Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[bayoubill]

Good article....

Why Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

this argument is so fuckiin' tiresome...

I don't see why any two consenting adults, regardless of gender, shouldn't be able to enter into a legally-recognized domestic contract...

 

[RightThinking]

Good article....

Why Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

this argument is so fuckiin' tiresome...

I don't see why any two consenting adults, regardless of gender, shouldn't be able to enter into a legally-recognized domestic contract...

By "domestic contract," do you mean marriage?

 

[bayoubill]

Good article....

Why Marriage Matters: Consequences of Redefining Marriage

this argument is so fuckiin' tiresome...

I don't see why any two consenting adults, regardless of gender, shouldn't be able to enter into a legally-recognized domestic contract...

By "domestic contract," do you mean marriage?

well duh...

what else could it mean...?

 

[RightThinking]

this argument is so fuckiin' tiresome...

I don't see why any two consenting adults, regardless of gender, shouldn't be able to enter into a legally-recognized domestic contract...

By "domestic contract," do you mean marriage?

well duh...

what else could it mean...?

It could be a simple contract, not marriage, of course.

 

[Seawytch]

By "domestic contract," do you mean marriage?

well duh...

what else could it mean...?

It could be a simple contract, not marriage, of course.

Civil marriage is a legal contract.

 

[RightThinking]

well duh...

what else could it mean...?

It could be a simple contract, not marriage, of course.

Civil marriage is a legal contract.

Well, a marriage is a legal contract, but not all legal contracts are marriages....

 

[Seawytch]

It could be a simple contract, not marriage, of course.

Civil marriage is a legal contract.

Well, a marriage is a legal contract, but not all legal contracts are marriages....

Gosh, that was profound. Are there any other legal contracts you want to deny to gays and lesbians or is civil marriage the only one.

Can you provide a societal harm in allowing non familial consenting adult gays and lesbians equal access to a civil marriage contract?

 

[RightThinking]

Civil marriage is a legal contract.

Well, a marriage is a legal contract, but not all legal contracts are marriages....

Gosh, that was profound. Are there any other legal contracts you want to deny to gays and lesbians or is civil marriage the only one.

Can you provide a societal harm in allowing non familial consenting adult gays and lesbians equal access to a civil marriage contract?

The concept of marriage itself, as humanity has known it in every culture in the world for our entire history, will have to be changed.

 

[Seawytch]

Well, a marriage is a legal contract, but not all legal contracts are marriages....

Gosh, that was profound. Are there any other legal contracts you want to deny to gays and lesbians or is civil marriage the only one.

Can you provide a societal harm in allowing non familial consenting adult gays and lesbians equal access to a civil marriage contract?

The concept of marriage itself, as humanity has known it in every culture in the world for our entire history, will have to be changed.

You didn't answer the question. What societal harm is there in allowing gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage contracts.

And, no, the "concept" of marriage will not change at all. It is still a legal contract between non familial consenting adult couples.

It's been over 10 years since gays started legally marrying here in the US...

 

[RightThinking]

Gosh, that was profound. Are there any other legal contracts you want to deny to gays and lesbians or is civil marriage the only one.

Can you provide a societal harm in allowing non familial consenting adult gays and lesbians equal access to a civil marriage contract?

The concept of marriage itself, as humanity has known it in every culture in the world for our entire history, will have to be changed.

You didn't answer the question. What societal harm is there in allowing gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage contracts.

And, no, the "concept" of marriage will not change at all. It is still a legal contract between non familial consenting adult couples.

It's been over 10 years since gays started legally marrying here in the US...

The "harm" is in what I already wrote: Changing the concept of marriage as the history of man has known it. This danger in this is that the very basis for marriage becomes different: It is simply an affirmation of an emotion - The emotion of sexual passion. The concept of marriage as the creation of new life is out of the picture, the idea that marriage is recognized by the community as the joining of two human bodies as seen in the result of new life - gone.

With this new concept, all that is being officially recognized is the legal status of sexual love. I accept that this love can exist between two people of the same sex, but that does not necessitate a rationale for totally changing marriage as human beings have known it, and how it has worked in every culture in the entire history of the world - all for a social experiment.

If you choose to respond, please to not write puerile statements about some people who choose not to, or cannot have, children, or old people who marry: It is the concept of marriage, the very definition and its essence, not the variations that really do maintain the original concept.

 

[Seawytch]

The concept of marriage itself, as humanity has known it in every culture in the world for our entire history, will have to be changed.

You didn't answer the question. What societal harm is there in allowing gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage contracts.

And, no, the "concept" of marriage will not change at all. It is still a legal contract between non familial consenting adult couples.

It's been over 10 years since gays started legally marrying here in the US...

The "harm" is in what I already wrote: Changing the concept of marriage as the history of man has known it. This danger in this is that the very basis for marriage becomes different: It is simply an affirmation of an emotion - The emotion of sexual passion. The concept of marriage as the creation of new life is out of the picture, the idea that marriage is recognized by the community as the joining of two human bodies as seen in the result of new life - gone.

With this new concept, all that is being officially recognized is the legal status of sexual love. I accept that this love can exist between two people of the same sex, but that does not necessitate a rationale for totally changing marriage as human beings have known it, and how it has worked in every culture in the entire history of the world - all for a social experiment.

If you choose to respond, please to not write puerile statements about some people who choose not to, or cannot have, children, or old people who marry: It is the concept of marriage, the very definition and its essence, not the variations that really do maintain the original concept.

You're arguing for a concept that has never existed. There is no "traditional marriage" in any sense. Marriage, even only in the established United States, has changed and managed to "survive". Giving our families the same legal protections your families enjoy isn't going to cause any house of cards to fall.

Whether you like the argument or not, procreation is not a prerequisite for legal marriage in ANY state so an inability to procreate through sex (because we DO procreate) has no bearing on civil marriage.

There is a distinct difference between religious and civil marriage. Your religion is and will be free to keep their definition of marriage as they see fit, the government cannot.

 

[RightThinking]

You didn't answer the question. What societal harm is there in allowing gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage contracts.

And, no, the "concept" of marriage will not change at all. It is still a legal contract between non familial consenting adult couples.

It's been over 10 years since gays started legally marrying here in the US...

The "harm" is in what I already wrote: Changing the concept of marriage as the history of man has known it. This danger in this is that the very basis for marriage becomes different: It is simply an affirmation of an emotion - The emotion of sexual passion. The concept of marriage as the creation of new life is out of the picture, the idea that marriage is recognized by the community as the joining of two human bodies as seen in the result of new life - gone.

With this new concept, all that is being officially recognized is the legal status of sexual love. I accept that this love can exist between two people of the same sex, but that does not necessitate a rationale for totally changing marriage as human beings have known it, and how it has worked in every culture in the entire history of the world - all for a social experiment.

If you choose to respond, please to not write puerile statements about some people who choose not to, or cannot have, children, or old people who marry: It is the concept of marriage, the very definition and its essence, not the variations that really do maintain the original concept.

You're arguing for a concept that has never existed. There is no "traditional marriage" in any sense. Marriage, even only in the established United States, has changed and managed to "survive". Giving our families the same legal protections your families enjoy isn't going to cause any house of cards to fall.

Whether you like the argument or not, procreation is not a prerequisite for legal marriage in ANY state so an inability to procreate through sex (because we DO procreate) has no bearing on civil marriage.

There is a distinct difference between religious and civil marriage. Your religion is and will be free to keep their definition of marriage as they see fit, the government cannot.

No, marriage has always existed. One can play word games, but marriage as mankind has known it means that the community, even a tribe, has recognized and approved of the bond between male and female. With it come the expectations of creating children, and, depending on the culture, customs, and traditions, of various bonds of families and property - all in the broad sense. This has existed in Ancient Egypt and China, Medieval Europe, among Native Americans, tribal Africa and foraging peoples of today.

I know that procreation is not any pre-requisite. I already explained this. You are speaking about the laws, especially very recent when we consider THOUSANDS of years of history all over the entire planet. I am speaking about enduring culture and human nature as evidenced by our history everywhere in the world. However, check the documents that France had until recently - when they decided to destroy marriage - with marriage: On the legal document, there were numbers 1 to 9. Each was followed by a line. The line was for the couple to fill in later: The names of the children that they would create. It did not mean that they HAD TO, of course, but it was just considered part of what marriage is - and has been for thousands of years, with every culture in the entire history of the world.

 

[Redfish]

The "harm" is in what I already wrote: Changing the concept of marriage as the history of man has known it. This danger in this is that the very basis for marriage becomes different: It is simply an affirmation of an emotion - The emotion of sexual passion. The concept of marriage as the creation of new life is out of the picture, the idea that marriage is recognized by the community as the joining of two human bodies as seen in the result of new life - gone.

With this new concept, all that is being officially recognized is the legal status of sexual love. I accept that this love can exist between two people of the same sex, but that does not necessitate a rationale for totally changing marriage as human beings have known it, and how it has worked in every culture in the entire history of the world - all for a social experiment.

If you choose to respond, please to not write puerile statements about some people who choose not to, or cannot have, children, or old people who marry: It is the concept of marriage, the very definition and its essence, not the variations that really do maintain the original concept.

You're arguing for a concept that has never existed. There is no "traditional marriage" in any sense. Marriage, even only in the established United States, has changed and managed to "survive". Giving our families the same legal protections your families enjoy isn't going to cause any house of cards to fall.

Whether you like the argument or not, procreation is not a prerequisite for legal marriage in ANY state so an inability to procreate through sex (because we DO procreate) has no bearing on civil marriage.

There is a distinct difference between religious and civil marriage. Your religion is and will be free to keep their definition of marriage as they see fit, the government cannot.

No, marriage has always existed. One can play word games, but marriage as mankind has known it means that the community, even a tribe, has recognized and approved of the bond between male and female. With it come the expectations of creating children, and, depending on the culture, customs, and traditions, of various bonds of families and property - all in the broad sense. This has existed in Ancient Egypt and China, Medieval Europe, among Native Americans, tribal Africa and foraging peoples of today.

I know that procreation is not any pre-requisite. I already explained this. You are speaking about the laws, especially very recent when we consider THOUSANDS of years of history all over the entire planet. I am speaking about enduring culture and human nature as evidenced by our history everywhere in the world. However, check the documents that France had until recently - when they decided to destroy marriage - with marriage: On the legal document, there were numbers 1 to 9. Each was followed by a line. The line was for the couple to fill in later: The names of the children that they would create. It did not mean that they HAD TO, of course, but it was just considered part of what marriage is - and has been for thousands of years, with every culture in the entire history of the world.

you are wasting your time with wytchey, she is a committed lesbian with an agenda-----to have the government FORCE the rest of us to accept her aberrant lifestyle as normal and equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

Its not about rights with her, its all about the use of the word "marriage". She and her fem partner have equal rights already, the rights thing is a red herring.

 

[Seawytch]

The "harm" is in what I already wrote: Changing the concept of marriage as the history of man has known it. This danger in this is that the very basis for marriage becomes different: It is simply an affirmation of an emotion - The emotion of sexual passion. The concept of marriage as the creation of new life is out of the picture, the idea that marriage is recognized by the community as the joining of two human bodies as seen in the result of new life - gone.

With this new concept, all that is being officially recognized is the legal status of sexual love. I accept that this love can exist between two people of the same sex, but that does not necessitate a rationale for totally changing marriage as human beings have known it, and how it has worked in every culture in the entire history of the world - all for a social experiment.

If you choose to respond, please to not write puerile statements about some people who choose not to, or cannot have, children, or old people who marry: It is the concept of marriage, the very definition and its essence, not the variations that really do maintain the original concept.

You're arguing for a concept that has never existed. There is no "traditional marriage" in any sense. Marriage, even only in the established United States, has changed and managed to "survive". Giving our families the same legal protections your families enjoy isn't going to cause any house of cards to fall.

Whether you like the argument or not, procreation is not a prerequisite for legal marriage in ANY state so an inability to procreate through sex (because we DO procreate) has no bearing on civil marriage.

There is a distinct difference between religious and civil marriage. Your religion is and will be free to keep their definition of marriage as they see fit, the government cannot.

No, marriage has always existed. One can play word games, but marriage as mankind has known it means that the community, even a tribe, has recognized and approved of the bond between male and female. With it come the expectations of creating children, and, depending on the culture, customs, and traditions, of various bonds of families and property - all in the broad sense. This has existed in Ancient Egypt and China, Medieval Europe, among Native Americans, tribal Africa and foraging peoples of today.

First off, "tradition" is not justification for unequal treatment. "Traditionally", voting was for white male landowners. "Traditionally", marriage was restricted to people of the same race.

Marriage has many traditions.

http://www.irol.com/avc/fact_sheet_about_toy_guns.html

Iknow that procreation is not any pre-requisite. I already explained this. You are speaking about the laws, especially very recent when we consider THOUSANDS of years of history all over the entire planet. I am speaking about enduring culture and human nature as evidenced by our history everywhere in the world. However, check the documents that France had until recently - when they decided to destroy marriage - with marriage: On the legal document, there were numbers 1 to 9. Each was followed by a line. The line was for the couple to fill in later: The names of the children that they would create. It did not mean that they HAD TO, of course, but it was just considered part of what marriage is - and has been for thousands of years, with every culture in the entire history of the world.

If you know, why try and use it as justification?

I should have asked, do you have any justification that will hold up in court?

 

[Seawytch]

You're arguing for a concept that has never existed. There is no "traditional marriage" in any sense. Marriage, even only in the established United States, has changed and managed to "survive". Giving our families the same legal protections your families enjoy isn't going to cause any house of cards to fall.

Whether you like the argument or not, procreation is not a prerequisite for legal marriage in ANY state so an inability to procreate through sex (because we DO procreate) has no bearing on civil marriage.

There is a distinct difference between religious and civil marriage. Your religion is and will be free to keep their definition of marriage as they see fit, the government cannot.

No, marriage has always existed. One can play word games, but marriage as mankind has known it means that the community, even a tribe, has recognized and approved of the bond between male and female. With it come the expectations of creating children, and, depending on the culture, customs, and traditions, of various bonds of families and property - all in the broad sense. This has existed in Ancient Egypt and China, Medieval Europe, among Native Americans, tribal Africa and foraging peoples of today.

I know that procreation is not any pre-requisite. I already explained this. You are speaking about the laws, especially very recent when we consider THOUSANDS of years of history all over the entire planet. I am speaking about enduring culture and human nature as evidenced by our history everywhere in the world. However, check the documents that France had until recently - when they decided to destroy marriage - with marriage: On the legal document, there were numbers 1 to 9. Each was followed by a line. The line was for the couple to fill in later: The names of the children that they would create. It did not mean that they HAD TO, of course, but it was just considered part of what marriage is - and has been for thousands of years, with every culture in the entire history of the world.

you are wasting your time with wytchey, she is a committed lesbian with an agenda-----to have the government FORCE the rest of us to accept her aberrant lifestyle as normal and equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

Its not about rights with her, its all about the use of the word "marriage". She and her fem partner have equal rights already, the rights thing is a red herring.

Oh look, Fishy (who has quit this thread three times now in a huff) is back to lie again.

It's Fishy that is hung up on the word. Gays don't care what you call it...as long as it is EXACTLY the same.

 

[Redfish]

You're arguing for a concept that has never existed. There is no "traditional marriage" in any sense. Marriage, even only in the established United States, has changed and managed to "survive". Giving our families the same legal protections your families enjoy isn't going to cause any house of cards to fall.

Whether you like the argument or not, procreation is not a prerequisite for legal marriage in ANY state so an inability to procreate through sex (because we DO procreate) has no bearing on civil marriage.

There is a distinct difference between religious and civil marriage. Your religion is and will be free to keep their definition of marriage as they see fit, the government cannot.

No, marriage has always existed. One can play word games, but marriage as mankind has known it means that the community, even a tribe, has recognized and approved of the bond between male and female. With it come the expectations of creating children, and, depending on the culture, customs, and traditions, of various bonds of families and property - all in the broad sense. This has existed in Ancient Egypt and China, Medieval Europe, among Native Americans, tribal Africa and foraging peoples of today.

First off, "tradition" is not justification for unequal treatment. "Traditionally", voting was for white male landowners. "Traditionally", marriage was restricted to people of the same race.

Marriage has many traditions.

FACT SHEET ABOUT TOY GUNS

Iknow that procreation is not any pre-requisite. I already explained this. You are speaking about the laws, especially very recent when we consider THOUSANDS of years of history all over the entire planet. I am speaking about enduring culture and human nature as evidenced by our history everywhere in the world. However, check the documents that France had until recently - when they decided to destroy marriage - with marriage: On the legal document, there were numbers 1 to 9. Each was followed by a line. The line was for the couple to fill in later: The names of the children that they would create. It did not mean that they HAD TO, of course, but it was just considered part of what marriage is - and has been for thousands of years, with every culture in the entire history of the world.

If you know, why try and use it as justification?

I should have asked, do you have any justification that will hold up in court?

the only thing "unequal" is that you can't describe your lesbian union as a marriage. You have equal rights, its not about that and you know it.

you never told us, are you the butch or the fem? I'm guessing the butch. Short hair, never wear a dress, little or no make up, thats you isn't it? "not that there is anything wrong with that" Seinfeld.

 

[Seawytch]

No, marriage has always existed. One can play word games, but marriage as mankind has known it means that the community, even a tribe, has recognized and approved of the bond between male and female. With it come the expectations of creating children, and, depending on the culture, customs, and traditions, of various bonds of families and property - all in the broad sense. This has existed in Ancient Egypt and China, Medieval Europe, among Native Americans, tribal Africa and foraging peoples of today.

First off, "tradition" is not justification for unequal treatment. "Traditionally", voting was for white male landowners. "Traditionally", marriage was restricted to people of the same race.

Marriage has many traditions.

FACT SHEET ABOUT TOY GUNS

Iknow that procreation is not any pre-requisite. I already explained this. You are speaking about the laws, especially very recent when we consider THOUSANDS of years of history all over the entire planet. I am speaking about enduring culture and human nature as evidenced by our history everywhere in the world. However, check the documents that France had until recently - when they decided to destroy marriage - with marriage: On the legal document, there were numbers 1 to 9. Each was followed by a line. The line was for the couple to fill in later: The names of the children that they would create. It did not mean that they HAD TO, of course, but it was just considered part of what marriage is - and has been for thousands of years, with every culture in the entire history of the world.

If you know, why try and use it as justification?

I should have asked, do you have any justification that will hold up in court?

the only thing "unequal" is that you can't describe your lesbian union as a marriage. You have equal rights, its not about that and you know it.

you never told us, are you the butch or the fem? I'm guessing the butch. Short hair, never wear a dress, little or no make up, thats you isn't it? "not that there is anything wrong with that" Seinfeld.

No Fishy, it isn't equal.

Fact. I am legally married in CA.

Fact. My legal marriage is treated differently by the Federal government than yours.

That is not equal, Fishy.

If you don't want me to be legally married, then have the name changed (for everyone) and treat everyone's "civil union" equally. Leave "marriage" to the religions.

 

[Seawytch]

you never told us, are you the butch or the fem? I'm guessing the butch. Short hair, never wear a dress, little or no make up, thats you isn't it? "not that there is anything wrong with that" Seinfeld.

Seriously Fishy, the Internet has free porn. Stop trying to use me to fuel your fantasies. I'm happily married.

 

[P@triot]

No Fishy, it isn't equal.

Fact. I am legally married in CA.

Fact. My legal marriage is treated differently by the Federal government than yours.

That is not equal, Fishy.

If you don't want me to be legally married, then have the name changed (for everyone) and treat everyone's "civil union" equally. Leave "marriage" to the religions.

I still don't understand why you are under the absurd belief that the federal government should bend to the minority? My state does NOT recognize your marriage. Since the federal government represents my state too - why would they support that which we do not recognize?!?

How many states recognize gay marriage? 5? Hell, your own ultra liberal state of California doesn't even accept it anymore. So why should 5 states rule over the other 45?

 

[bendog]

it's equal protection. We can't treat one group differently without a reason. I'm a convert in that I've come to think there is just no valid reason. However, my church remains free to have one liturgy applicable to only same sex folks. I think there logically should only be one, but we compromised ... for now. But the State doesn't tell churches what liturgies to use.