens that all western democracies have laws which impose a certain set of obligations and benefits on people who sign up for it. As long as the government uses marriage contracts to assign obligations and privileges, you do have a mighty problem when you deny consenting adults the right to declare themselves married: you create multiple casts of people based on sexual orientation. I understand that you deeply believe you have good reasons to consider heterosexual couples a special case, but my issue is rather that you do not have any more right to force others to adopt this definition than they do to force you to adopt another. Even if you object to gay marriage on religious or other cultural grounds, it is not yours to choose how the lives of others should be organized or spent -- and neither is it the choice of the majority of a country.

Obviously, if the government gets rid of the legal concept of marriage, civil unions, etc. and only sees to enforce the multiplicity of contracts that private individuals decide to sign, there is no dispute left to be had. However, given that this won't happen, I don't see why you couldn't in private consider that "true" marriage is not what the government says it is and call what the government uses a legal and accounting gimmick. Just because the government says it can't decide for individuals what marriage is and therefore extend its definition to encompass nontraditional consenting agreements it doesn't mean that you have to agree with what others are doing. It only means you have no business preventing them from doing so. Likewise, if priests want to celebrate the marriage -- though I would have an objection if the priests in question refuse.

You are also free to believe those who pushed for homosexual marriage to be legally recognized have ulterior motives -- indeed, perhaps even evil motives, if you insist. It doesn't matter. What matters is that doing anything but allowing gays to marry if they so wish implies you have to prevent consenting adults from freely agreeing to a contract based on the moral views of parties not involved in the contract. In my opinion, that argument is a lot stronger than calling you a bigot for holding certain views, though you could throw it back in the face of someone who favors minimum wage laws, for example, because it's the exact same objection (prohibiting some contracts to be signed based on the moral views of parties not concerned).

 

[dixon01767]

Your original point was completely assinine. Same sex marriage is legal now. Im glad for it.

Soooo why would you insist upon evidence for a point that you believe was assinine?

 

[dixon01767]

. As long as the government uses marriage contracts to assign obligations and privileges, you do have a mighty problem when you deny consenting adults the right to declare themselves married: you create multiple casts of people based on sexual orientation. .

What kind of cast is created by laws that prohibit closely related couples from marrying? All states have laws similiar to the below. Do they continue to create a cast based upon sexual orientation?

Sec. 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;

Marriage wasnt limited to men and women in order to exclude homosexuals. It was so limited to INCLUDE all those couples with the potential of procreation. For the same reason the above statute is still limited to men and women.

 

[dixon01767]

Polygamy and multiple partners was very common in history.

Often referred to as multiple marriages. Each and every one of them between a man and a woman, soooo not sure of the relevance of your point. The multiple wives didnt marry each other, they all married the man.

 

[bomberfox]

Soooo why would you insist upon evidence for a point that you believe was assinine?

Just to see if you had bothered to do anything besides cherrypicking, which your original post was.

 

[bomberfox]

Often referred to as multiple marriages. Each and every one of them between a man and a woman, soooo not sure of the relevance of your point. The multiple wives didnt marry each other, they all married the man.

Sooooo it has nothing to do with matrimony then? Good to know.

 

[dixon01767]

Current law in certain states regarding a very specific case that does not apply to all marriages.

Just the marriages that produce children. All of them, between a man and a woman.

 

[bomberfox]

What kind of cast is created by laws that prohibit closely related couples from marrying? All states have laws similiar to the below. Do they continue to create a cast based upon sexual orientation?

Sec. 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;

Marriage wasnt limited to men and women in order to exclude homosexuals. It was so limited to INCLUDE all those couples with the potential of procreation. For the same reason the above statute is still limited to men and women.

Paternity and maternity are not the purpose of marriage, nor is the reason people get married. Limiting it to parental issues is just assinine.

 

[dixon01767]

Sooooo it has nothing to do with matrimony then? Good to know.

Of course it does. Wether a man has one wife or 10 wives.

 

[dixon01767]

Paternity and maternity are not the purpose of marriage, nor is the reason people get married.

Yeah, NOW procreation and marriage are declared irrelevant by judicial fiat. I was refering to dawn of civilization through the 20th century marriage.

 

[bomberfox]

Of course it does. Wether a man has one wife or 10 wives.

Nope. You brought up parenting distinctions that limited marriage. Since legal parent/guardian issues does not make the basis for marriage, your point is moot.

 

[bomberfox]

Yeah, NOW procreation and marriage are declared irrelevant by judicial fiat. I was refering to dawn of civilization through the 20th century marriage.

Lol i dont like it so its judicial fiat durrr.

 

[dixon01767]

Just to see if you had bothered to do anything besides cherrypicking, which your original post was.

Cherrypicking the relevant statute. You seem to have an irresistable fondness for the irrelevant.