Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[Unkotare]

That is part of it. It also requires that both man and women be of the same race and same socio-economic class, and for the upper classes, it means at the very least that the parents arrange the initial courting.

traditional marriage = 1 man and 1 woman

You know it. I know it. Seawytch knows it. You're desperation does not allow you to make up definitions as you go. The fact that people married among their own race in the 1700's is no reflection on the discussion we are having today and has no relevance.

So the past is not relevant when it comes to a discussion of what is traditional?

You're playing a losing game of semantics, lamebrain.

 

[Troubled_CA]

(Even though people like Hillary Clinton and Melissa Harris-Perry would want the government to rear our children....)

SEE, it's this kind of wackadoodle posts that make us discount most things cons say,

REALTY check!
Those same blow holes that told you THIS and that Romney was going to WIN (by a landslide no less),

are still lying to you guys.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Grow up.... traditional marriage = 1 man and 1 woman

That is part of it. It also requires that both man and women be of the same race and same socio-economic class, and for the upper classes, it means at the very least that the parents arrange the initial courting.

traditional marriage = 1 man and 1 woman

You know it. I know it. Seawytch knows it. You're desperation does not allow you to make up definitions as you go. The fact that people married among their own race in the 1700's is no reflection on the discussion we are having today and has no relevance.

Fortunately that something is perceived to be ‘traditional’ or ‘historic’ is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant:

[T]he fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

You have the right to not marry someone of the same sex if you so desire.

You do not, however, have the right to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights with regard to accessing marriage law.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I don't know how to make this any more clear - our church was not permitted to marry us unless we produced a marriage license from the state. Period.

On a side note - why do you assume that because I believe in traditional marriage, I "hate" gay people? Is it because you need that to demonize your opponent so as to construct an argument?

I don't assume you hate straight people. I mean, you very well might. You're being insane if you don't think there are gay people who HATE straight people. But I don't just assume that about you.

But you don't believe in traditional marriage. Traditional marriages are arranged. Was your marriage arranged by your parents? Then its not traditional.

Grow up.... traditional marriage = 1 man and 1 woman

When you get desperate in a debate, you really become an asshole. This isn't India and you know it. America has never arranged marriages - period.

America certainly had arranged marriages. Predominantly in the south among the aristocracy. And of course, the marriage of slaves (perhaps you've heard of them) was often arranged by their masters.

And regardless of arrangement or not, inter-racial marriage has never been part of "traditional marriage" in the U.S. - so if you support the right for races to intermarry - you oppose the traditional definition of marriage. "Traditional marriage" also means the wife essentially has no rights to property and in general, the law regarding "traditional marriage" favors the husband in all matters except that of child custody - where the wife is in favored over the husband. Of course, we no longer have traditional marriage in the U.S. The wife and husband in almost all matters are treated equally before the law, flying in the face of tradition.


Your concept of "traditional marriage" seems to instead mean "what marriage means to me".

 

[Unkotare]

You have the right to not marry someone of the same sex if you so desire.

You do not, however, have the right to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights with regard to accessing marriage law.

You're not just comparing apples to oranges; you got a whole fruit salad going on there.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The "institution" of marriage is one that should be endorsed and favored.

Ok, sounds right. It should be because...?

A number of reasons:

1. The obvious "building block" of a civilization.

2. Children - The creation and nurturing of children.

3. The independence of family in relation to the government. Even more than the church or private schools, the family is the entity that stands relatively independent of government monitoring and control; parents will teach values and principles that may not necessarily align with the central authority. (Even though people like Hillary Clinton and Melissa Harris-Perry would want the government to rear our children....)

Pity that someone so new to the forum has already established himself as a liar.

 

[P@triot]

LOL! OMG marriage licenses aren't that expensive. You just didn't want to have a legally binding obligation to your wife! Come on man, who are you kidding? Instead of buying the cow with cash you wanted a mortgage you could walk away from any time.

What in the hell does that even mean? What does my mortgage have to do with any of this?

Not wanting a legally binding obligation to your wife = wanting to have the cow without having to pay for it. Its basically the same as free milk.

My obligation to my wife was a vow before God to my death. Far more powerful than the silly government liberals worship....

 

[P@triot]

Ok, sounds right. It should be because...?

A number of reasons:

1. The obvious "building block" of a civilization.

2. Children - The creation and nurturing of children.

3. The independence of family in relation to the government. Even more than the church or private schools, the family is the entity that stands relatively independent of government monitoring and control; parents will teach values and principles that may not necessarily align with the central authority. (Even though people like Hillary Clinton and Melissa Harris-Perry would want the government to rear our children....)

Pity that someone so new to the forum has already established himself as a liar.

CCJ exposing is uninformed ignorance again.... Both Hillary Clinton and Melissa Harris-Perry are on record stating exactly what RT just said. How embarrassing for you CCJ...

 

[Seawytch]

Yes. It probably will not happen, but the ideal situation would be that the state fully recognizes the marriage, but the federal government does not. I believe it is within the bounds of the Constitution that the federal government cannot STOP the individual state from making such marriages legal, but that the federal government does not have to do so. I certainly hope this is true.

That would not be ideal for gay couples and our families.

The Federal government absolutely should not be able to discriminate.

Yes. Unfortunately, DOMA is likely to be declared unconstitutional, but I can hope that it remains constitutional. If it does not, we will have to live with it.

There are two cases, Prop 8 and DOMA.

US vs Windsor (DOMA) - Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer married in Toronto in 2007 where same-sex marriages were legal. At the time of Spyer’s death, the state of New York recognized the couple’s marriage. However, the IRS denied Windsor use of a spousal estate tax exception on the ground that, under the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), the federal government did not recognize same-sex marriages for the purpose of federal benefits.


And you can bet your buttons it will be declared unconstitutional and the Federal Government, to whom I pay a great deal of taxes (especially because my marriage is not treated equally), will have to recognize my legal marriage.

The stickier wicket is the Prop 8 Case and the justices could rule very broadly, clearing the way for nationwide marriage equality, or narrowly granting it only to CA. Win either way.

 

[P@triot]

The Federal government absolutely should not be able to discriminate.

Then stop asking them too Seawytch. You're the one asking for the federal government to discriminate against 98% of America and give you special treatment.

You can marry a man any time you want. And the federal government will recognize your marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

A religious ceremony for what? Not marriage. As I said - marriage is a contract. Without the contract, there is no marriage.

You're confusing civil marriage with religious marriage.

A marriage is what the couple wants it to be. If they want to swear to honor and cherish each other for life before god and family, without the legal binding contract, they CAN.

Gays have been doing it for decades.

There isn't much point in a marriage that is not recognized by the community. You may as well just not get "married".

There is to Rotty. He didn't want to be under the yoke of government or some such shit, you'll have to ask him. He views those who are legally married with a great deal of contempt.

 

[RightThinking]

Yes. Hillary actually wrote an entire book about it. She dressed the language up in how "communities" should "care" and "help," but a close reading of her screed shows that she really wanted government intervention in virtually every step along the way, right from pregnancy, in order to TRAIN parents to be in the "correct" ways of child-rearing, care and so on.

(All for their own good, of course.....)

 

[Seawytch]

The Federal government absolutely should not be able to discriminate.

Then stop asking them too Seawytch. You're the one asking for the federal government to discriminate against 98% of America and give you special treatment.

You can marry a man any time you want. And the federal government will recognize your marriage.

You'll have to explain the mental gymnastics it took you to come to the conclusion that treating my legal, civil marriage EXACTLY like yours is treated is somehow "special".

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You're confusing civil marriage with religious marriage.

A marriage is what the couple wants it to be. If they want to swear to honor and cherish each other for life before god and family, without the legal binding contract, they CAN.

Gays have been doing it for decades.

There isn't much point in a marriage that is not recognized by the community. You may as well just not get "married".

There is to Rotty. He didn't want to be under the yoke of government or some such shit, you'll have to ask him. He views those who are legally married with a great deal of contempt.

He didn't want to be under the yoke of owing his wife a dime if he decided to up and leave and never come back - that's what he didn't want.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What in the hell does that even mean? What does my mortgage have to do with any of this?

Not wanting a legally binding obligation to your wife = wanting to have the cow without having to pay for it. Its basically the same as free milk.

My obligation to my wife was a vow before God to my death. Far more powerful than the silly government liberals worship....

If you ever go through a divorce you'll see quite quickly that the "silly government liberals worship" has the power to take money from your bank account and put it in your ex-wife's - which is exactly the situation you wanted to avoid by not having a marriage license.

If you cheat on your wife you can get good by God simply by praying a bit and maybe you can go to a Preacher/Pastor/Priest/Minister and he'll help you realize you've been forgiven. Hell, depending on your religion, you might even be able to get away with not telling your wife. On the other hand, if you cheat on your wife and it can be proven in court, you have violated a contract with her and are liable for damages. In the real world - that's quite a bit more severe and relevant than your silly fairy tale zombie worshipping religion.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yes. Hillary actually wrote an entire book about it. She dressed the language up in how "communities" should "care" and "help," but a close reading of her screed shows that she really wanted government intervention in virtually every step along the way, right from pregnancy, in order to TRAIN parents to be in the "correct" ways of child-rearing, care and so on.

(All for their own good, of course.....)

Do you realize that when you put everything in quotes it usually means you're full of shit?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Exactly. If you object to it being a legal, binding contract, sanctioned by the state and Federal government, just have a religious ceremony.

A religious ceremony for what? Not marriage. As I said - marriage is a contract. Without the contract, there is no marriage.

You're confusing civil marriage with religious marriage.

A marriage is what the couple wants it to be. If they want to swear to honor and cherish each other for life before god and family, without the legal binding contract, they CAN.

Gays have been doing it for decades.

Correct.

Equal protection rights don’t pertain to marriage in the context of religious dogma, only marriage laws written by the states.

 

[RightThinking]

Yes. Hillary actually wrote an entire book about it. She dressed the language up in how "communities" should "care" and "help," but a close reading of her screed shows that she really wanted government intervention in virtually every step along the way, right from pregnancy, in order to TRAIN parents to be in the "correct" ways of child-rearing, care and so on.

(All for their own good, of course.....)

Do you realize that when you put everything in quotes it usually means you're full of shit?

No, it is just a parenthesis. Liberals tend to get easily distracted and focus only on parts of sentences, so it seemed better posting it that way.

I guess it did not work.....

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yes. Hillary actually wrote an entire book about it. She dressed the language up in how "communities" should "care" and "help," but a close reading of her screed shows that she really wanted government intervention in virtually every step along the way, right from pregnancy, in order to TRAIN parents to be in the "correct" ways of child-rearing, care and so on.

(All for their own good, of course.....)

Do you realize that when you put everything in quotes it usually means you're full of shit?

No, it is just a parenthesis. Liberals tend to get easily distracted and focus only on parts of sentences, so it seemed better posting it that way.

I guess it did not work.....

Its not.

 

[RightThinking]

Oh, the quotes....

That was meant to mock Liberals. I put quotes around their favorite words, like "care" and "community." In Liberalese, they really mean "steal" (from the successful) and "the collective," respectively.