davidtaylorjr
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 30, 2013
- Messages
- 6,775
- Reaction score
- 1,123
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
You should read what Jesus has to say on the subject.
18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:18-20
The fact of the matter is that gays already have access to marriage under the same terms as heterosexuals, but choose to not avail themselves of that institution by the terms that have existed long before the foundation of this country, going back to the mankind's first civilizations. Instead gays want to dictate theirr own terms, then claim denial of rights under those terms, and then demand these terms are recognized as the equivalent in benefit to society of heterosexual marriage, to receive the same recognition and reward, which is untrue, a false equivalence, and thorough corruption of the Constitution's terms.
Given that DOMA does not prohibit the states from making any laws, nor does DOMA itself create any definition of marriage, but rather only recognizes the definition that long precedes this country, and has long been recognized in this country, ...
..The only thing that DOMA actually does is prohibit the abuse of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution from compelling one state fabricating a new definition of marriage by legislative or judicial fiat, nowhere in that state's original authority, and wrongly compel that redefinition on each and every state, which is contrary to the intent of the clause, and the Constitution overall.
Imposing gay marriage by abuse of the Full Faith and Credit clause would create a precedent of ever-expanding anarchy in which each and every state would be compelled to recognize the most expansive and irresponsible definition of any one state on any matter. As example, by such precedent, one state might expand Driver's Licenses to include the ability to operate aircraft, thereby compelling every state to recognize anyone with a Driver's License to allow them to fly any plane. Such an expansive definition would very soon take us back to a time prior to the Wright brothers. Now that's "Progress".
Black people had equal right to marry someone of the same race. This logic was rejected by the supreme court.
"It was first defined this way" isn't an argument for anything. Marriage also used to be between a man and his property. Literal property, he literally owned his wife.
You keep making this about you, and you keep clinging to this "definition." "Imposing" this definition? How does that "impose" upon you? What effect does two dudes getting married have on your life? If you can't answer this question, don't you inherently have a weak argument?
And they should have. The definition and very nature of marriage didn't have to be changed in order to accomodate Loving. All that needed done was remove an illegal restriction against race. For this to equate to homosexuals and marriage, marriage would already have to be defined as "any two people of any sex" with an added exclusion "unless the couple is homosexual".
This is a false statement. While a wife was often considered "property" in cultures in the past, a man could not marry anything other than a woman. Seriously... you show me a marriage between a man and his favorite chair somewhere in history and I'll change my mind.
An argument about law and society is not inherently weak merely because someone can't define a personal effect of that law. What effect does it have on you if two guys take their dog to a pit and fight them to the death for the amusement of a crowd of bettors?
The nature of marriage does not change by allowing same sex couples to enter into it. The current nature of marriage is to make two people each other's closest relatives with legal recognition as "spouse". That is the only thing that is true for every single legally married couple. And personal definitions of marriage have no place being enforced in the law.
In the past, there have been same sex marriages. We have legally recognized same sex marriages today, even on the federal level. When a person legally changes their sex, which can be done in all but one or two states, it changes whether or not they can enter into a legal marriage. However, if they are already married to someone of the opposite sex, then they legally change their sex, they remain legally recognized as married even by the federal government and even if the state legally recognizes them as a same sex couple. But, if you try to argue that they are not really a same sex couple, then it would be those who changed their legal sex prior to marriage and are not only legally married but recognized by the federal government as well. So either way you look at it, there are same sex couples being recognized as legally married by the federal government now. They function just fine within marriage laws since marriage laws are not gender dependent.
In order for a legal argument to be made in favor of a restriction on a law, you must be able to show that it is has some negative affect on someone or something that the state considers worth protecting, such as animals or the environment.
I agree with that opinion, actually. In states where same-sex marriage is legal, the federal government should have to treat them the same as any other marriage in that state. Whether or not "the people" want to change their definition of marriage to allow "any two people of any sex" is the state's business, not the federal government's business.
i disagree. equal protection is the federal government's responsibility.
The nature of marriage is a husband and wife joined together. That is... a man and a woman joined together. It's not just US culture or Christian culture. It's global culture and has always been global culture. Headhunters in the jungles of Borneo get it. Natives in Papau Neu Guinea get it. Natives in South America get it. Tribesmen in Africa..... Chinese.... Japanese.... eskimos.... everybody got it. Suddenly there's confusion about it? I don't think so.
The fact that the law wouldn't strip people of marriage after one of them decided to undergo a sex change doesn't make a good argument for why marriage must be redefined as "a union between any two people that want to have sex and live together", which is precisely the nature of the argument homosexuals are putting forward in favor of same-sex marriage.
This isn't about a "restriction on a law". An omlette is an egg and cheese. An egg and an egg are just eggs. Cheese and cheese are just cheese. What you're arguing is that an omlette should henceforth be considered any two units of egg and/or cheese being combined. Of course, the confusion that would create is minimal compared to the confusion of "any two people regardless of sex who lust after each other and want the legal restrictions and tax status of marriage" considered to be "married".
Firstly (and I haven't the time yet to read the thread entire, so my apologies if this has already been dealt with - point me to the relevant posts and I can deal with them in turn), this presupposes that marriage already has a valid definition specific to heterosexuals (or, specifically exclusive of homosexuals). Given that you are pleading a biological basis for marriage, as below, that implies that no such definition already exists. Instead, it seems you are trying frantically to retcon in a definition of your liking so that you can protest that marriage is being 'redefined', rather than - as many would no doubt have - accept that the wide scope of marriage is merely being formally recognised. I'll deal with the validity of your argument from biology later on.
Secondly - under the racist/sexist views of previous times, the same arguments you are making do indeed apply to blacks or women. Just one example:
[original]"Gays already have the right to get married, just like straight people do. What gays want is to have the same results (gays and straights can marry any consenting adult), but under their own terms ("redefining" 'marriage between man and woman' to 'marriage between two people')"[/original]
[parody]"Blacks already have the right to drink from public fountains - just like whites do. What blacks want is to have the same results (whites and blacks can drink from any fountain), but under their own terms ("redefining" 'whites-only' and 'blacks-only' fountains to 'people-only' fountains)"[/parody]
Marriage is not based on 'the fact of human biological reproduction'. Otherwise those who were infertile would not be allowed to marry - after all, they "cannot possibly produce offspring, and [are] incapable of populating society with offspring [they] cannot produce".
Marriage is not dependent on biology. It is a social arrangement, not a biological one. If you want to come up with a reason why marriage should be seen as 'straights-only', you're going to need a better one than that.
As a sideline, given that many anti-SSM are also pro-life, and a common pro-life argument favours adoption, you would think that increasing the number of couples who are willing to adopt and whom the evidence suggests will not be hindered as parents by their sexuality whould be a good thing for society...
That would only be a relevant example if:Trip said:The relevant example here is one I've previously given. If one state were to redefine Driver's Licenses as also applying to airplanes, and then tried to abuse the Full Faith and Credit clause to force every state to recognize those licenses for flying any plane in those states. This would obviously create a problem because those licensee's are really not qualified to fly planes, and are not the equivalent to pilots. If this License recognition were forced on every state, then every state and its citizenry would lose faith in plane pilots, and not want to get aboard planes. The result would be the destruction of the Airline Industry <marriage>, and the undermining of society.
a) Such a drastic redefinition had taken place in the first instance, which isn't the case - a more relevant example would be that when a new car comes out, the driving licence automatically accomodates it, even though the driving license was not granted with that specific car in mind.
b) Allowing gays to marry would somehow affect the marriage of straight people, which also isn't true. If you feel that allowing Jane and Wendy to marry each other poses a threat to your own marriage, then prehaps we shouldn't be taking lessons from you in what constitutes a 'stable marriage' in the first place.
You are wrong. There have been several cultures that recognized two people of the same sex as married. You are free to live in denial but it doesn't change facts.
Of course a Federal statute that denies such marriages equal protection from state to state and under federal benefits is a violation of the Equal Protection clause.
Some cultures recognized plural marriages, too. But the FACTS are that societies overwhelmingly adopted 1 man + 1 woman models as their fundamental societal building blocks. Just like it is in nature with species that mate for life. All of them, too, have a 1 male + 1 female model.
You are free to live in denial but that doesn't change these facts.
You are wrong. There have been several cultures that recognized two people of the same sex as married. You are free to live in denial but it doesn't change facts.
The way our laws operate is what matters in this discussion, not what your personal opinion is about what marriage should be. And that is all you are talking about when you say that marriage has to be between a man and a woman only. That is only your personal definition of marriage.
Marriage is defined through our laws as a contract that makes two people legal spouses, giving them legal recognition as each other's closest legal relatives. This involves certain legal and financial responsibilities along with a protection of their status as "closest kin". There is no need to mention sex because sex cannot be a legal requirement of marriage (since there are disabled people who cannot have sex but still can legally marry). It is none of the states' business if those in a marriage are having sex.
Those cultures did not recognize marriage to be something other than heterosexual union, and did not recognize gay marriage universally, but specifically, ancient Greece and Rome only recognized gay unions among some select few, and did so only shortly before the collapse and overthrow of these societies.
Nowhere did any society recognize gay marriage to the exclusion of heterosexual marriage, not at any time, because it is not a haphazard choice of valuation only based on tradition. Had any society recognized and institutionalized only gay unions, that society would have would have guaranteed it's extinction due to its corrupt value system in disregard of biological fact and need.
Marriage is not defined through our laws, but rather only recognized in law. Our laws do not just recognize any two people as marriage, because there is no need for law to recognize just any two people that do not affect society, cannot produce offspring, do not establish any sort of biological lineage, do not need to have inheritance by that lineage recognized in law, and do not need to have the custody of those those biological offspring established under law.
Sure, laws recognize the relationship of two people when it comes to lawyers, doctors, and their clients, but that is because those relationships have a need in society, and a positive effect on society. The same is not true of gay unions, which certainly are not the equivalent to society as enduring heterosexual unions - marriage.
Gays can already, and do, publicly establish the their legal rights, and legal obligations with regard to one another, just as lawyers and doctors do with their clients.
Having sex is indeed not any society's business, nor of real interest to society, but what is the society's business and interest is society itself, and that involves the production of introduction of proto-members into society - offspring, which invariably occurs by heterosexual unions, and this is how societies the world over are populated.
And it doesn't matter whether it was rare or not, it still existed. And even that doesn't matter because all that matters is how we, as a nation, recognize marriage, and that is done in how it works, not what restrictions are placed on it. The restrictions should be based in how the laws work, not an arbitrary trait like race, sex/gender, or religion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?