CA Gay Marriage...VOIDED!
- Thread starter ylexot
- Start date
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
Re: Re: OK...
Who "set aside" marriage as only for straight couples? Straight coupling is as old as the human race itself, certainly predating religion and government. As far as government is concerned, legal marriage is a contract that defines rights and responsibilities for the couple.
Who "set aside" marriage as only for straight couples? Straight coupling is as old as the human race itself, certainly predating religion and government. As far as government is concerned, legal marriage is a contract that defines rights and responsibilities for the couple.
ylexot
Super Genius
Re: Good point.
Good point to you too. Personally, I think the government should eliminate "marriages" completely. Marriages should be the domain of religious institutions who can define it any way they want. I don't even think the government should have "civil unions". If all they want is property rights, etc...a lawyer can do that.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
When you get back...
I'm there with you.
Ask ANYONE in ANY country ten, 20 years ago;
Of the following, who get's married?:
A. A man and a boy
B. A woman and a goat
C. A man and a woman
...and the answer would pretty much always be C unless you were asking a Dutchman.
But, by the same token, ask 175 years ago;
Of the following, who can own a cotton plantation in South Carolina?:
A. A widowed woman (until she can get another husband)
B. A rich man
C. An up and coming man
The answer would be D, all of the above...until somebody said "What about a black man or woman?". It would have been understood that blacks do not own anything and CAN'T even be part of the question.
We got around this by trying to argue the absurd (Tanney):
A black man is not a citizen. He is property.
I am not playing devils advocate. Originally, gay marriage was a joke to me.
At present, I see no societal reason two commited, serious gay people should not be able to become what we refer to as 'married'. In fact, I can see positive societal reasons.
But, the inevitable opening of the barn doors, so to speak, will invite a group of 3 or 5 (or other most likely odd number) of transexual, transvestite, transgender, gay, straight, or whatevers demanding a marriage liscense for the group.
We do define legal age for contracts but we do not define gender.
I'm there with you.
Ask ANYONE in ANY country ten, 20 years ago;
Of the following, who get's married?:
A. A man and a boy
B. A woman and a goat
C. A man and a woman
...and the answer would pretty much always be C unless you were asking a Dutchman.
But, by the same token, ask 175 years ago;
Of the following, who can own a cotton plantation in South Carolina?:
A. A widowed woman (until she can get another husband)
B. A rich man
C. An up and coming man
The answer would be D, all of the above...until somebody said "What about a black man or woman?". It would have been understood that blacks do not own anything and CAN'T even be part of the question.
We got around this by trying to argue the absurd (Tanney):
A black man is not a citizen. He is property.
I am not playing devils advocate. Originally, gay marriage was a joke to me.
At present, I see no societal reason two commited, serious gay people should not be able to become what we refer to as 'married'. In fact, I can see positive societal reasons.
But, the inevitable opening of the barn doors, so to speak, will invite a group of 3 or 5 (or other most likely odd number) of transexual, transvestite, transgender, gay, straight, or whatevers demanding a marriage liscense for the group.
We do define legal age for contracts but we do not define gender.
Where?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Buddy Lee...
...add something substantive or go away.
Idiot.
...add something substantive or go away.
Idiot.
BuddyLee
Football addict
Re: When you get back...
I must be off here but I seem to remember that times do in fact change.
This is what everyone is afriad of, change. Change happens.
Originally posted by Larry Gude
I'm there with you.
Ask ANYONE in ANY country ten, 20 years ago;
Of the following, who get's married?:
A. A man and a boy
B. A woman and a goat
C. A man and a woman
...and the answer would pretty much always be C unless you were asking a Dutchman.
But, by the same token, ask 175 years ago;
Of the following, who can own a cotton plantation in South Carolina?:
A. A widowed woman (until she can get another husband)
B. A rich man
C. An up and coming man
The answer would be D, all of the above...until somebody said "What about a black man or woman?". It would have been understood that blacks do not own anything and CAN'T even be part of the question.
I must be off here but I seem to remember that times do in fact change.
This is what everyone is afriad of, change. Change happens.
There's a societal benefit to having committed people raising the future generation. That's why marriage is government sanctioned and why they should also let gays marry.
Plus, I like the idea of being married. Maybe it's just the whole stigma of shacking up that has been impressed upon me by Rush Limbaugh
but I like having legal and societal recognition of mine and Larry's union. He's not just my live-in that I can throw out on a whim - he's my husband and there's an implied committment that goes along with that.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
A traditional religion based...
...marriage comes with instructions as to how the man and woman are to interact and pretty much who is responsible for what.
Given the power that goes with that along with property rights and legal responsibility for minor children, I think that government MUST be part of the equation because government ends up being the only power that can arbitrate any number of 'marriage' issues.
Anyone wanna marry me knowing my faith says I am the master of my household and what I say goes and there isn't a court in the world that can do anything about it?
...marriage comes with instructions as to how the man and woman are to interact and pretty much who is responsible for what.
Given the power that goes with that along with property rights and legal responsibility for minor children, I think that government MUST be part of the equation because government ends up being the only power that can arbitrate any number of 'marriage' issues.
Anyone wanna marry me knowing my faith says I am the master of my household and what I say goes and there isn't a court in the world that can do anything about it?
ceo_pte
New Member
Originally posted by vraiblonde
There's a societal benefit to having committed people raising the future generation. That's why marriage is government sanctioned and why they should also let gays marry.
Plus, I like the idea of being married. Maybe it's just the whole stigma of shacking up that has been impressed upon me by Rush Limbaugh
I agree to the committment part, but in no way do I think two homosexuals should be raising children. I'm sorry... I will never agree with you on that, no matter how much we were to debate about it...
Larry Gude
Strung Out
If I recall...
...Maryland DEFINES marriage as between a man and a woman.
I have no idea what Constitutional muster it stood up to, if any.
...Maryland DEFINES marriage as between a man and a woman.
I have no idea what Constitutional muster it stood up to, if any.