- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,857
- Reaction score
- 30,123
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
But isn't this whole discussion really about change? I'm telling you what marriage was and why I and so man others think it is what it is. You are telling me what you think it should be. This is the dynamic of change. You are probably younger than I am and eventually the youth will win this one, for better or worse we do not know yet. As Alito said, we are not in a position to know that we are making the right judgment on this if we change it. We won't know for years and years. I do, however, accept that it is inevitable. And I think active and vehement debate is part of the process.
I have no idea what this means, how does you possibly looking up the subject under debate between us.....constitute a "trap"?Yeah, gee whiz.... how could such a clever trap as the one you thought you had set have been found out.
A marriage license is required to enter into a marriage contract. This is the problem that comes with calling it a "marriage license". Once the license is filed, unlike other state issued licenses, the marriage license becomes a contract. It is no longer a license at all. It is now a contract and contracts act much differently than licenses and there are no obligations in the state laws pertaining to a marriage contract for procreation.
We are in a position to know that this is the right thing to do now because you have no evidence that allowing same sex couples to marry will cause any sort of harm. Change is not harm in itself. Harm can come from change, but change itself isn't harmful.
Yes. If you do something without a license, it is illegitimate.
Like having a child out of wedlock. Like operating a business without a license. Like operating a car without a license.
Get it yet or are you still going to ply the disingenuous angle?
Marriage was the license for having children. Have a bastard and the child is illegitimate. I know you really want to argue your way around this but that much is true. Marriage was the de facto license for bearing children and doing it any other way was illegitimate.
Since the tack is disingenuous, let me help by offering the definition of illegitimate. Maybe that will help put this into perspective.
il·le·git·i·mate
/ˌiləˈjitəmit/
Adjective
1) Not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules: "an illegitimate exercise of power by the military".
2) (of a child) Born of parents not lawfully married to each other.
Nor do we know that this will not be detrimental to society as a whole. There are arguments that it is. And I think we ignore them at our peril.
No, it wasn't. Not even when the Catholic Church was in charge of it. It was a license for having sex, but not for having children.
Currently though, it isn't even a license for having sex. And it hasn't been for a while.
For all intents and purposes, it was, in fact, a license to have children..... sex was for the sake of procreation. You brought the Catholic Church into it, so there it is.
Your second remark, however, I tend to agree with. Marriage has mutated into something rather irrelevant and I think something good has been lost. It's too late to do anything about that, I think, but we'll see. Marriage today is struggling for meaning and it's more like the carcass of marriage being pulled and tugged by vultures. I wonder if the government will finally dispense with it once it has lost all true social value as it is on it's way to doing. When there's nothing left to it but tax breaks, why would the state want to support it at all?
When it was enacted, I thought DOMA was not just a silly name for what they were doing but an unnecessarily silly thing to do. Now it turns out that it was probably very aptly named and although it was a nice try, I think it will have failed to accomplish it's named goal when all is said and done.
For all intents and purposes, it was, in fact, a license to have children..... sex was for the sake of procreation. You brought the Catholic Church into it, so there it is.
Your second remark, however, I tend to agree with. Marriage has mutated into something rather irrelevant and I think something good has been lost. It's too late to do anything about that, I think, but we'll see. Marriage today is struggling for meaning and it's more like the carcass of marriage being pulled and tugged by vultures. I wonder if the government will finally dispense with it once it has lost all true social value as it is on it's way to doing. When there's nothing left to it but tax breaks, why would the state want to support it at all?
When it was enacted, I thought DOMA was not just a silly name for what they were doing but an unnecessarily silly thing to do. Now it turns out that it was probably very aptly named and although it was a nice try, I think it will have failed to accomplish it's named goal when all is said and done.
license = permission. Marriage licences WERE, in fact, societal permission to have children. It was the very purpose of marriage. And not just here. My wife is Irish and it was that way in her country, too.
Refusing to accept that marriage was license to raise a family is also moronic.
Operating a motor vehicle without a license is merely a misdemeanor. Operating on a patient without a license is a felony. Having children without a license wasn't punishable by law but it rendered the child illegitimate. You can't argue against this without looking truly ignorant.
Yes. If you do something without a license, it is illegitimate. Like having a child out of wedlock. Like operating a business without a license. Like operating a car without a license. Like anything you do without a license.... illegitimate. Get it yet or are you still going to ply the disingenuous angle?
I'm serious. When the states are required to defend their definition and requirements for marriage, you can bet your ass the intent and design of marriage as a state sanctioned institution will be the bulk of that defense. This case wasn't about that, which is why you didn't hear those arguments. This was all about whether the federal government could refuse to accept the definition of marriage that the states decided upon. The fact that the supreme court ruled that they couldn't isn't the silver bullet you may think it is. It actually strengthens the state's rights to define marriage even if it's not the definition you want it to be.
Marriage was the license for having children.
Have a bastard and the child is illegitimate.
I know you really want to argue your way around this but that much is true. Marriage was the de facto license for bearing children and doing it any other way was illegitimate.
Since the tack is disingenuous, let me help by offering the definition of illegitimate. Maybe that will help put this into perspective.
il·le·git·i·mate
/ˌiləˈjitəmit/
Adjective
1) Not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules: "an illegitimate exercise of power by the military".
2) (of a child) Born of parents not lawfully married to each other.
No it wasn't. If you think it was, prove it by showing anywhere, past or present, on a licensing application, the need for procreation.
That's a moral statement, irrelevant to the legal issue we are discussing.
Since there is and never has been a law prohibiting having a child out of wedlock, the ONLY part of your definitions that fit is "not in accordance with accepted standards or rules" which is a moral issue and therefore irrelevant to our discussion. Your point is negated.
Ever been to prison?
"How is that a couple who has been lawfully web in a state where gay marriage is legal not be allowed to their spouse's death benefits under Social Security since DOMA does not recognize marriage between two members of the same sex?"
Do I need to provide you links that say "homosexuality is a behavior"? Probably not. We can find links to say anything we want, and it's superfluous since it's obvious that homosexuality is a behavior. Lusting is a behavior. If you lust after or engage in sex with someone of the same sex, you are a homosexual. It's defined by behavior and you can shout "bull****" from dusk till dawn and it won't change that.
If someone can choose to have sex with someone they are not attracted to, how can you say they have no control over their attractions?
Papa bull said:license = permission. Marriage licenses WERE, in fact, societal permission to have children.
I couldn't help but :lamo when I read this post. I'm thinking to myself, "Man, if that where the case we need to build a whole lot more jails because there has to literally be hundreds of bastard (illegitimate) children born in this country every day!"
You've been fed a bogus lie, my friend, from the talking heads out there. You don't need a marriage license to have children; never have. You do, however, need a marriage license for your "union" to be recognized in the state where you reside. Perhaps you should read the Wikipedia article I posted earlier. I should straighten you out on the myth you've been fed.
You just contradicted yourself, all in one sentence.
People don't go to prison for having a dog without a license. This is a strawman argument. The fact that marriage gave permission and approval by society for a couple to start a family does not and did not mean that you can't have as many bastards as you would like or that you go to prison for doing it. Is have thought reasonably intelligent people would understand this. I am thinking this is more just the dishonest argumentation that is a defining characteristic of the progressives than it is stupidity, though. I don't think anyone capable of logging onto a computer is too stupid to understand this.
I will add one thing as an aside. Those ignorant mouthpieces among you that want to rant about haters and call anyone that opposes homosexual marriage a bigot merely harden the position against it. After all the venom I've seen from the pinko left after this, I'll go out of my way to vote against it. Funny that I never was a hater but all the name-calling, vitriol and nastiness from the punk left may end up making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Everyone that disagrees with the progressive agenda today gets called a racist, bigot and hater. And every time that happens, the chasm between the right and left widens. It makes it damned hard to be sympathetic to "the cause".
No...think about it.
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?