Post Reply
Page 4 of 70  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 70 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Federal court rules centerpiece of gay marriage law unconstitutional
2 years ago  ::  Jun 02, 2012 - 1:03PM #31
teilhard
Posts: 50,086

And in The (supposed) Good Old Days, the "Privilege" of getting "Married" was specifically withheld for "Inter-Racial" Couples ...


It's NOT The Bronze Age anymore ... and it's not even 1950 anymore, either ...


But, yes ... For GOOD Reasons -- Medical, Psycho-Social, especially -- "Incest" is -- and will continue to be -- proscribed ... as will "Bestiality" ... (I mean, REALLY ... ??? Are these REALLY the BEST Arguments the "Anti-" Bunch can set forth ... ???)


Jun 2, 2012 -- 12:57PM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Jun 1, 2012 -- 10:23PM, teilhard wrote:


***Well ... huh ...


If "Marriage" is a "Priviledge," then no one has a "Right" to define it for someone ELSE, eh ... ???



"Take it from me, babe ... You can't have it both ways ..."


 -- "Jane," to "Jonas," in "Leap of Faith" ...




Jun 1, 2012 -- 11:58AM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Interesting article, even if I don't agree with most of it, from the standpoint of rights. ***One is given the privilege of marriage, it isn't a right.


Anyway, despite the tone of the article, gay marriage will have zero effect on this election. With the dismal job numbers of today, Obama will undoubtedly welcome any distraction from the really poor economy we have now, so they will play things up like this, but this isn't going to mean much come November.








Of course we do. We define your marriage priviledge to not include your first cousin, animals, the dead, one under 16 (without consent), or multiple spouces. Should they all be legal? Should we have any laws, for I have the priviledge of driving, but not if I was under 16, drunk, or handicapped in a way that I could not properly drive the vehicle.  The point being, we confine rights with restrictions all the time, from the first amendment to marriage.





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 02, 2012 - 1:46PM #32
Fodaoson
Posts: 11,131

there are suggestions of homosexuality throughout history and not always as closeted as some suggest. I have heard friends relatives and other refer to themselves and others as a “confirmed Bachelor” In Victorian and earlier literature, the term “confirmed” bachelor was reference to a homosexual. Marriage may have been confine to KNOWN male/ female , but cross dressing and impersonation have a long history and often only revealed after and later. Liberty and civil rights are not about tradition but about “all men created equal” and “pursuit of happiness”. We no longer not include women in th “all mean created equal” so traditions fall by the wayside for good reasons,   

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 02, 2012 - 10:16PM #33
TENAC
Posts: 25,130

Jun 2, 2012 -- 1:46PM, Fodaoson wrote:


there are suggestions of homosexuality throughout history and not always closeted some suggest. I have heard friends relatives and other refer to themselves and others as a “confirmed Bachelor” In Victorian and earlier literature, the term “confirmed” bachelor was reference to a homosexual. Marriage may have been confine to KNOWN male/ female , but cross dressing and impersonation have a long history and often only revealed after and later. Liberty and civil rights are not about tradition but about “all men created equal” and “pursuit of happiness”. We no longer not include women in th “all mean created equal” so traditions fall by the wayside for good reasons,   




Fod you seem to be implying that male/female marriage is some sort of custom or tradition that has outlived its time.  Further that there is something equally natural about the attraction of a man to a man or woman to a woman as opposed to the natural attraction of a man to a woman.


It nonsensical.


There is no bloodline, no kinship in a ss relationship.  It is doomed from the start and this country isnt becoming more civilized or progressive by some legislative attempt to legalize it.  You are moving in the opposite direction in your thought.

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 02, 2012 - 10:38PM #34
christzen
Posts: 6,376

Jun 2, 2012 -- 10:16PM, TENAC wrote:


There is no bloodline, no kinship in a ss relationship. 



 


In a word....so what? Well,two words then. You and Bodean are hung up on this kinship,bloodline stuff. Marriage is about more than determining genealogy. As has been amply pointed out, there are real, everday advantages NOW to married couples that have nothing to do with genealogy. Although as more gays adopt kids, the legal genealogy aspect will become important as well.


 


 


Jun 2, 2012 -- 10:16PM, TENAC wrote:


It is doomed from the start and this country isnt becoming more civilized or progressive by some legislative attempt to legalize it.  You are moving in the opposite direction in your thought.




 


LOL.Anyone who believes that SSM won't become legal and accepted  mostly nationwide is the one not moving with the times. Whether by popular vote state by state ( in which case the deep south may hold out against the "q***rs" ,and consign themselves to having a  % of their intelligent folks leave, whether gays or heteros tired of associating with the stupidity) ,or by judicial action, the issue will ultimately be settled in favor of SSM. Maybe not entirely to the satisfaction of some gays, if the final answer is civil unions for both gays and straights, with marriage as a strictly religious rite, but eventually gays and straights will be treated equally under the law regarding marriage.Or civil unions.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 02, 2012 - 10:59PM #35
teilhard
Posts: 50,086

***So you're suggesting that a HeteroSexual Couple that has no Biological Descendants ought not be considered a legitimate Marriage, either ... ???


Jun 2, 2012 -- 10:16PM, TENAC wrote:


Jun 2, 2012 -- 1:46PM, Fodaoson wrote:


there are suggestions of homosexuality throughout history and not always closeted some suggest. I have heard friends relatives and other refer to themselves and others as a “confirmed Bachelor” In Victorian and earlier literature, the term “confirmed” bachelor was reference to a homosexual. Marriage may have been confine to KNOWN male/ female , but cross dressing and impersonation have a long history and often only revealed after and later. Liberty and civil rights are not about tradition but about “all men created equal” and “pursuit of happiness”. We no longer not include women in th “all mean created equal” so traditions fall by the wayside for good reasons,   




Fod you seem to be implying that male/female marriage is some sort of custom or tradition that has outlived its time.  Further that there is something equally natural about the attraction of a man to a man or woman to a woman as opposed to the natural attraction of a man to a woman.


It nonsensical.


***There is no bloodline, no kinship in a ss relationship.  It is doomed from the start and this country isnt becoming more civilized or progressive by some legislative attempt to legalize it.  You are moving in the opposite direction in your thought.





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 02, 2012 - 11:47PM #36
Fodaoson
Posts: 11,131

Marriage is a social paradigm that evolves . Bloodlines have an importance but that importance can be social, legally, emotionally overridden by adoption. Adoptive relationships have in all of recorded history been accepted as powerful as “blood line” or “natural offspring” . Illegitimacy is “blood” but there are historical example of where adoptive familial members continue the families linage while the Illegitimate offspring are cut off .


The divorce rate has damaged the marriage tradition more than the union of same sex couples ever could. Serial marriage, extra marital relationships, abandonment of spouse all damage marriage more than a loving caring faithful same sex relationship could.

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2012 - 12:12AM #37
Dostojevsky
Posts: 7,185

Quote:


 


"The divorce rate has damaged the marriage tradition more than the union of same sex couples ever could. Serial marriage, extra marital relationships, abandonment of spouse all damage marriage more than a loving caring faithful same sex relationship could."


So why fight to join something that's so corrupted?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2012 - 12:26AM #38
teilhard
Posts: 50,086

Yes ... I have FOUR Children -- one a "Birth-Child," two Adopted, and one Foster Child ...


Anybody who says that we're not a REAL Family is ... NUTS ...


Jun 2, 2012 -- 11:47PM, Fodaoson wrote:


Marriage is a social paradigm that evolves . Bloodlines have an importance but that importance can be social, legally, emotionally overridden by adoption. Adoptive relationships have in all of recorded history been accepted as powerful as “blood line” or “natural offspring” . Illegitimacy is “blood” but there are historical example of where adoptive familial members continue the families linage while the Illegitimate offspring are cut off .


The divorce rate has damaged the marriage tradition more than the union of same sex couples ever could. Serial marriage, extra marital relationships, abandonment of spouse all damage marriage more than a loving caring faithful same sex relationship could.





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2012 - 12:28AM #39
teilhard
Posts: 50,086

Maybe THAT's the "Rub" ... ??? Some Hetro-Sexual Couples like Newt and Callista worry that GLBT Couples will be more successful and faithful ... ???


Jun 3, 2012 -- 12:12AM, Dostojevsky wrote:


Quote:


 


"The divorce rate has damaged the marriage tradition more than the union of same sex couples ever could. Serial marriage, extra marital relationships, abandonment of spouse all damage marriage more than a loving caring faithful same sex relationship could."


So why fight to join something that's so corrupted?





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 03, 2012 - 1:24AM #40
arielg
Posts: 9,116

Say WHAT? There are TWO males (Count 'em!) in our marriage. This is delusional nonsense. And, again, no "good reason" to deny us marriage equality.



There is a very good reason:  it is an imitation  that wants to be considered on  the same level  as the real thing, even though it doesn't meet  the requirements.


Pretending  to be a "wife" in spite of the bulges, or pretending to have bulges where there are none, is make believe.  Fine as fantasy games, but not good enough to establish a social institution.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 70  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 70 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook